Sitting of 22 November 1984

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

    Channel Islands (Ministerial Visit)
    Mr. Foulkesasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what subjects were discussed during his recent visit to the Channel Islands; and if he will make a statement.
    The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Leon Brittan): The main purpose of my visit was to acquaint myself with the islands and I greatly appreciated this opportunity to do so. A number of matters were raised with me informally during the visit, including the United Kingdom request for a contribution towards defence and international representation costs on behalf of the islands.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to the Home Secretary for that reply. During his visit to Guernsey, was his attention drawn to the cases of Maurice Kirk and Joseph Gillow? The right hon and learned Gentleman has powers to intervene under the Criminal Justice Act 1961 in one case and has general powers in relation to the Channel Islands. As Maurice Kirk is on hunger strike in appalling conditions in Guernsey prison, and as Joseph Gillow is unable to live in a house which he owns, how many more breaches of human rights must there be on the islands before the right hon. and learned Gentleman exercises his statutory constitutional rights and responsibilities and intervenes in the islands' affairs?
    Mr. Brittan: The case of Mr. and Mrs Gillow, which involves Guernsey's housing laws, is before the European Commission of Human Rights. As regards Mr. Kirk, the administration of criminal justice in Guernsey is a matter for the island authorities.
    Mr. Foulkes: The Home Secretay has powers.
    Mr. Brittan: Statutory powers exist for the United Kingdom Government, but the practice is that transfers of prisoners from Guernsey to the mainland are made in accordance with agreements with the islands for adult males sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment or more, and that is not Mr. Kirk's position.
    Mr. Watson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that the tax arrangements in the Channel Islands frequently have the effect of bringing into the sterling area foreign investment capital which would not otherwise arrive? Is it the Government's policy to encourage, rather than to abolish, these arrangements?
    Mr. Brittan: I can confirm that the tax regime that is operated in the Channel Islands is a matter for the islands and that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer is satisfied that he has adequate powers to protect the interests of the United Kingdom. We are entirely content with the existing arrangements, which have the benefits to which my hon. Friend referred.

    Civil Defence
    Mr. Pawseyasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects to have completed an analysis of the answers to the civil defence questionnaires sent to local authorities.
    Mr. Brittan: Before the end of December, when a report will be made available to the House.
    Mr. Pawsey: How many authorities have not completed the questionnaire, and what action will my right hon. and learned Friend take to ensure that they do?
    Mr. Brittan: All local authorities, except two, have completed and returned the questionnaire. It is expected that the two outstanding questionnaires will be returned by the end of the month. I imagine that my hon. Friend's concerns relate more to the answers in the questionnaires than to the questionnaires themselves.
    Mr. Madden: Did the Home Secretary see the recent BBC television programmes which showed vividly the extent of death, devastation and destruction as a result of nuclear war? Does he agree that the programmes demonstrated clearly the futility of civil defence against nuclear attack?
    Mr. Brittan: I could not disagree more. I did not see the programme, but we do not need a television programme to tell us that, in the event of nuclear war, the destruction will be horrific. We also do not need a television programme to be fully aware that even the most elementary civil defence preparations could save millions of lives and greatly reduce injury and suffering.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: How can local authorities adequately answer questionnaires or plan for civil defence if the Home Secretary refuses to share with them his planning assumptions about likely targets in their areas, the casualties likely to result from an attack and other consequences? If the major air threat is from conventional attack, as the Home Office now asserts, will the right hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what is the evidence for that assumption, why it differs from the NATO strategy and how, once an air attack against this country has been launched, local authorities are expected to decide whether it is a conventional or a nuclear attack?
    Mr. Brittan: All NATO countries make proper provision for civil defence, and we intend to do the same. My original answer showed that, even if the hon. Gentleman has difficulty in answering the questionnaire, local authorities seem to be doing so, which suggests that it has been directed to the right quarters.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the warning systems to be introduced to advise the public of the presence of chemical gases, liquid or spray will be the same as those in use by the United Kingdom's North Atlantic Treaty Organisation partners.
    The Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Mellor): Within NATO there is no standard warning system. We are studying how such warning could be given, building on present arrangements to warn of air attack and radioactive fallout. This work is being undertaken in close co-operation with our NATO allies.
    Mr. Morrison: My hon. Friend will appreciate that the background to my question is that the Soviet Union has 300,000 tonnes of chemical weapons and is continuing to add to them. Presumably there is some purpose attached to that. Despite what he has already said, will my hon. Friend ensure that the new consolidated guidance to local authorities covers protection of the public in the event of chemical attack?
    Mr. Mellor: That aspect is being worked on. If those initiatives are successful, there will be an addition to the circular. My hon. Friend raises an important point in stating the Soviet Union's chemical weaponry capability. It is worth bearing in mind that we unilaterally renounced chemical weapons in the late 1950s, but that does not seem to have had much impact on the Soviets. One wonders where unilateral disarmament stands in that scenario.
    Mr. Park: Do the civil defence responses referred to in the earlier question cover that aspect?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes.
    Mr. Neil Thorne: My hon. Friend has already mentioned that we unilaterally renounced all our chemical and biological weapons at the end of the 1950s. Is he aware that the military commanders are most concerned about the situation in relation to what the troops, especially in Germany, would suffer? Will he give careful consideration to the steps required similarly to protect the civilian population?
    Mr. Mellor: Yes; that is precisely what we have in mind.

    Immigration
    Mr. Meadowcroftasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the current waiting period for interviews experienced by applicants for entry clearance corning from the Indian sub-continent.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): At the end of the second quarter of this year, waiting time to first interview for applicants in the non-priority queue in Delhi was 10 months, in Bombay six months, in Pakistan 10 months and in Bangladesh 22 months. However, many applicants were placed in a priority queue and were interviewed in two months in India or Pakistan and in six months or less in Bangladesh.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Does the Minister agree that those figures hide the fact that a Government who profess to believe in the unity of the family actually divide families by making it more difficult for people to rejoin their families? Does he also agree that there is discrimination in that male fiancés have more problems coming here than female fiancées?
    Mr. Waddington: Families are divided due to a decision of members of those families to emigrate. That seems to have been forgotten. It is nonsense to say that our
    390
    policy is to divide families when in the past 10 years no fewer than 350,000 wives and children have joined men settled here. A large number of husbands and fiancés are in fact entering this country. The primary purpose test is certainly not impossible to pass, as only 25 per cent. fail it. So it is also absurd to say that we are imposing an insuperable barrier against the entry of husbands and male fiancés.
    Mr. Tony Lloyd: Is it not almost contemptible of the Government to suggest, when one fiancé in four fails the primary purpose test, that that test does not amount to an unsurmountable barrier? Clearly, there is a high probability that fiancés will not be accepted. Does not the length of the waiting lists also show that the Government hold the fiancés of British citizens in contempt? Should not the Government devote more resources to the entry clearance procedure?
    Mr. Waddington: On the question of resources, there are more people employed at our post in Dacca to deal with entry clearance than at any other post in the world. The time must come when one decides that one cannot concentrate any more resources on a particular matter.
    On the question of husbands and fiancés, the Government decided some years ago that we simply could not afford large numbers of young men coming here and entering the labour market at a time of high unemployment. It would be absurd to say that young men cannot come here to work with work permits, but that they can enter the country by using marriage as a device.

    Civil Defence
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether local authorities are directed under his Department's guidelines to use training films for the training of civil defence volunteers and for the education of the general public on protective measures in the event of war.
    The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Giles Shaw): It is for local authorities to decide how best to undertake local training and education, but we are considering how we can help with standard training material, including a film.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend consider the production of an up-to-date film on civil defence similar to that produced on NATO?
    Mr. Shaw: I shall consider with some urgency the provision of up-to-date film material on civil defence, and will study the NATO model to see whether it is appropriate.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: The Minister may recall that I have previously asked what provisions are being made to train the trainers. In the light of his answer, I wonder whether more urgent consideration could be given to the provision of a film. When one realises how speedily television documentaries can be produced which can undermine the nation's morale, surely we should be producing, with equal speed, films designed to improve the facilities of the nation?
    Mr. Shaw: I take the hon. Gentleman's point. We must improve training facilities for the trainers. The hon. Gentleman will know about the Civil Defence college at Easingwold and the many courses run there, but it is necessary for us to improve the equipment.
    Mrs. Clwyd: Does the Minister intend to use his powers of direction under the Civil Defence (General Local Authority Functions) Regulations 1983; and, if so, how soon?
    Mr. Shaw: As my right hon. and learned Friend has explained, local authorities are being invited to complete the questionnaire, which will be sent to the Home Department by the end of the year. The answers will then be assessed. There is no need to consider using the powers until we have fully analysed the responses to the questionnaire.

    Equal Opportunities Commission
    Mr. Andrew MacKayasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the future of the Equal Opportunities Commission.
    Mr. Waddington: The Equal Opportunities Commission was established in accordance with the Sex Discrimination Act 1975. My right hon. and learned Friend has no present plans to amend that legislation.
    Mr. MacKay: Since its inception in 1975 the Equal Opportunities Commission has investigated only eight cases of discrimination, published reports on only four of those cases, and only once issued a non-discrimination notice. Is it not high time that this quango, which costs nearly £3·5 million a year to run, was abolished?
    Mr. Waddington: My hon. Friend must bear in mind that formal investigations form only part of the work of the EOC. In fairness, one should take account not only of the number of formal investigations but of the fact that in 1983, for instance, the commission's staff resolved 359 complaints without recourse to litigation or formal investigation.
    It is right that the Government should review the operations of non-departmental bodies from time to time. A regular review is taking place, and the conclusions will be announced in the spring.
    Mrs. Renée Short: Did the Minister hear the interview with Mr. Norman Willis of the TUC this morning — [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Then he should have—in which Mr. Willis said that the TUC had collected information about the effect of privatisation of cleaning and other services in hospitals, that cleaning firms were using girls of 15 to clean hospital wards and that they were being paid less than the women who had previously been employed? Does the Minister agree that he should refer that matter to the Equal Opportunities Commission and that it should be strengthened to enable it to do the job that it needs to do?
    Mr. Waddington: The answer to the first part of the hon. Lady's question is that I did not hear what Mr. Norman Willis said this morning. However, it does not need a Minister to refer a matter to the Equal Opportunities Commission. If there appears to the hon. Lady to be a matter worthy of consideration by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the matter is in her hands.
    Mrs. Jill Knight: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that many people believe that the Equal Opportunities Commission has now exhausted what opportunities it might have had to do its job? Is he sure that there is no better way in which the Government could spend £3,336,000 a year?
    Mr. Waddington: I must remind my hon. Friend that although we have a plain duty to ensure that appropriate management systems are in place and that money is not wasted, we are under an obligation to ensure that discrimination on grounds of sex is abolished. I repeat that we have no plans to amend the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, which was directed towards that end.
    Mr. Maclennan: If, as the Minister said, the Government believe that there is a continuing role for the Equal Opportunities Commission in combating discrimination on grounds of sex, why do the Government not accept the commission's proposals, which were published many months ago, for strengthening its powers, which would require legislative change?
    Mr. Waddington: As I remember it, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 puts a duty on the Equal Opportunities Commission to review legislation and make recommendations to the Government if it thinks that amendments are necessary. We have received no proposals from the commission suggesting changes to the legislation.

    Shops Act 1950
    Mr. Michael Brownasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the report of the committee of inquiry into proposals to amend the Shops Act 1950.
    Mr. Brittan: The report was published yesterday. I am grateful to the committee, under the chairmanship of Mr. Robin Auld, for its valuable study of an area in which there is general agreement that the present law is unsatisfactory. I welcome the report, and we shall give it the most careful consideration.
    Mr. Brown: In view of the committee's unanimous view that the Shops Act should be repealed, does my right hon. and learned Friend intend to bring forward legislation in this Session or during the lifetime of the present Parliament to repeal the 1950 Act? If he is not prepared to give that assurance, why was the inquiry deemed necessary?
    Mr. Brittan: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance. As I said at the time, the inquiry was set up because there was widespread agreement that restrictions on trading laws affecting trading during the week and on Sundays were in need of reform, but there were differing views about how to do that. The committee's task was to establish what recommendations it could make to deal with those unsatisfactory circumstances. We shall consider the report urgently. In the light of the reaction to it, I hope in the not-too-distant future to be able to make a statement to the House about the Government's intentions.
    Mr. Beith: Will the Home Secretary take more account of people who live near shopping centres and rely on Sundays for a bit of peace and quiet, those who regard Sunday as having an important role in the traditions of our country, and the families of women shop workers who like mum to be at home on Sunday?
    Mr. Brittan: Mr. Auld's committee considered all of those issues and concluded that none of them should stand in the way of a major liberalisation of our commercial life.
    Mr. Dickens: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many of those who oppose the opening of shops

    393
    on Sunday are people who, when on holiday abroad, expect to find the shops open on Sunday? Will he ensure that the Home Office accelerates the passage of legislation in this House so that we can break free from the shackles of Sunday closing?
    Mr. Brittan: My hon. Friend makes a fair point about people going abroad. As I have said, the Government do not intend that consideration of this report should be long delayed. Having considered it and the reactions to it, we shall make a statement to the House, I hope in the early part of next year.
    Mr. Campbell-Savours: Is the Home Secretary aware that for practising Christians throughout the country any decision to change the law will be an affront to their ideals? Why is he so intent on destroying the traditional British Sunday?
    Mr. Brittan: I do not believe that the hon. Gentleman's views reflect the entirety of religious opinion in the country.
    Mr. John Hunt: In view of the unanimity of these recommendations and the strong support for them on both sides of the House, will my right hon. and learned Friend take this opportunity to indicate to local authorities, including my own in Bromley, that they should not now pursue further prosecutions under the Shops Act, pending a change in the law?
    Mr. Brittan: I could not possibly give such an indication. The Conservative party and Government believe in the rule of law; and until it is properly changed by Parliament reaching a conclusion the law remains as it is.
    Mr. Ray Powell: Why is it not possible for the Home Secretary to show the same enthusiasm for enforcing the Shops Act 1950 as he has shown in enforcing the sequestration provisions of the Trade Union Act? When will he apply the same standard to both? Has he also noted the report's suggestion that we should retain wages councils?
    Mr. Brittan: I certainly noted that recommendation, which will be considered alongside the general review of wages councils undertaken by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. As the hon. Gentleman knows, enforcement is a matter for the local authorities.

    Simulated Nuclear Explosions
    Mr. Bill Walkerasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will seek to obtain the full results of the research done with simulated nuclear explosions in the United States of America.
    Mr. Waddington: The United States has already made its results available. In addition, the United Kingdom has participated in the last two trials at the White Sands range in New Mexico.
    Mr. Walker: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for that reply. When the figures are published, will he ensure that they are in a form which allows us to understand the fission fragment elements of the research? Will he also ensure that a copy is placed in the Library of the House?
    Mr. Waddington: The results of the research have been used in the review of the casualty and damage effects of nuclear weapons to be published next year. I assure my hon. Friend that a copy will be placed in the Library.
    Mr. Rogers: Will the Minister tell us how much it costs to simulate a nuclear attack?
    Mr. Waddington: No.

    Crime Prevention
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how he intends to improve standards of crime prevention.
    Dr. Twinnasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what priority his Department gives to crime prevention.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: One of my right hon. and learned Friend's first acts on becoming Home Secretary was to set up the crime prevention unit within the Home Office. The joint departmental circular issued last January has prompted a wide range of activities, involving the police, other local agencies and the public. Activities include the growth of neighbourhood watch schemes, the national conference of crime prevention panel representatives in Cardiff last month, which I attended, and the current regional publicity campaign, which my right hon. and learned Friend launched last month.
    Mr. Madel: In addition to the measures on crime prevention which the Government are taking, will my hon. Friend encourage the building industry to see what more can be done in the design and construction of windows and doors to make houses much more secure than they are at present?
    Mr. Shaw: Yes, I willingly accept my hon. Friend's observations. He may be aware that there is a standing committee in the Home Office, which I chair, which brings together the industries involved in providing crime prevention technology and those involved in policing and local authorities. New British standards have been issued concerning guidance on house furniture. Most important, architects must recognise that crime prevention can begin on the drawing board.
    Dr. Twinn: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's answer and the action taken by the Government. Is he aware that there is widespread concern in Enfield about the level of crime there, and that it is being matched by the splendid response of people in the borough through supporting their neighbourhood watch schemes and by beat policemen? Does he accept that a response from the Home Office about policing levels is necessary?
    Mr. Shaw: I agree with my hon. Friend that the introduction of neighbourhood watch schemes has played a significant part in the reduction of crime against domestic property. He will know that about 30 such schemes have been established in the borough, including two in Edmonton. I hope that there will be another one in Edmonton shortly. It is through such devices that local communities can help to prevent wanton burglary of houses.
    Mr. McGuire: When will the Government do something to prevent the form of crime about which many of my constituents are especially worried? When people

    395
    purchase electrical consumer goods they are sometimes flogged absolutely worthless insurance policies to cover breakdowns and the companies issuing them disappear from the face of earth. Should not the Government do something about that form of crime?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman will, on reflection, recognise that that matter is for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the consumer protection council.
    Mr. Haynes: Can the Minister remember the present Home Secretary, and previous Home Secretaries, standing at the Dispatch Box and informing the House that the police force had been increased by 5,000? Despite that, we continue to talk about crime prevention and I hardly see a bobby on the beat. When will his Department do something about that, because that is what crime prevention is about?
    Mr. Shaw: I remind the hon. Gentleman, whose observations are always original, that the police force is engaged in a number of activities at present in addition to its natural role of community policing to prevent crime. The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that the police force is determined to improve and increase the standard of community policing, upon which he quite rightly lays great stress.
    Mr. Conway: Bearing in mind the impact that conventional police patrolling has on crime prevention, will my hon. Friend consider expanding the special constabulary, which is unpaid, and putting the specials on the beat patrols, which are presently vacant because of industrial unrest?
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the increasing importance of the special constabulary. I assure him that this year it has played a particularly important role in dealing with certain issues. My right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary will consider the future role of the specials in that regard.
    Mr. Soley: The Minister's answers about better doors, windows, locks and porters on vandalised and criminalised estates would be more convincing if he gave the House a guarantee. Will he today give the House a guarantee that he will see the Secretary of State for the Environment about it and confirm that any local authority which introduces such schemes will not be rate-capped?
    Mr. Shaw: Not even the hon. Gentleman will expect me to give an assurance in respect of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The hon. Gentleman knows full well that the introduction of many of these schemes can lead to direct savings in local authority housing costs and the costs of introducing other forms of technical protection for buildings.

    NATO (Civil-Military Exercises)
    Mr. Foxasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if local authority emergency planning teams will be involved in North Atlantic Treaty Organisation civil-military exercises.
    Mr. Giles Shaw: It would not be appropriate for local authorities to participate in such exercises, which are designed to test central Government's civil and military
    396
    command and control procedures in a war crisis. But local authorities are normally invited to participate in the annual warning and fallout reporting exercise.
    Mr. Fox: My hon. Friend's reply is not unexpected. I understand that next year there is to be a major military home exercise. Will he assure me that local authorities and the civil defence will be involved in it?
    Mr. Shaw: I cannot give my hon. Friend that assurance because, as he said, the exercise is fundamentally a military one. However, I assure him that we are encouraging district, county and regional exercises, such as the successful West Wind exercise, which was carried out in the west country in November last year. Local authorities will gain valuable training through such exercises.
    Mr. D. E. Thomas: During military exercises involving cruise missiles outside Greenham common, is it normal police practice to incarcerate women and children in mud pits?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman had better write to me with a description of what he has in mind. I should make it clear to him, in case he misunderstands, that the role of the police in the protection of that base, and the need for policemen to be there, is entirely due to the fact that some members of the public are carrying on a demonstration there.
    Mr. Meadowcroft: Would it not demonstrate the dangerous futility of trying to pretend that there is any protection against nuclear war if the local authority civil defence teams were able to attend those exercises?
    Mr. Shaw: The hon. Gentleman is an expert on futility. In the event of conventional or nuclear war, nothing is as important as the protection of local citizens. I hope that he, as a former member of Leeds city council, took every measure possible for the protection of the citizens of Leeds.
    Mr. John Wells: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present position of local government advice on civil defence is absurd? If there were a holocaust, it would be ridiculous for the nation to be led by faceless, unknown local bureaucrats. We want people such as Glenn Hoddle in London or Bryan Robson in Manchester, or Mr. Botham —people whose faces are well known—[Interruption.] I am being serious. We need people whose faces are well known to the nation to lead us at a time of trouble, not faceless bureaucrats.
    Mr. Shaw: My hon. Friend is right to dramatise the importance of true leadership in a crisis. The Government will be reviewing their civil defence preparations after considering the questionnaires which are now being completed by the local authorities.

    Departmental Costs
    Mr. Thurnhamasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what further action he is taking to control the total running costs of his Department.
    Mr. Brittan: Keeping running costs to the minimum needed to carry out its functions is a continuous objective of my Department. Plans for tightening control over Home Office running costs were included in the White Paper on financial management in Government Departments, which was published in July 1984.
    Mr. Thurnham: Is my right hon. and learned Friend taking every opportunity to privatise services in his Department?
    Mr. Brittan: We are taking every opportunity where the benefits outweigh the disadvantages.
    Mr. Ashley: What would be the additional cost of setting up an independent inquiry into the case of Dr. Clift so as to allay the disquiet which has arisen about the judicial and Home Office handling of his case? Is it not disgraceful and deplorable that the Home Office has refused to evaluate the new evidence which has emerged, and failed to set up an independent inquiry?
    Mr. Brittan: The objection to such an inquiry is related not to its cost but to the fact that, in all the circumstances, I do not believe it to be justified.
    Mr. Ryman: How does the right hon. and learned Gentleman reconcile his answers with the plan to set up an independent prosecution service, which on the Government's estimate will cost more than £5 million, which I suggest is a gross underestimate? It will probably cost three times as much.
    Mr. Brittan: Whatever the merits or disadvantages of an independent prosecution service—in my view the merits are considerable—it has nothing to do with the running costs of my Department.
    Mr. Dubs: Does the Home Secretary recall his Department's White Paper on immigration from the Indian subcontinent, published in November 1982, which contained a commitment to have enough staff to ensure a continuing reduction in queues and waiting times on the subcontinent? Does he stick to that commitment?
    Mr. Brittan: Queues are shorter now than they were under the Labour Government.

    Drugs
    Mr. Eggarasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the increase in drug trafficking and usage.
    Mr. Mellor: The Government give high priority to measures to combat drug trafficking and misuse, the increase in which is a matter of grave concern to us all. A ministerial group has been established to co-ordinate and develop strategy, as part of which my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer has announced that 160 more customs officers will be provided to counter drugs smuggling. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister for Health has also announced a major education and prevention campaign and the provision of more resources for prevention, treatment and rehabilitation, and my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary has decided to introduce a maximum penalty of life imprisonment for trafficking in class A drugs.
    Mr. Eggar: Is my hon. Friend aware that the country will welcome the strong measures that have been taken? Does he know that it is rumoured that over 200 lb of heroin are finding their way into London every week? Can he assure the House that if there is a demand for more police and more assistance to combat this appalling crime he will make them available?
    Mr. Mellor: There is no doubt that a large quantity of heroin is being brought into the country. The precise
    398
    amount is not clear, and some extremely unfortunate statistics are being bandied around, which have no foundation. I can tell my hon. Friend, and I think that this will encourage him, that in the first 10 months of this year the Customs and Excise seized 257 kilos of heroin, as against 212 kilos for the whole of last year, and the Metropolitan police have seized some 28 kilos of heroin in the first 10 months of this year, as against 5·7 kilos for the whole of last year.
    Mr. Coleman: Does the Minister recall that during the Conservative party conference the Home Secretary announced that there would be legislation to deal with this? Why did this promise not appear in the Queen's Speech?
    Mr. Mellor: Because there is not room in the Queen's Speech for everything. The Government intend to introduce an increase in penalties at the earliest convenient moment. If a private Member successful in the ballot were minded to bring forward such a measure, we would give him every support.
    Mr. Favellasked the Seccretary of State for the Home Department how many of those convicted for offences involving the unlawful supply of drugs received prison sentences of five years and more in each of the last six years for which figures are available.
    Mr. Mellor: Taking all offences relating to controlled drugs, including the unlawful import or export of drugs, the figures for the years from 1978 to 1983 are as follows: 1978, 71; 1979, 69; 1980, 69; 1981, 116; 1982, 123 and 1983, 238.
    Mr. Favell: Is my hon. Friend aware that many courts regard the supply of relatively small amounts of drugs as a relatively minor offence? As the suppliers are an essential link in the chain leading to the misery of drug addiction, does my hon. Friend share that view?
    Mr. Mellor: No, I do not. Of more relevance to the courts is the fact that the Lord Chief Justice does not share that view, and following his guidelines on sentencing policy for drug offences in December 1982, in the case of Aramah, the number of drug traffickers sentenced to more than five years' imprisonment increased from the 1982 level of 123 to 238 in 1983.
    Mr. Alton: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is some relationship between the reduction of 3,500 customs officers in the past five years and the number of unlawful drugs on the streets? Why do we have to wait for two years before drug pushers can be put in gaol for life?
    Mr. Mellor: The hon. Gentleman keeps banging on that point, although he has nothing to back it up. In 1980 the customs seized 38 kilos of heroin, and I have just given the figures for the first 10 months of this year, when 257 kilos of heroin were seized. The reason for that increase is that static, predictable checks are not the way to stop drug smuggling. Doubling the number of special investigators into heroin, which is what we have done, is the way, not only to seize more drugs, but to catch more of the Mr. Bigs, rather than needle-in-haystack operations to catch couriers.
    Mr. Hayes: Is my hon. Friend aware that the problem of drugs goes well beyond the courts and that there is a serious drug trafficking problem in Her Majesty's prisons?

    399
    Will he give an undertaking that his Department will review the training given to prison officers in the detection of drugs, as at the moment it is inadequate?
    Mr. Mellor: I do not know whether my hon. Friend is right in saying that. Certainly it is the case that we are looking at the problem of drugs in prison. In so far as my hon. Friend is influenced in asking his question by the report from the Prison Officers' Association, it has been invited to substantiate the assertions contained in that report and has thus far failed to do so.
    Mr. Ryman: Does the Minister appreciate that many police officers, in both the CID and uniformed branch, think that a great deal more could be done to apprehend criminals pushing drugs if they did not have to spend so much time bashing pickets in the coal-mining areas?
    Mr. Mellor: There is one simple answer to that. The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends should stop the violence on the picket lines and then the police would go away.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Sir John Biggs-Davisonasked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what financial assistance the Government are providing for police authorities during the miners' dispute.
    Mr. Brittan: The Home Office normally meets 50 per cent. of approved policing costs. Because of the exceptional expenditure incurred by some police authorities in policing the dispute, I have announced arrangements which mean that we shall meet 90 per cent. of the approved additional costs of policing the dispute above the product of a penny rate in a police area. Furthermore, once a police authority's own contribution amounts to the product of a three quarter penny rate, all further additional expenditure incurred in policing the dispute will be met in full by the Exchequer, however long the dispute lasts.
    Sir John Biggs-Davison: In our local police system police authorities must play their financial part. However, is not the Government's assistance necessary and welcome? Will my right hon. and learned Friend commend the police in the mining areas, who withstand brutal attacks with such courage and patience?
    Mr. Brittan: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. Having had the opportunity of meeting the police in one such area—south Yorkshire—only on Saturday, I unhesitatingly commend their magnificent efforts in the face of tremendous provocation.

  PRIME MINISTER

    Engagements
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.
    The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet and had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall be having further meetings later today.
    Mr. Montgomery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if a union calls its members out on strike, a strike
    400
    which can often cause great inconvenience and cost to the community at large, the responsibility for looking after those strikers should fall on the union responsible?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, I agree. That is what was proposed in our 1979 manifesto, which was overwhelmingly endorsed and passed into law in the Social Security (No.2) Act 1980, under which deductions from benefit payable to strikers' families are made.
    Mr. Hattersley: Did the Prime Minister hear the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) on the radio this morning admit that the Specified Sums Order 1984 will further reduce the real value—the purchasing power—of the social security payments that are made to the families of striking miners? What possible justification can there be for that gratuitously vindictive act? Does the Prime Minister still not realise that such callousness confirms our long-held view that she is less concerned with the waste and suffering of the miners' dispute than with the hope of scoring a cheap political victory?
    The Prime Minister: If, in accordance with the Act, the NUM meets its obligations to the strikers, they will get the full benefit of the social security uprating because the NUM will provide the £16. The callousness and vindictiveness should be turned upon those in the NUM who are prepared to use the money for mob violence rather than for paying the miners.
    Mr. Hattersley: Why does the Prime Minister continually pretend that this is necessary under the Act when the Act gives her powers to change the regulations and the payment? Secondly, if the right hon. Lady is so conscious and certain of the righteousness of her cause, why does she try to sneak the order through at the last moment rather than present it to the House properly? Indeed, to coin a phrase that she will remember from Question Time a week ago, why does she not have the guts to come down and explain it herself?
    The Prime Minister: First, the point of the Act is that those who belong to trade unions are entitled to look to them for a part of their benefit while they are on strike. If the NUM carried out its obligations, those strikers would be receiving £16 next week. Secondly, the formula is contained in section 6(2) of the Social Security Act 1980. It is automatically applied every year, and has been every year since 1980. In 1980 the sum was £12. In 1981, by formula, it was £13; in 1982, by formula, £14·50; in 1983, by formula, £15 and in 1984, by automatic formula, £16. The right hon. Gentleman could have calculated that. As for explaining it, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State tried to, but was prevented from doing so by the rowdiest scenes that this House has ever seen, perpetrated by members of the right hon. Gentleman's own party. [Interruption.]
    Mr. Hattersley rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The Prime Minister gave a very detailed reply, and I shall call the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley).
    Mr. Hattersley: I think that the right hon. Members who were shouting me down were complaining about noise in the House last night. Why does the Prime Minister persist in telling the House that she had no choice other than to implement the order in the way in which she chose to do? There are two sections within the Act which allow

    401
    her and the Government to vary the order if they so choose. However, she has not chosen to vary the order and, therefore, she must take direct responsibility for what happens in terms of suffering, hardship and bitterness.
    The Prime Minister: A special regulation has to be brought before the House to alter the formula contained in that Act. Every single thing that the right hon. Gentleman says should be turned against the NUM for its callousness in not looking after its members and in calling them out on strike without a ballot and then refusing to give them any help during the strike.
    Mr. Onslow: Since there can be no excuse or justification for the disgraceful exhibition that was staged last night by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and some of Mr. Scargill's other friends in this House, may I assure my right hon. Friend that you, Mr. Speaker, will have the full support of Conservative Members for whatever action you think necessary to protect the rights of my right hon. Friend's Government and the democratically elected majority that she represents?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. The Government replied to a specific request from the Opposition to make a statement. The Government were then prevented—almost physically, I understand—from making that statement. I hope that the Opposition Front Bench will dissociate itself from the disgraceful scenes last night.
    Dr. Owen: Would it not have been wiser if the Prime Minister, instead of rounding up the reduction from 75p to £1, had used section 6(3) of the Act to introduce regulations that would have meant an increase of £15·50? That would also have been in line with the increase introduced for supplementary benefit. [Interruption.] That would have been fair to the miners and would have demonstrated—
    Mr. Rogers: Here is some money for the right hon. Gentleman. Here is an old threepenny bit—fewer sides than him.
    Dr. Owen: There are some of us in this House who are going to be heard—[Interruption]— despite—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is asking a question and has every right to be heard.
    Dr. Owen: I have every right, just as the House has rights which were flouted last night, thus damaging reasoned debate. There is a real question here. [Interruption.] The Government could have been fairer to miners' families and miners themselves and shown greater sensitivity over this very delicate issue if they had increased—[Interruption.] No, Mr. Speaker. I shall not be harried by this mob.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. This disorder is not fair to the House or to other hon. Members with questions on the Order Paper.
    Dr. Owen: I shall stand until hell freezes over. I put it to the Prime Minister, in answer to a reasoned debate, that regulations to increase the deduction from £15 to £15·50 would have been fairer.
    The Prime Minister: No. The formula under the Act was applied precisely. To change that formula would have required new regulations to be brought before the House. The formula was used this year, as it has been used every
    402
    year since 1980. I should have thought that the right hon. Gentleman would join me in expecting unions which call their members out on strike to have some obligation to pay them strike money—to pay them the amount which would otherwise be deducted.
    Mr. Sternasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.
    Mr. Stern: Does the Prime Minister agree that the disruption last night was disgraceful? Does she further agree that those concerned should apologise both to Mr. Speaker and to the House as a whole?
    The Prime Minister: That would be a very nice way to end a very ugly incident.
    Mr. Dormand: Does not the Prime Minister's continued refusal to answer the direct question, repeated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley), demonstrate what a guilty conscience she has? Will she now say clearly that the Government have the power under the Act not to increase the needs allowance? May we have a straight answer? Is this not proof of the Government's main purpose, which is simply to break the NUM's power?
    The Prime Minister: The figure given by my right hon. Friend arose from the precise application of the formula contained in the 1980 Act. If that formula is to be altered, secondary legislation must be brought before the House. The formula has been applied precisely every year since the Act was passed. The sum started at £12 a week. The same application of the formula has been published in the results every year. If the hon. Gentleman has any conscience, perhaps he will address it to the NUM and ask it to help its own people whom it called out on strike.
    Mrs. Peacockasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Thursday 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some minutes ago.
    Mrs. Peacock: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the best way to provide a good Christmas for miners' families is for the miners to return tomorrow rather than for them to rely on hand-outs from local authorities such as Kirk lees metropolitan authority?
    The Prime Minister: Yes. Some local authorities are providing hand-outs and this is causing deep offence to many ratepayers. I agree that a return to normal and a return to work by the striking miners would be best for the industry, best for the families and best for the country. My right hon. and hon. Friends would all welcome that very much indeed.
    Mr. Alfred Morris: How does the Prime Minister respond to the Irish Prime Minister's charge that she was "gratuitously offensive"?
    The Prime Minister: With total disagreement. I do not understand his comment in any way.
    Mr. Greg Knightasked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for 22 November.
    The Prime Minister: I refer my hon. Friend to the reply that I gave some moments ago.
    Mr. Knight: Is my right hon. Friend aware that Derbyshire county council has decided to recall all of its stationery, including school notepaper, at an estimated cost of £50,000 so that the slogan
    "Derbyshire supports nuclear-free zones"
    can be overprinted? Does my right hon. Friend agree that that is a disgraceful waste of public money? Is there not a case, in the interests of ratepayers and taxpayers, for increasing the list of those authorities which should be abolished?
    The Prime Minister: I agree with my hon. Friend that that is a disgraceful waste of money. My hon. Friend made his point effectively in his question.
    Mr. Eadie: The right hon. Lady has been hard put today to defend the indefensible—[HON. MEMBERS: "No".]—in relation to starving women and children as a consequence of her action. Since the right hon. Lady is
    404
    trying to get some mileage out of the matter of conduct in the House, I ask her to read the Adjournment debate that took place on Monday night. [Interruption.] Thirty Conservative Members came into the House, after a very good dinner, and during the whole of that debate tried to prevent my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) from making his speech. [Interruption.] Does the right hon. Lady endorse that conduct?
    The Prime Minister: I am sorry that I did not hear the whole of the hon. Gentleman's question. Sometimes it is not easy to hear the whole of the questions against the background of noise. With regard to the amount that will be paid to the families of those on strike, even if the NUM does not pay them their £16, the facts are that some 85 per cent. of miners' families who are receiving supplementary benefit will have a net cash increase in their benefit, about 6,000 will have no change and only about 100 people are likely to receive less benefit. I shall read the Adjournment debate to which the hon. Gentleman referred.

Points of Order
3.31 pm
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As one who has an interest to declare, and who expects to continue to have an interest to declare, in the policing of—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. Even from here I cannot hear what the hon. Member is saying.
Mr. Griffiths: I am doing my best, Mr. Speaker. As one who has an interest to declare, and who expects to continue to have an interest to declare, in the policing of public order, may I raise a point of order about a specific matter last night? It was your judgment, Mr. Speaker, in your absolute discretion, that the House should adjourn, and, of course, all of us accept that. In the event that it had proved necessary for you to instruct the Serjeant at Arms to cause the removal from the Chamber of those who were preventing free speech and obstructing the business of the House, what resources were available to the Serjeant at Arms for him to prevent that affront against free speech in the House?
Mr. Speaker: What the hon. Member said was hypothetical. That situation did not arise. I have given careful consideration to whether I should make a statement about what occurred last night. I just say this: for centuries this House has seen the strongest expressions of conflicting opinion and policy and, over the centuries, the House has jealously guarded its procedures of free debate. I remind the House that if its proceedings are brought to a halt by disorderly conduct—that includes refusal to hear the opinions of others—that long tradition is damaged and violated and the authority of Parliament is undermined.
As long as I am Speaker of this House, I shall continue to uphold its reputation and supremacy. I hope that in this I shall always have the full backing of the House.

Business of the House
3.35 pm
Mr. Roy Hattersley: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business of the House for next week?
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): Yes, Sir—[Interruption.]
Mr. Speaker: Order. On a day when feelings are running high remarks of that kind from a sedentary position do not help.
Mr. Biffen: The Business for next week will be as follows:
Monday 26 November—Opposition Day (3rd allotted day) (first part). Debate on an Opposition motion entitled Further Reduction in Real Value and Purchasing Power of Social Security Benefits for Families of Miners on Strike. This debate is taking place at the request of the Opposition under the provisions of Standing Order No. 6(2) (B).
Second Reading of the Social Security Bill.
Motions on the Coal (Payments Schemes) (Amendment) Order and on the Coal (Limit of Deficit Grants) Order.
Tuesday 27 November—Opposition day (4th Allotted Day). There will be a debate on an Opposition motion on the failure of Government policies to safeguard the natural environment and the national heritage of Britain.
Motion on the Repairs (Grants for Airey Houses) (Variation) Order.
Motion on the Okehampton Bypass (Compulsory Purchase) Orders.
Wednesday 28 November—Completion of remaining stages of the Elections (Northern Ireland) Bill.
Motions on Northern Ireland orders on road traffic, family law and loans (increase of limit).
Thursday 29 November—There will be a debate on the Royal Navy, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
Motion on European Community document 8175/84 on the summer time arrangements.
Motion on European Community Documents 7685/84 and 7686/84 on Red Meat and Poultrymeat, and on 7948/84 on Hormone Implants to Cattle.
Friday 30 November—Private Members' motions.
Monday 3 December—Second Reading of the Local Government Bill (first day).

Relevant documents in debates on European documents on 29 November:

(a) 8175/84 Draft directive on summer time arrangements.

(b) 7685184 Draft directive on the financing of health inspections and controls of fresh meat.

(c) 7686/84 Amendment to draft directive on health problems affecting trade in fresh poultrymeat.

(d) 7948/84 Communication and draft directive on hormones in animal production.

Relevant reports of European Legislation Committee

(a) HC 78-xxxiv (1983–84) para. 4

(b) HC 78 xxxi (1983–84) para. 1

HC 5-i (1984–85) para. 1

(c) HC 78-xxxi (1983–84) para. 1

HC 5-i (1984–85) para. 1

(d) HC 78-xxxv (1983–84) para. 1

Mr. Hattersley: As we are not to have, as the Opposition had hoped, a debate next week on the Chancellor's autumn statement, may we be assured that it will take place during the first week in December? The House is entitled to take a comparatively early view of what even the Daily Telegraph called "the Government's fudged figures."
Secondly, may we be given an assurance that, whatever the Government decide about signing or not signing the law of the sea convention, the matter will be debated in the House before 10 December? As I understand it, if the convention is not signed by then, Britain will be absent from those arrangements by default. It will be intolerable for that decision to be made without the House of Commons having the opportunity to pass a judgment and give an opinion about it.
Mr. Biffen: I shall have regard to the points made by the right hon. Gentleman about the law of the sea convention. Surely the matter can be pursued through the usual channels.
I hope to be able to meet the time scale mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman in respect of the autumn statement, and I should also wish to have regard to the work of the Treasury departmental Committee.
Mr. Michael Howard: Does my right hon. Friend think it somewhat surprising that the Opposition have selected as the subject for debate next Monday the order made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services, in view of the fact that in each of the past three years, when precisely similar orders have been made, the uprating has not evoked the slightest protest from the Opposition?
Mr. Biffen: I think there is enough emotion on the topic at the moment for me to say only that it is an argument that can be deployed on Monday.
Mr. A. J. Beith: In view of the continued requests from the official Opposition for statements to be made next week, will the Leader of the House satisfy himself that they know that their hon. Friends in the Labour party will permit them first to hear and then to ask questions on the statements?
Mr. Biffen: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says.
Mr. Richard Hickmet: Will my right hon. Friend find time for the House to debate the appalling decline in the standards of policing in Humberside, following the slashing of the budget in that county by the Labour-controlled police authority, its continuing refusal to appoint an assistant chief constable, and the decline in the effectiveness of the police force in that county?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot offer the prospect of Government time, but I am sure that my hon. Friend can use his own initiative to try to secure a debate.
Dr. David Clark: I understand that the debate on the Okehampton bypass next Tuesday is to be on early-day motion 122.
[That the Petition of General Objection of the Dartmoor Preservation Association, the Ramblers' Association, the Commons, Open Spaces and Footpaths Preservation Society, the British Archaeological Trust, the Council for the Protection of Rural England (Devon Branch), the Conservation Society Limited (Devon
408
Branch), Transport 2000 (Devon Branch), Friends of the Earth Limited, the Long Distance Walkers' Association and the Devon Alliance of Amenity Societies, against the Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin Trunk Road (Okehampton Bypass) Compulsory Purchase Order (No. CSWI) 1984 and the Exeter-Launceston-Bodmin Trunk Road (Okehampton Bypass Supplementary No. 1) Compulsory Purchase Order (No. CSW2) 1984 be not referred to a Joint Committee.]
If we pass that motion as it stands, it will in essence be a vote of no confidence in the Chairman of Ways and Means and in Lord Aberdare, the Chairman of Committees in the other House. Although I have no objection whatever to a debate on the Okehampton bypass, which I think would be welcome, will the Leader of the House give us an assurance that no vote will be taken after the debate on that motion? Otherwise, tens of thousands of objectors will not be allowed to have their case heard, and we shall be indirectly censuring the Chairman of Ways and Means.
Mr. Biffen: The procedure certainly has precedent, and I am most anxious to make it clear at once that there could be no question of the personal censure that is suggested in the hon. Gentleman's comments. It seems to me that his arguments should be used in the debate. They might influence its outcome.
Mr. Sydney Chapman: With reference to the question put by the hon. Member for South Shields (Dr. Clark), will my right hon. Friend accept that there is also a feeling on the Government Benches that, although there might be a parliamentary precedent for the debate, it would be breaking with good parliamentary tradition? Will my right hon. Friend accept that, because of what the other House decided, there is at least a case for putting the matter before a Joint Committee, in which event the matter would still come back to the Floor of this House, but a little later rather than sooner?
Mr. Biffen: I think that that is something to be argued in the debate.
Mr. Max Madden: Will the Leader of the House give a firm assurance that the Government's plans to take a further £1 from strikers and their families in the mining dispute will not be implemented until this House has debated the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I think that Monday's debate should clear up all those matters.
Sir Kenneth Lewis: Has it occurred to my right hon. Friend that we seem to suffer nowadays from too much government by order—orders from the European Community, orders dealing with Northern Ireland, and all sorts of other orders? We spend hours in this House discussing orders. Will my right hon. Friend put his mind to cutting down the number of orders so that we might have a more sensible parliamentary timetable?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly put my mind to it, and I hope that I shall be reinforced by a universal demand for less government.
Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: May we have a debate on the White Paper concerning the future of Hong Kong? When we do, will the Minister concerned give an assurance that the pension rights of Government servants in Hong Kong will be as well safeguarded as were those of civil servants of Britain's former colonies?
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the Hong Kong debate can take place shortly. I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary will take account of my hon. Friend's point about pensions.
Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth: Now that the House of Lords has made its decision on the GCHQ case, will the Leader of the House arrange for a Minister to come to the House to make a statement about the position of the people at GCHQ who still hold on to union membership, as I am sure he is aware that many hon. Members still object to the denial of civil rights to those members of GCHQ staff?
Mr. Biffen: I shall refer the hon. Gentleman's anxieties to the relevant Ministers on the Treasury Bench.
Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will my right hon. Friend ask the Secretary of State for Social Services to give very careful thought over the weekend to the anomaly that is causing real hardship in mining communities, whereby those who accepted voluntary redundancy and who have never been on strike are now being denied their unemployment pay? Will he ensure that a statement on this very serious subject is incorporated in the debate on Monday?
Mr. Biffen: I shall ensure that my right hon. Friend is made aware of the issues that my hon. Friend has put to the House.
Mr. Jack Ashley: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 127 on Dr. Clift?
[That this House condemns the prejudice shown by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State to the Home Office during the Adjournment Debate on 15th November about the need for an independent inquiry into the discrediting of Dr. Clift; believes that every convicted or discredited man is entitled to a fair independent hearing and, if new evidence emerges, has further entitlement to a new hearing; deplores the Minister's refusal to consider or respond to evidence recently emerged which casts serious doubts on the discrediting of Dr. Clift; notes that one of the two forensic scientists on whose evidence Lord Chief Justice Elmslie condemned Dr. Clift has now stated that it is "simply not true" that he condemned Dr. Clift's work, and that the Judge did not understand what it was all about; notes that the expert advising the defence has now admitted that he actually knew of the blood group evidence, yet Dr. Clift was condemned for depriving the defence of this information; further notes that 11 forensic scientists, some of great eminence, have expressed their individual but unanimous views that the Home Office report on which Dr. Clift's enforced early retirement was based was faulty in its approach and wrong in its verdict; and for these reasons believes that Dr. Clift is entitled to an opportunity to clear his name and that the only fair means of ensuring this is by an independent inquiry.]
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that any convicted or discredited person has a right to a fair hearing if new evidence emerges? Secondly, is he aware that the Home Office has refused any inquiry into new evidence concerning Dr. Clift? As that refusal was made clear during an Adjournment debate that was granted by Mr. Speaker, what help can the right hon. Gentleman give me? Will he consider the matter with a view to finding time to debate an important issue involving a man's reputation?
Mr. Biffen: I shall examine the matters that have been raised by the right hon. Gentleman and I shall discuss the issue with my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Dr. Jeremy Bray: Is the Leader of the House aware that the Government's miserable treatment of student grants has done considerable damage to higher education, that the diversion of resources to the science budget will be insufficient to maintain even the basic core of scientific research and that decline will continue after the first year? As their Lordships have found time to debate this issue, is it not time that we did?
Mr. Biffen: As an initial development, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman, with his formidable skills, will be seeking to debate the matter in an Adjournment debate.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. An important debate is to take place after business questions in which many right hon. and hon. Members wish to participate. I reluctantly reduce the time available for Back Benchers to ask questions about the business for next week. I propose to allow questions to run until four o'clock.
Mr. Harry Greenway: Bearing in mind the deep implications for traditional standards in the report on Sunday trading, will my right hon. Friend arrange an early debate on that important report?
Mr. Biffen: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend that it is a most important report. For that very fact, I thought that there might be some advantage in allowing representations to be made upon the report and to be considered by the Government before any such debate took place.
Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the growing concern about the escalating amount of fraud in the City? Is he concerned that about 500,000 companies are deliberately defying the law by not filing their accounts with Companies house? Given this unacceptable face of capitalism, will he ensure that an urgent debate takes place on these matters?
Mr. Biffen: I shall draw to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry the problem about filing accounts with Companies house.
Mr. Andrew Rowe: As there is wide interest in the future of the voluntary sector and ways in which it can be promoted, will my right hon. Friend consider giving time for a debate on that issue?
Mr. Biffen: I shall certainly consider that. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has represented the matter to me already. I do not see much prospect of such a debate in the immediate future.
Mr. Gordon Wilson: When do the Government expect to make a statement on the sabotage of the system of industrial regional aid? If and when such a statement is made, will the right hon. Gentleman give a pledge that there will be an early debate on the matter?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot accept the parody of the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question, but a statement will be made shortly on industrial aid, and we shall have to think about matters thereafter.
Mr. Richard Holt: Will my right hon. Friend accept that we do not want a debate on an increase

411
in television licence fees to be left until the last moment? Is he aware that the House would like the opportunity, as evidenced by the number of early-day motions on the subject, of debating the principle on which the BBC is funded rather than arguing about pound notes at the end of the day? I do not want the debate to be left until the last moment.
Mr. Biffen: I note what my hon. Friend has said. He has touched on a matter of lively, popular and parliamentary interest. I shall ensure that the matter is drawn to the attention of my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary.
Mr. Dennis Canavan: May we have an explanation from a Minister during Monday's debate as to why the wife and children of a convicted criminal in prison rightly qualify for the full rate of supplementary benefit while the wives and children of striking miners have to pay an increased fine of £16 per week as a result of a sneaky Privy Council order which does not even require parliamentary approval? Is not that an utter contempt of Parliament as well as utter contempt for miners' wives and childen?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot anticipate Monday's debate, but I suggest that the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) had better brush up his arguments and tone down his rhetoric.
Mr. Nicholas Lyell: Given the widespread support in the House for the timetabling of the Committee stages of Bills and the importance of proper debate on the Local Government Bill, will my right hon. Friend consider timetabling the Committee stage of that Bill from the start?
Mr. Biffen: On a day when coolness rather than foolhardiness is required, I think that it would be provocative if I were to answer that question.
Mr. John McWilliam: As we are to have a debate on a defence subject next week, why could it not be on the three-country memorandum of understanding and the quite unnecessary redundancies in the royal ordnance factories that flow from it?
Mr. Biffen: The House is obliged to have a debate on the Royal Navy. That is why it stands.
Mr. Peter Bruinvels: In view of the road traffic accident last night involving my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, will my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House consider carefully the security of Cabinet Ministers and ensure that police are in attendance, as they were needed last night? Will my right hon. Friend examine this matter carefully and perhaps provide time for a private debate?
Mr. Biffen: The matter does not fall within my responsibility, but I will certainly see that it is considered.
Mr. Kevin Barron: In Monday's debate on supplementary benefit uprating, may we have a spokesman other than the Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security—perhaps the Attorney-General or a spokesman from the Home Office—to explain how a trade union can be deemed to have paid sums of money when its funds have been sequestrated and are in the hands of the court?
Mr. Biffen: I cannot undertake to dispose who will be the ministerial participants in the debate, but I am sure that their arguments will be comprehensively convincing.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: As my right hon. and learned Friend the Home Secretary said that he hoped to make an early statement on the Government's response to the report on Sunday trading, does my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House agree that it would be helpful for everyone if the House had the opportunity to debate the matter before the Government made their statement?
Mr. Biffen: That is certainly a matter for sympathetic consideration. My hon. Friend will see from the Official Report that in my earlier reply I tried to make it clear that proper reflection on the recommendation would be needed before we could proceed to a debate.
Mr. Michael McGuire: When may we expect to hear the Government's plans to protect ordinary citizens from being persuaded to take out bogus policies for the maintenance of television sets and other electrical appliances? Is he aware that about 800,000 people have been persuaded to part with as much as £30 or £40 for worthless insurance policies and that the companies involved, such as Multi-Guarantee and one appropriately named Cavalier Insurance, then simply disappear from the face of the earth? The Government have done nothing about this so far. When may we expect some action?
Mr. Biffen: It sounds as though the hon. Gentleman is referring to alleged commercial fraud. I suggest that he should seek to raise the matter on the Adjournment, addressing his remarks to the Department of Trade and Industry.
Mr. Tony Marlow: I thank my right hon. Friend for sending me a copy of the European Community financial mechanism. As acceptance of the Fontainebleau agreement depends on an acceptable financial mechanism, is it possible to have a debate on this item alone? I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about this. Does he agree that it is especially worrying because the document does not even have the status of a regulation but amounts merely to conclusions? Does he further agree that the great and proper desire that agriculture expenditure should be under control is not satisfied because the document states that in exceptional circumstances agricultural expenditure will be allowed to rise and, as we all know, exceptional circumstances occur in the Community every day of the week?
Mr. Biffen: The difficulty is that we are now drenched with Community documents which the Scrutiny Committee recommends, understandably, for our consideration on the Floor of the House. However, I will consider my hon. Friend's point.
Mr. Bill Michie: Bearing in mind the answer which he gave a short time ago, will the Leader of the House try to persuade the Government to explain to the House how they can deem that £15 or £16 a week is being paid when the union's funds are subject to sequestration, which means that it is physically and legally impossible for it to pay?
Mr. Biffen: I do not intend to anticipate Monday's debate, except to say that I await it with considerable expectations.
Mr. Tim Yeo: Will my right hon. Friend consider using his undoubted influence, through the usual channels or otherwise, to discourage Opposition demands for ministerial statements to be made at 10.15 pm? That appears to be an hour of the evening when Opposition Members find it difficult to take part in reasoned debate, and important items of business can in consequence be lost. On this occasion it was also highly inconvenient for those hon. Members who were lucky enough to have bisques, and who regretted not being present during the dramatic scenes.
Mr. Biffen: Wisely the House is sufficiently flexible that, from time to time, statements are accepted at 10 o'clock. I would not wish in any way to disparage that flexibility. However, I have an overriding consideration, which is that those who request statements to be made should be allowed to hear them.
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: Is the Leader of the House aware that the new COCOM agreement governing the export of high technology goods from Britain will pass into law by way of an export of goods control order requiring neither the assent nor the scrutiny of the House? Is he also aware that that agreement is causing widespread concern in the high technology industries? Will he undertake to discuss the matter with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, with a view to allowing the House to debate this important issue before it becomes law?
Mr. Biffen: I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's longstanding interest in this topic, and I shall draw the attention of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to that point.
Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Leader of the House agree that it is unthinkable that the Foreign Secretary should announce this country's withdrawal from UNESCO during a debate supposedly on overseas aid? If the Government have such an idea in mind, may we have a proper debate about it?
Mr. Biffen: As this is an Opposition day arising on a Liberal party motion, I will be very Asquithian and say, "Wait and see".
Mr. Dennis Skinner: Will the Leader of the House bear in mind not only that the funds of the National Union of Mineworkers have been sequestrated but that, in order to ensure that Monday's debate is conducted in a proper manner, it might be advisable to consider the judgment of Mr. Justice Vinelott that the NUM in Derbyshire should not be allowed to spend a penny on the prosecution of the strike? On 6 November the law of the land decreed that the union could not pay £15 or £16 even if it had the money. When someone suggested that the union should search for money abroad, I told them not to go to Oman because Mrs. Thatcher's son had got there first and taken the lot.
Mr. Biffen: I know that the hon. Gentleman is in great difficulties over the miners' strike. His difficulties are compounded week by week as the number of working miners increases and the number of striking miners diminishes. At the heart of the difficulties is the fact that, from the outset, the NUM leadership could never get the fullhearted support of the total membership.
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: Last week the Leader of the House told me that he would discuss with the Secretary of State for Defence the necessity of making a statement in the House about his intentions on the idea of follow-on force attack and the attitude that he will take at the meeting of Defence Ministers in Brussels on 4 and 5 December. Is it not right that the matter should be discussed on the Floor of the House or in the Select Committee on Defence? What progress has the Leader of the House made in his discussions with the Secretary of State?
Mr. Biffen: Discussions are still in progress. The moment that they are concluded, the hon. Lady will be informed.
Mr. Dave Nellist: Is not the real reason why there is no debate in Government time about the theft of a further £1 from the families and children of striking miners that the decision last night was an act of desperation by the Government as they do not believe their own figures about how many miners are going back to work? The strike remains solid and the Government are worried about their being power cuts in the next six or seven weeks.
Mr. Biffen: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will reflect a little in future before effectively preventing the operation of the official Opposition Front Bench. What he engaged in last night was a destruction of parliamentary procedures. That is offensive to the House and to the Opposition Front Bench. As to the points of substance that the hon. Gentleman raised—
Mr. Nellist: The right hon. Gentleman was not here on Monday.
Mr. Biffen: I was—not all the time but sufficient to get the flavour of it. It was vigorous and that is what one expects on this issue; but one does not expect the intolerance which was shown last night and which was designed to stifle opinions on both sides of the House because the Militant Tendency is in conflict.
Mr. Tony Banks: In view of the great public interest in the GLC abolition Bill, will the Leader of the House consider having the television cameras present for the Committee stage of the Bill?
Mr. Biffen: That would require all sorts of procedures and Votes of the House that I cannot deliver, have no wish to have delivered and will not seek to deliver.
Later—
Dr. David Clark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Leader of the House referred to a precedent with regard to the Okehampton bypass debate on Tuesday. When a similar precedent was debated in 1976, leave was sought about the availability of petitions because petitions are private. However, on that occasion they were not available. As we have a few days' notice on this occasion, and as we shall debate the motion which refers to petitions, may we have an assurance that those petitions will be available at the Vote Office?
Mr. Biffen: I shall look into that matter.

British Shipbuilders (Redundancies)
4.1 pm
Mr. Don Dixon: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 10, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely, "the decision just announced by British Shipbuilders that another 3,000 men are to be made redundant."
This most recent savage blow dealt by British Shipbuilders falls clearly within the criteria of the Standing Order. The matter is specific because 2,100 of those who are to be sacked live in the Tyne area which has one of the highest rates of unemployment in Great Britain. Most of those who are to be sacked live in the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for South Shields (Dr. Clark), for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, East (Mr. Brown) and in my constituency of Jarrow.
Having been born and bred in Jarrow, I well remember what happened in the 1930s when an organisation called Shipbuilding Security Limited came to Jarrow and closed the shipyard and the shipbuilding industry there. It threw my grandfather and father out of work. My grandfather never worked again and my father only got work again in 1939 when he was taken on to work for his king and country. That is what happened to the men who were thrown on the scrap heap in the 1930s.
The matter is urgent because, as we are an island nation, we need a shipbuilding industry since 90 per cent. of our trade is carried by ships. The Government should provide time for the House to debate the future of the shipping and shipbuilding industries.
The matter is important because the Government's policy is turning areas such as the Northern region into industrial deserts. The sooner the Government change their policy the better.
I hope that you will give this matter urgent consideration, Mr. Speaker. The people in the Northern region have always been law-abiding. They have always believed in democracy. However, the young people of our region are not so deeply steeped in democracy that they will accept the solution of the 1930s for the problems of the 1980s.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter which he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the decision just announced by British Shipbuilders that another 3,000 men are to be made redundant."
I have listened with care and sympathy to what the hon. Gentleman has said, but I regret that I do not consider the matter which he has raised to be appropriate for discussion under Standing Order No. 10 and I cannot therefore submit his application to the House.
Mr. Ray Powell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although I appreciate that you listened intently to what my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) had to say, I should like you to draw the attention of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the House to the fact that they were deliberately ignorant in not listening to what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for me.
Mr. Ted Garrett: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid that I did not catch your eye in regard to the application under Standing Order No. 10. Would it be possible to make an application under Standing Order No. 10 on the same subject next week?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that, under Standing Order No. 10, a matter must be raised at the first available opportunity, as was the case today.

BILLS PRESENTED
  REPRESENTATION OF THE PEOPLE
  Mr. Secretary Brittan, supported by Secretary Sir Geoffrey Howe, Mr. Secretary Younger, Mr. Secretary Edwards, Mr. John Biffen, Mr. Secretary Hurd and Mr. David Mellor, presented a Bill to amend the law relating to parliamentary elections in the United Kingdom and local government elections in Great Britain, to provide for combining polls taken on the same date at such elections and elections to the Assembly of the European Communities, to extend the franchise at elections to that Assembly, to amend the law relating to the effect of the demise of the Crown on the summoning and duration of a new Parliament and to repeal section 21(3) of the Representation of the People Act 1918: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 12].
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT
  Mr. Secretary Jenkin, supported by The Prime Minister, Mr. Secretary Brittan, Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, Secretary Sir Keith Joseph, Mr. Secretary Tebbit, Mr. Secretary Ridley and Mr. Kenneth Baker, presented a Bill to abolish the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils; to transfer their functions to the local authorities in their areas and, in some cases, to other bodies; and to provide for other matters consequential on, or connected with, the abolition of those councils: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 11].
Opposition Day
[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]
Opposition Day

  Overseas Aid
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston), I should announce that I have selected the amendment standing in the name of the Prime Minister. I must also inform the House that, because of the number of hon. Members who have indicated their wish to speak, I intend to apply the time limit of 10 minutes, which was agreed to by the House on 31 October, for hon. Members called between 7 pm and 8.50 pm. As this is the first time that the rule has been applied in its present form, perhaps I should remind the House that the occupant of the Chair will have the power to direct any hon. Member who has spoken for 10 minutes to resume his seat forthwith. The rule also applies to an hon. Member who is addressing the House at 7 pm. That hon. Member will have to conclude his speech at 7.10 pm.
  4.7 pm
  Mr. Russell Johnston: I beg to move,
  That this House would firmly oppose any reduction in the real value of the already limited Overseas Aid budget; and would reject proposals to maintain this budget by cutting expenditure on the British Council or the BBC External Services.
  I am happy to be able to introduce a full day's debate on behalf of the Liberal party. It is quite unique for us. I am sad that it should be necessary to present the motion, which has been agreed with our partners the Social Democratic party, to the House. There is no doubt that overseas aid is an issue which, for all its clamancy, plays a minor part in British politics. In terms of public expenditure it represents only 1p in the pound. Labour and Conservative Governments have cut the overseas aid budget. Despite the United Kingdom's support of the United Nations resolution of 1970 which called for a contribution of 0·7 per cent. of gross national product, we now contribute 0·35 per cent. of GNP—exactly half of what was sought in 1970.
  Our narrowly drawn motion is directed against the proposal for yet another cut. In such a debate the arguments will inevitably range over development as a whole, but our intention in tabling this very specific and narrowly worded motion is to give Members of Parliament in all parties—whose perception, like that of the public, has been heightened and enlarged by the ghastly and harrowing pictures from Ethiopia—an opportunity to vote for calling a halt to any further reduction in British aid. That view is held strongly by many hon. Members on all sides of the House. Indeed, it transcends party views. I vividly recall the right hon. and learned Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) intervening recently to say that, considering the amount of money involved, this was a matter on which the Government ought to decide forthwith.
  Last night on ITN the results of a public opinion poll commissioned by one of the development agencies showed that 43 per cent. of the population were in favour of an increase in the overseas aid budget, with only 32 per cent.
  418
  opposed. Parliament can this evening respond to that public feeling, and can do so without any affront to party loyalties, by firmly telling the Government that it is up to Government to solve their interdepartmental disputes but that this British Parliament will not accept a still further diminution in contribution to the alleviation of the plight of the starving.
  I do not intend to dwell at length on the Ethiopian tragedy, but after all it was the catalyst that lifted the scales from so many people's eyes. One must, therefore, give it special consideration, not just because of the horror of what is happening there but because of its relevance to what we think we should do, or might be able to do, in other parts of the world, most of all in Africa but also in the subcontinent of India and in parts of Latin America.
  Someone much wiser than I once said that the problem of love was the maintenance of intensity. The same is true of tragedy. We must somehow ensure that the way people feel today is sustained. I was told the other day that in a normal year—that is perhaps the wrong use of the word "normal"—up to 1 million people in Ethiopia will die from some kind of malnutrition. Therefore, what is now happening is exceptional only in scale.
  The drought has bitten deep. Villages cannot contain it and, therefore, people wander out by the roadside and die in front of Western television cameras. But that is not different or new from much of Third world experience. It was in 1980 that Robert McNamara said:
  "Up to a billion of the world's people live lives of poverty which are so limited by malnutrition, illiteracy, disease, high infant mortality and low life expectancy as to be beneath any rational definition of human decency".
  I am sorry that in their amendment the Government repeat that they responded so promptly to the famine in Ethiopia. They say that the House should welcome
  "its prompt response to the famine in Ethiopia".
  The entire aid world has been screaming from the rooftops for the last 18 months that what has happened in Ethiopia was about to occur, yet it was only when we saw it in colour on the screens in our living rooms that the Government acted—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am afraid that that is true. It is perfectly fair to say that within a week, which is good going, of the first graphic pictures at the end of October, aid was sent from this country.
  However, it was on 19 October 1983 that Mr. Edward Saouma, the director-general of the FAO, convened a special conference at which he said:
  "We foresee that suddenly we may be confronted with the situation that a significant proportion of the population of over 150 million of these 22 countries"—
  he meant the sub-Saharan countries—
  "face the most serious economic distress and shortage of food, which may reach proportions of hunger and malnourishment on a massive scale".
  That is what happened, but it did not do so because there was a shortage of warning. There was a lot of warning, but we did not respond adequately to it.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In no way do I quarrel with the hon. Gentleman's concern that more food be sent to Ethiopia. However, is not he aware that before the television exposure of the famine in Ethiopia, this country, along with other members of the EEC, was providing substantial amounts of food to Ethiopia, even though it was perhaps not enough? Is not the hon. Gentleman misleading the House by suggesting that our

  419
  aid programme began only after the television pictures were shown, when it had been going on consistently for a considerable time?
  Mr. Johnston: If, by a considerable time, the hon. Gentleman means a year, that is true. But before 1983 there was no aid programme within Ethiopia, apart from the actions of the British Council.
  I do not wish to be excessively party political, but it is fair to say—not only of this country but of the Western countries—that there was a lot of warning about what would happen. Simply to respond, as has been done, when it happened, is not sufficient.
  There is no doubt that the effect on the public has been incredible and astonishing. All hon. Members must have experiences within their own constituencies. In a small primary school in Kilmonivaig in my constituency the pupils of primary 7 decided to give up their "playpiece" for a week and to give the equivalent in money of a packet of crisps to the Save The Children Fund. That happened naturally because the children saw the scenes on television, not because they were told by their teachers, and that well of goodwill is something on which we must build.
  Mr. John Townend: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Johnston: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument for a moment. Whatever the Foreign Secretary may say, it is quite extraordinary for the Government to consider, as they have been, cutting aid now when public attitudes are much better informed. In public terms the challenge is to channel the specific generosity that we have seen into some sort of contribution to long-term action designed to prevent these things happening again. The challenge to Government is the same.
  One problem, which is not unique to Ethiopia, has caused difficulties for successive Governments of all complexions in the Western democratic world. It cannot be said that the Ethiopian Government, according to any definition, is one to which it is easy for us to relate. Equally, people say, perfectly reasonably, "It is all very well talking about the problem but what about the $250 million they spent on the celebration of their independence? What about the whisky?" In addition, the civil war there consumes large sums of money for arms, to kill those who already obtain enough food to live. That is a difficult scenario to face. We believe, as do many others involved and interested in overseas aid, that it is perfectly possible to devise means of providing aid, either through greater involvement with non-governmental agencies or by a direct agreement with a Government—even one like that of the Ethiopian colonel. James Pickett suggested in The Times today, in an article entitled
  "Feed stomachs and win hearts",
  that the direction and effect of aid can be much more narrowly focused.
  In that connection it is only right and fair to congratulate the Government on improving the effectiveness of European Community aid. It is open to criticism, for dissipating its efforts and for the incredible slowness in the whole cumbersome process. The Community still acts as if it were the same as it was in 1957, when only France was interested in it. The aid process is slow and the Government and the French Commissioner Pisani have worked to improve it.
  420
  Secondly, it is fair to say that aid cannot be separated from the broader issues of Third world indebtedness—that is true of Ethiopia and other countries—and the effect that that has on agricultural economies. An effective cartoon in the Daily Star—it is not necessarily my favourite political reading material—showed aeroplanes flying in one direction with aid, in another with whisky and in yet another with melons, and said what a crazy world this was. Ethiopia uses a great deal of energy producing melons to meet its foreign indebtedness. Senegal, which is food-deficient, uses more land to grow groundnuts to sell to Europe for cattle feed, which contributes to the butter mountain, than to grow food for its people.
  Mr. David Alton: Is my hon. Friend aware that in July, in answer to a question that I tabled, the Government admitted that £3 million in loan charges had to be rescheduled because Ethiopia was still repaying debts to the United Kingdom, and that this year it is estimated that Third world countries will pay more money back to developed countries than we will give them?
  Will my hon. Friend reflect on the criticism made of the Government to the effect that money will be taken from existing aid programmes this year to feed the hungry in Ethiopia, which will have a long-term effect on other Third world countries?
  Mr. Johnson: I note my hon. Friend's points. It is not for me to lecture the Foreign Secretary about foreign debts. However, there is an increasing belief that the International Monetary Fund must be more flexible, more sensitive to the problems of food subsidies and agricultural spending, and less concerned about conditionality, especially regarding poorer countries, than it has been.
  Mr. Edward Leighrose—
  Mr. Johnson: With respect, I wish to finish my point. If I give way too often I shall be unable to complete my speech in less than the time usually taken by the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey).
  Yesterday I was told by a person who works for Oxfam that at a conference last week an American referred to the IMF as the "International Menace to Food." That shows that many people interested in aid feel that the question of debt rescheduling is not being treated with proper sensitivity.
  Although we are arguing for the aid budget to be held at its present level, we should like it to be increased. But we would not necessarily like it to be increased and spent in the same way as it has been recently. The 43 per cent. of people polled yesterday who said that they wanted aid to be increased were thinking of what Oxfam now calls real aid.
  In the past there has been too much stress on tied aid and on prestige projects, which bring us export earnings. I can understand the argument for it. During the time of the Labour Government the Victoria dam in Sri Lanka cost an enormous sum, but the return in terms of good to the poorest of Sri Lanka was not so great. At the moment we are spending £131 million from our £1·2 billion annual aid budget on a power station for India to support an aluminium smelter. It may be a good project, but too high a proportion of our aid budget is spent in that way. It 'night be good for everyone if it were possible to separate trade aid from pure, direct and simple aid.
  Dame Judith Hart: When the hon. Gentleman commented on the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton), was he aware that the Labour Government cancelled all official debt obligations of all the poorest countries? I think that his hon. Friend referred to commercial debt. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Victoria dam project in Sri Lanka was part of a rural development programme? It does not merely supply power, but has an irrigation function, which helps to resettle many people in dry areas. It was a matter not of trade but of rural development.
  Mr. Johnson: I could argue with the right hon. Lady about that, but I do not propose to. I give full credit to her for the first part of her remarks about the Labour Government cancelling debts. However, it is also true that the dam was an important and significant part of a Sri Lankan politician's programme in his election campaign. I am not seeking to be provocative, but I wish to stress that there is not sufficient concentration on projects that help the poor first time round—directly and immediately—rather than trickling help down to them eventually. Such projects would include rural clinics and communications.
  We wish to retain, and hope to increase, the quantity of aid, but there are also many arguments for improving the quality of aid. Only about 20 per cent. of our aid is spent on rural development. Within that, only about 6 per cent. goes directly on agriculture. Yet in most of the countries involved, 80 per cent. of the population live in rural areas. Our programme seems to be topsy-turvy. Britain's gross public expenditure on bilateral aid in Africa in 1983 was £236 million. Of that, only £27 million was spent on project aid to the agricultural sector, some of which was to encourage the export of cash crops, such as rubber, rather than the propagation of food to be consumed locally.
  In Mali, for example, the desert is spreading at the rate of about six miles a year. We should give more thought to how we can channel our aid directly and, when we are considering multilateral contributions, to areas where the specific targeting is more precise. I shall give the House three examples of multilateral aid which is more precise.
  Mr. Tim Rathbone: I suggest that the matter is not so simple. Much of the aid that the hon. Gentleman designated as not going to agriculture is crucial to aid to agriculture—for example, spare parts for trucks and road building. Without it, agricultural aid could not be effective.
  Mr. Johnson: I am not trying to argue that the matter is simple. I accept that aid targets are interrelated, but I do not believe that enough money is spent on direct aid that helps people in rural communities. There is proof of that in Ethiopia.
  As to Government aid going through agencies, the United Nations Sudano-Sahelian office is a worthwhile organisation. This month Mr. Perez de Cuellar argued that countries should give to that agency and to the United Nations fund for landlocked countries. Presumably the Government are considering that request. Have they yet responded to it? There is no doubt that that agency has been successful and effective, as has the international fund for agricultural development. If a special fund for Africa is set up, money might also be appropriately placed through it.
  422
  We have all read a great deal in the newspapers about the European Community's grain stocks and, according to projections, there will be an even greater surplus next year. If we are reconciled to carrying over a stock of about 25 million tonnes of grain, and the requirement for Africa according to the United Nations is about 9·5 million tonnes for next year, we could spare the grain, which would be a direct way of saving lives.
  I wish in conclusion to turn to four other matters, two of which are mentioned in our motion.
  It has been said that the BBC's external services will be cut. I can do no better than quote an interview of 11 August 1983 on Channel 4 given by Lord Carrington. He said:
  "When I was Foreign Secretary I was told I had to save some money on the overseas services of the BBC. I think that was really totally counter-productive and the money saved was trivial compared to the amount of damage done."
  I commend that view to the Government, who, I know,
  respect Lord Carrington. The New York Times called the BBC external services the "Oxfam of the mind." It would be difficult in practice to cut the external services without causing disproportionate effects. If the BBC lost 10 per cent. of its external budget, it would lose 40 per cent. of output, which makes no sense.
  The British Council has sent a letter to hon. Members, which I shall not read to the House in full but whose conclusion was this:
  "The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has not yet split his frozen cake among FCO, ODA, BBC and ourselves. But if no adjustments were made … we could have to reduce activity by a figure between £6 and £7 million next year. This is equivalent to the cost of 25 of our small offices overseas, or our total expenditure on scholarships or two thirds of our library service."
  The British Council and many hon. Members believed that the Treasury had accepted that the problem of its overseas rise in costs had been dealt with. The fourth report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs, which was published only last month, stated that the Supply Estimates would apply to the British Council, yet it seems that that is not the case. I hope that the Government will not consider cuts in the British Council's activities.
  I should refer to the United National Relief and Works Agency at length because of the growing number of refugees, not only of political refugees but refugees seeking food. South Sudan will be flooded with refugees from Ethiopia. Between 1980–81 and 1983–84 the direct British contribution to UNRWA decreased by 23 per cent. Surely that is not the sort of response that the Government wish to make.
  Mr. Donald Anderson: Will the hon. Gentleman compare the relatively paltry sums likely to be saved in such key areas with the sums expended on the fortress Falklands policy? Does it not show the Government's priorities when we compare what is spent on Ethiopia with the £1 million per family being spent in the Falklands?
  Mr. Johnston: I have consciously avoided making comparisons in my speech, but hon. Members can make their own calculation. The Treasury representative who gave evidence recently to the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs said that there is
  "ample scope within the FO/ODA annual programme for dealing with emergency appeals."
  There would appear to be some slack in the Foreign Office budget.

  423
  It has been said widely that the Foreign Secretary will use this debate to announce that Britain will leave UNESCO, which will save us about £5 million next year. During our debate on foreign affairs about 10 days or a fortnight ago, I said that a bad thing about British foreign policy was successive Governments' determination to act unilaterally. It must have some effect upon the Foreign Secretary that every Commonwealth country and every European Community country says that Britain should not leave UNESCO. I do not argue against the need for reform of UNESCO—few hon. Members would do so—but it would be better to reform from within. If Britain leaves UNESCO and the United States follow—
  Mr. Anderson: We are following the United States.
  Mr. Johnston: That is probably true.
  Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: The alliance motion seeks to protect overseas aid, the British Council and the BBC external services. It does not mention overseas representation and the diplomatic service. Is the alliance in favour of cuts in the latter?
  Mr. Johnston: If the hon. Gentleman wants a direct answer, I doubt whether we could effectively cut our diplomatic service. However, the alliance's priorities are shown in the motion.
  The newspapers of yesterday and today have said that the Foreign Secretary will try to do a conjuring trick today — "Now you see a cut, now you don't." I read the rather dense piece that led the story in The Guardian today suggesting that, by using mirrors or some other trick, the cuts that would have to be made will not be made. I did not understand this. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is quite good at explaining things that do not exist. However, I do not think that the public at large, or the great majority of hon. Members, want to see the overseas aid budget cut in any way. This is very important.
  The public reaction is clear, and the Government should follow the lead of the people and make sure that there is no reduction in the help that this country gives to the poor and under-privileged of the world.
  4.40 pm
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'commends the Government's substantial support for development in the Third World including the encouragement of trade and investment; welcomes its prompt response to the famine in Ethiopia and elsewhere; approves the maintenance of the Government's planned aid programme consistent with its overall economic and foreign policy objectives; and endorses the Government's continued support for the British Council and the BBC external services.'.
  I start by welcoming the way in which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) has opened this important debate. He concentrated on a limited number of the programmes for which I am responsible, and, in the light of the Liberal party's motion, understandably concentrated largely on the aid programme. Nobody doubts the importance of the example to which he has drawn attention—the tragedy, of which we have spoken many times in the House, that has been taking place recently in Ethiopia.
  However, I should like to correct the hon. Gentleman on his presentation of the case, because our response to the tragedy did not start only yesterday. Since 1982 we have
  424
  given more emergency relief to Ethiopia than to any other country. In February 1983 the World Food Programme, on our behalf, sent 19,000 tonnes of food at a cost of £3 million. We gave other contributions during 1983 amounting to £800,000, and in the summer months of 1984 — July, August and September — we made allocations from our food aid programme at a cost of just under £3·5 million. Subsequently, we have approved additional donations of £370,000.
  Apart from that, during the past two years we have contributed well over £5 million to more general appeals by voluntary agencies and the United Nations organisations, and a substantial part of that has gone to Ethiopia. It was against that background, to the welcome o f the House, that on 24 October I announced a further contribution of £5 million. It is important to recognise that the scale of our response and the way in which we have taken a lead within the European Community has been appreciated by the people and the Government in Ethiopia, and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development deserves substantial credit.
  Mr. Paddy Ashdownrose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish to deal with this point first.
  Mr. Ashdown: On that point.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not give way, because my right hon. Friend, who will be replying to the debate, will be dealing with this point at much greater length and foreshadowing his visit to Ethiopia.
  It is important at the outset of our discussions to set the question in the wider context of the Government's policy as a whole and of the continuing need to maintain tight control on total public expenditure. That was made clear by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in his autumn statement on 12 November, and nobody should be surprised when I say that that I give vigorous assent to the objectives described by my right hon. Friend. It cannot be disregarded that the economic recovery over the past three years could all too easily be placed at risk if the Government were to lose sight of their general principle. [Interruption.] Labour Members may groan, but the only consequence of the failure to maintain that central economic policy would be to undermine the country's capacity to sustain finance and defend our interests abroad, to play our full part in the Western Alliance and to make a contribution, which we all want to make, to the needs of the Third world.
  That is why it must and will always be unrealistic to consider the aid programme—
  Mr. Robert Hughesrose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I wish to move on.
  Mr. Hughes: I can understand why.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: A large number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate, and I wish to make my speech at a reasonable pace.
  It would be unrealistic—the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber acknowledged this point—to consider the aid programme in isolation from our other activities. All the programmes for which I am responsible make their contribution to achieving our foreign policy objectives. The balance between all of them must be kept under review.
  Mr. Robert Hughes rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I must get on with my speech. The House would not wish me to give way too often.
  That review has to take account of the fact that Government spending is rightly planned in terms of the cash cost of each programme. It is in cash terms that the money has to be raised.
  In the case of my own Department, I have to take account of a variety of factors, including movements of exchange rates in both directions and differential overseas inflation rates. All that has to be done upon the basis of the overall provision for public expenditure for all my programmes. That reflects the simple fact that foreign policy has to be treated as a coherent whole.
  I shall now say a few words about each of my main programmes, and begin by confirming that the overall provision for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in 1985–86 remains as previously planned at £1,870 million. That was the figure provided for in the February 1984 public expenditure White Paper, which the House debated and approved on 6 March. I want to emphasise that there has been no cut in that overall figure.
  The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber spoke about conjuring tricks, but the matter has been handled in the customary way. The more specific figures will be published in the customary way in the White Paper published next year. Press speculation about a whole range of figures has been thoroughly misleading and has caused unjustifiable anxiety. We have conducted the public expenditure exercise in accordance with the well-established practice with which the House is familiar.
  For the benefit of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) I shall tell the House something about the outcome of that process.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Does the Foreign Secretary expect the House and the country to believe that the maintenance of our overseas aid programme, even at the current level, is imperilling our economic recovery? Can anybody believe that that has any relevance to the difficulties faced by people in dire poverty who are starving day by day?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman misses the central point. Almost every spending programme, with friends in every corner of the House, could advance an argument for its increase for good reasons, but all those arguments must be considered against the importance of maintaining control of public spending as a whole. That objective has been achieved over the past three years, holding public expenditure to £132 billion, and within that objective we have to consider the programme that I am now discussing.
  I shall begin with the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and our diplomatic missions abroad. As the House knows, the volume of work that has to be handled when meeting our worldwide responsibilities is growing and becoming increasingly complex.
  For example, no less than one third of diplomatic service staff are employed on trade promotion activities. Essentially, it is demand-led and that demand has risen. Between 1979 and 1983 the number of British business men visiting our posts abroad, and the number of firms participating in trade missions, rose by one fifth.
  426
  The same is true of consular services. Since 1968, the number of British visitors abroad, some of whom are likely to require consular services, has increased fourfold to more than 20 million.
  The principle of paying for many of these services has long been established. Passport fees, for example, are set to cover the expense of general consular work. It is right that these costs should be met, where possible, by increasing revenue rather than by an increase in public expenditure.
  I have come to the conclusion that this principle should be applied more widely to some of the entry clearance operations carried out by Foreign and Commonwealth Office posts abroad. Two changes will be made.
  As from 1 January 1985, the standard fee for entry clearance for foreign nationals coming to the United Kingdom will be increased from £6 to £10. That will raise £2·4 million in a full year. From the same date a fee will be payable to cover part of the administrative costs of issuing entry certificates to Commonwealth citizens. That fee will be set at £10, and will raise about £1·6 million in a full year. The fee will, of course, represent a relatively small addition to the total costs of travel of that kind. There are no changes in relation to commercial work.
  The diplomatic service has been able to respond to the rising demand with substantially reduced manpower. It is worth reminding the House that that process has taken place under successive Governments. It is a measure of the improvements in efficiency that have been achieved. Diplomatic service manpower is now less than half that of the London borough of Haringey. [Laughter.] That is a formidable fact. The achievement of fewer people carrying a larger burden of work under successive Governments reflects the extent to which the service has over a period of years been giving better and better value for money.
  Hon. Members will be familiar with the report of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs published in July this year. I recall the passage where it is said:
  "the squeeze on Diplomatic Service manpower has probably gone far enough and additional significant reductions would only be made at the cost of expecting a reduced level of quality of service."
  That judgment was worded with characteristic care. It does not exclude—and I am sure it was not intended to exclude—the search for any further sensible economies. But beyond that there is much force in what the Select Committee had to say. I do not believe a reduction in the quality of service would be in the national interest.
  There are, indeed, other factors that we have to take into account. In some places, not only in the middle east, there is regrettably a need to provide increased security protection for our representatives overseas. That change reflects the reality that many of our diplomats are working in difficult, and increasingly dangerous, conditions. Many are isolated. It is a striking fact that more than half our overseas posts now have six or fewer United Kingdom based staff.
  Since the cost of providing security for our representatives is rising, it makes sense to consider whether we need to maintain that service in precisely the same geographic pattern. There are, for example, some career consular posts where the work can be done instead by a local or honorary consul. In the light of those considerations, I have decided that it would be right to

  427
  close about 10 small posts — I emphasise "small" —almost all of them subordinate posts. I shall give further details after consultations have been completed.
  The House will understand that this is not a new process. Under the previous Labour Administration 32 missions were closed. That policy was condoned by the Liberal party during the last days of the Lib-Lab pact. Indeed, it was presided over by the present leader of the SDP, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen), when he was at the Foreign Office.
  I now turn to an area which covers about a tenth of my total provision and which is defined as "Other External Relations". About half is on the Overseas Development Administration side, providing mainly for the payment of pensions to such people as former colonial civil servants.
  Most of the balance pays our subscriptions to international organisations. Our participation in those bodies, which range from the United Nations to the Council of Europe, is an important aspect of foreign policy. In all cases, in partnership with like-minded countries, we have been able to keep strict control over their budgets.
  But there is one organisation to which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber referred, where we have not been satisfied, and, from what he said, he has not been satisfied, that value for money was being obtained. That is UNESCO. Nor were we satisfied that the developing world was getting value from that organisation.
  We have long been one of the leaders in seeking reform, and earlier this year we put forward a number of practical proposals. We said that we would review our position again at the end of the year and that, if satisfactory progress had not been made, United Kingdom withdrawal would again be considered. We have now completed our review. I can announce our decision today.
  We acknowledge that some progress has been made towards reform; we acknowledge the importance of the views of our Commonwealth and European partners; we are grateful for the co-operation we have had in our efforts from many countries in those areas; but much remains to be done. As we have always recognised, the general conference to be held next autumn will have a key part to play. Throughout 1985 we shall continue to work for reform, in co-operation with other countries, as vigorously as we have done this year. But we cannot be confident at this stage that adequate reforms will necessarily have been achieved by the end of 1985, and it would be wrong not to safeguard our position.
  I am accordingly writing to the director-general giving him notice of withdrawal. Unless rescinded, this notice would become effective on 31 December 1985. We shall reconsider our position towards the end of next year in the light of the result of the general conference.
  It is only right to point out that that decision will not have any effect on expenditure for 1985–86. But, by giving notice now, we retain the option for 1986, which we should otherwise forfeit, of being able to devote to better purposes in that year the amount which we would be due to pay to UNESCO in 1986.
  Mr. Andrew Faulds rose—
  Mr. David Winnick rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Mr. Winnick.
  Mr. Faulds: I was up before he was.
  Mr. Winnick: Is the Foreign Secretary aware that that is a shameful decision which simply follows the line of the United States? Why are we acting in a way completely unlike other countries in the EEC? Is the Foreign Secretary aware that the manner in which he has brought the subject to the notice of the House today is wholly inappropriate? We require a statement on the issue and certainly a debate.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I could have wished that the intervention would have had more point. I can think of no more appropriate occasion to tell the House about our decision on this matter than the earliest opportunity.
  Mr. Faulds rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Our decision has been taken in the light of our continuing concern—which is, I think, regarded in all parts of the House as well justified—about what has and has not been achieved in reforming that organisation. We shall continue with our partners in the Commonwealth and in Europe, working as hard as my right hon. Friend has been working in the past year, to secure the changes that are necessary. But it would be foolish to discard now the option that I have described in favour of leaving the organisation next year. If the money can be better spent elsewhere, we have that option as a result of our decision.
  Mr. Faulds rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I want to say something now about our—
  Mr. Faulds: I was on the UNESCO commission.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I want to say a word now about our military aid programme.
  Mr. Faulds: Let me get my point in first.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The Secretary of State clearly is not giving way. Mr. Secretary Howe.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I leave the hon. Gentleman to make his own judgment about his own merits in this matter, but I want to move now to our military aid programme.
  Our military aid programme of about £12 million is a useful arm of our foreign policy. That sum is divided almost equally between sending British military personnel overseas to train certain countries' armed forces and receiving trainees from those forces here.
  Here, too, it has been necessary to identify economies of about £500,000 a year. That will give us less scope to respond to requests at short notice, but existing commitments will be fulfilled as planned.
  The last main item in this group is the FCO's own information activity. The sum involved — about £22 million— mostly provides for payments to the Central Office of Information for a wide variety of services. Some economies can be made here without significant loss of effectiveness. I am therefore scaling down what the FCO commissions from the Central Office of Information by about £1 million.
  I now turn to the British Council, which is celebrating its 50th anniversary this year — 50 years of solid achievement. I am sure that I speak on behalf of the whole House in commending its work in promoting understanding and appreciation of Britain overseas.

  429
  Given the importance which people worldwide attach to the English language, and their view that it is a worthwhile investment, the benefits of the work done by the council are considerable.
  Of course, the council has to live in a world of changing costs and, in doing so, it is like everything else. It faces particular difficulties from inflation in some countries. It has also had to pay a rent increase at its London headquarters. Here, as elsewhere, I have judged it right for the council to absorb part of its risen costs as a contribution towards the overall need to keep the Government's spending within the resources available. I am looking to the council for £1·2 million of savings, which is about half of its total rise in costs during the current year. That represents only a little more than 1 per cent.—
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: The Foreign Secretary is cutting Britain's voice abroad. It is mad.
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I wish that I could cut the hon. Gentleman's voice.
  That represents only a little more than 1 per cent. of the council's gross revenue from grants-in-aid and from its own receipts combined. But I should emphasise that the council will be receiving nearly £6 million more in 1985–86 than the original provision established for that year.
  Mr. Mark Hughes rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: In many parts of the House strong support has been expressed for the BBC's external services. They have more than 100 million regular listeners around the world.
  Mr. Mark Hughes rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry, but I shall not give way. I have already done so several times.
  The fact that so many—often denied honest news by their own national media—should turn to the BBC for an unbiased account of international developments, works strongly in our national interest. But the BBC, too, has had to face some increase in costs. I do not believe that it would be right to meet that increase in full. As in the case of the British Council. I shall be looking for savings of about 1 per cent. in its total expenditure.
  Mr. Mark Hughes rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: Nevertheless, there will still be an increased provision for the external services under this head of about £750,000. It is already apparent that many hon. Members, rightly in my view, attach particular importance to the programme to improve the audibility of those services. A capital programme costing more than £100 million was approved in 1981. I am glad to say that additional funds of over £2 million are being provided for that important programme. The programme is now well advanced, and will be maintained.
  Mr. Mark Hughes: Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that, given his announcement, I shall, as vice-chairman of the British Council very solemnly consider whether we can continue having a bi-partisan vice-chairmanship on that authority?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: The hon. Gentleman has given his provisional assessment. But in a year in which all
  430
  programmes face rising costs and have had to be looked at very closely, and in which it has been important to maintain the overall size of public spending alongside an increase in the provision for the British Council, is it entirely unreasonable to ask that efforts be made to absorb about 1 per cent. of the total expenditure for the year?
  I want to make it plain to the House that the provision for overseas aid remains unchanged at the previously planned and published figure of £1,130 million. That is the figure for 1985–86 that was published in the public expenditure White Paper in February 1984. That is also the very figure that was published in the 1983 public expenditure White Paper, on which my right hon. and hon. Friends fought, and won, the election. It is that figure of £1,130 million that is being maintained.
  I hope that it is clear from what I have said that within that figure our capacity to provide emergency assistance to Ethiopia and other countries suffering from drought and famine will be fully maintained. I know from what has been said that that is a matter of great importance to many hon. Members on both sides of the House, and I can assure them that it is a matter of great importance for the Government as well.
  Some aid programme commitments are affected, as they always have been, by changes in international prices and exchange rates. The effects of such changes, whether positive or negative, have always been absorbed within the total aid allocation. Perhaps the crucial fact is that over the three years to 1985–86 expenditure on the aid programme is expected to increase faster than British inflation in those three years. Our aid programme remains the fifth largest targest among industrialised countries, and the Government remains committed to maintaining a substantial aid programme. Moreover, the aid programme is only part of the story.
  Private capital flows can, and do, play a vital and increasing role for many developing countries. Direct investment can make a particularly important contribution to their long-term economic progress. I remind the House that one of the first things that the present Government did on coming to office was to abolish exchange controls, with the precise purpose of encouraging investment overseas, not least in developing countries. Despite the disbelief and fury of Opposition Members, that is exactly what has happened.
  Mr. John Evans rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am about to conclude my speech.
  Direct private investment in developing countries rose from £300 million in 1979 to an average of more than £800 million a year in the subsequent four years. It must be observed that the declared intention of the Labour party to reimpose exchange controls threatens that major contribution by private finance to development in the Third world. Not satisfied with that, it also threatens to force British companies to withdraw from developing countries the finance that they have put in since the abolition of exchange controls. That is, indeed, a strange way of showing concern for the Third world.
  That is the successful background against which we have maintained the planned aid programme, and that is the basis from which I invite the House to conclude that the Government are implementing a carefully considered, effective and wide-ranging aid policy.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I shall not give way, as I am about to finish my speech.
  "Our ability to honour our international obligations … depends in the last resort on our economic strength."
  Those words were taken directly from the White Paper on overseas representation which was presented to Parliament in 1978 by the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan).
  Sir Peter Blaker: I have risen on an important point of clarification. My right hon. and learned Friend said that there would be increased provision of £750,000 in 1985–86 for the external services of the BBC. Will he explain on what base that increased provision rests? Is it the originally proposed provision in the White Paper, or something different? Is it an increased provision to take account of risen costs overseas?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I have explained that we are anxious to maintain the capital programme for the BBC, to which I know my right hon. Friend attaches importance. An additional £2 million has been provided for that programme. Not all of the BBC's risen costs are being met. About 1 per cent. of the total expenditure will have to be found by the BBC. But an increase of £750,000 is being made in addition to the £2 million for the capital programme, which is being maintained.
  Mr. Terence Higgins: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: I am sorry, but I cannot give way any more. I am coming to the end of my speech. [Interruption.] My right hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) must understand that many hon. Members wish to speak, and I should like to finish my point.
  "The public debt must be contained. The best way in which to reduce the overall debt burden and sustain the downward trend of interest rates is to ensure that the long-term growth of revenue exceeds that of expenditure."
  Again, those are not my words. They are taken from the European Liberal manifesto on which the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber, who opened for the Liberal party, stood and lost in the European elections. They are wise words to which we must pay attention. It is because of our success in upholding those principles that we have been able to pursue the important objective of promoting and protecting British interests around the world. It is because of that success that we are able to maintain the aid programme which we laid before the House in February 1983—
  Mr. Andrew MacKay: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give way?
  Sir Geoffrey Howe: —and on which we fought, and won, the election.
  On that basis, I commend the amendment to the House.
  5.9 pm
  Mr. Stuart Holland: To cut or not to cut has been the question in the minds of the Government and the Foreign Secretary recently. They have had to decide whether it is better to close an embassy, amputate the British Council cut transmissions by the BBC world service or to reduce the aid programme. Both sides of the House have expressed their anxiety. Neither the level of
  432
  Foreign Office expenditure nor the overseas development programme should be in question. The reasons are in part complex, but in essence simple.
  The Foreign Secretary referred to the increased work that the Foreign Office has had to undertake in recent years, especially in terms of consular services, against a background of falling resources. The House should be clear about the issue. We need to examine more closely the Government's claim today that there is to be no cut in the aid programme. The Government have already scythed the aid programme. The programme fell by 17 per cent. in real terms between 1978–79 and 1982–83. It now stands at the derisory level of 0·35 per cent. of gross national product. That makes Britain tenth among the OECD development aid committee donors—way below Norway and the Netherlands which are smaller countries and which face the same international economic climate. Norway gives just over 1 per cent. of GNP and the Netherlands just under 1 per cent. to the Third world countries.
  United Kingdom current expenditure on aid is £1,013 million against £1,214 million at 1983–84 prices in the last year of the Labour Government under the stewardship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart), who I am glad to see in the Chamber. Under her stewardship real aid spending rose consistently until the last full year of the Labour Government, whereas it has fallen consistently under this Government. What is true of the aid share of GNP is also true of its share of total public spending. From 1974 to 1979 under Labour the share went up, while under this Government it has consistently gone down.
  What of today's statement? We expected that the Foreign Secretary would use the 1985–86 aid figure expressed in cash terms—the £1,130 million. He claims that the increase will be higher than the rate of inflation. How can it be, granted that it is only a 3 per cent. increase? If inflation is over 3 per cent.—and it is forecast at 5 per cent.—the figure will represent a cut in real terms. The House should be clear about this. It is misleading to claim that the increase is greater than the rate of inflation, and I hope that the Minister will deal with that. Where might the money come from? Can we be assured that the programme is secure for the rest of the year? What will happen to the Contingency Fund and to the unallocated reserves? Are they definitely secure?
  Under the Government's monetarist policies their response has been, "If at first you don't succeed, cut, cut and cut again." Today we were entertained when the Foreign Secretary's response was, "If at first you don't succeed, but, but and but again."
  After all the concessions to the good work done by the diplomatic service, the Central Office of Information, the British Council and the BBC external service, what do we have? We have cuts. There are to be cuts in diplomatic missions. We are interested in which 10 small consular missions will be cut. Will Durban be one of them?
  There is to be a £2 million increase in the BBC external services' capital programme, but a 1 per cent. cut overall. We deplore the Foreign Secretary's declaration about UNESCO.
  The Government are engaging in a masking exercise. They are defending the aid programme in principle, while camouflaging cuts—and this is when the Government have one of the lowest aid levels for any comparable country in the world.

  433
  I am surprised that the Foreign Secretary did not tell us, as he has in the past, that humanitarian aid will be given. A Select Committee examined the matter earlier this week. It is not clear what the Government mean by humanitarian aid. The Minister later will probably claim, as he did during the foreign affairs debate recently, that the aid programme is high in quality, not only because of its humanitarianism, but because it provides aid to the poorest people in the poorest countries. I shall be interested to hear what the Minister says, because 63 per cent. of United Kingdom bilateral aid goes to the poorest countries which now represent 75 per cent. of the Third world's total population. How is bilateral aid biased towards the least developed nations and the poorest people in them? We should welcome such a bias, but it must involve more than 75 per cent. of aid. It must be 80 per cent. or 85 per cent. Why cannot the Government make a commitment now that they intend to achieve that target?
  Mr. Robert Jackson: With regard to the precise arithmetic of aid expenditure, I recall that the EC aid budget, the major vehicle for British multilateral aid, is frequently underspent at the end of each year. Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that one of the problems is the capacity of countries to absorb aid and that the aid budget in any given year is frequently underspent?
  Mr. Holland: I agree that there is a problem in less developed countries. However, are such countries in a position effectively to deploy and disburse that aid? I agree about disbursement under the EC, the pattern of which is slow, slower, stop. That is discouraging to less developed countries. We must bring pressure to bear.
  How can some of the least developed countries, faced with crippling drought problems, plan long-term development expenditure in, for example, natural water resource projects when faced with the piecemeal and parsimonious response from the British Government in the past year? The Foreign Secretary claims that we have not responded slowly or inadequately. He says that we gave a little bit here and a little bit there—£3·5 million here and £5 million there. The scale of the problem is enormous. The poorer countries are swamped by the crisis. We need a more imaginative response from the Government.
  The Minister told us during the debate on the Queen's Speech that the Government accented quality in aid. He said they give it to the poorest people in the poorest countries. But let us examine the breakdown in the ODA annual report on project aid for 1983. Of a total £308 million, which is nearly one third of the total ODA programme, only £56 million is aid for renewable natural resources and only £3 million is for rural development programmes. That figure is derisory. It is equivalent to a mere accounting error. With such a derisory sum no Government can seriously claim that they are concerned about the long-term drought problem and with promoting agriculture in rural areas so that there is no drift from the land.
  I should like to ask the Minister about the United Nations least developed category and the October 1981 conference on that subject. I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the definition of the 36 countries with low income, low literacy and low manufacturing levels. The United Kingdom was asked at the conference whether it
  434
  would aim at a minimum target of 0·15 per cent. of GNP by the end of the decade. Thanks substantially to the work done by my right hon. Friend the Member for Clydesdale and others during the Labour Administration, in 1980 the United Kingdom gave 0·14 per cent. of GNP in aid to countries in the least developed category. But the Minister would not commit himself to 0·15 per cent. When we talk of Government parsimony, we really mean it. Why can the Minister not commit himself to an increase of 0·01 per cent. in that programme? Unless we can get such a commitment from the Minister, neither side of the House can take seriously the claim that Britain is concerned with meeting the needs of the least developed and the poorest in the poorest countries.
  Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: It is regrettable that only £3 million is spent on rural development programmes. Does not the hon. Gentleman accept that it is difficult for the United Kingdom Government or any other Government to compel countries to spend their money in a particular way? Not only in Ethiopia but in Mali and other countries the money is spent on prestige projects in the towns. Those countries are not interested in putting the money into rural areas.
  Mr. Holland: I am positively delighted that the hon. Lady has put that point to me, because I was going to refer to the basic need programmes in countries that do not have grand prestige projects. Those countries are concerned about housing, health, education and social welfare. One of those countries is Nicaragua, which has an unparalleled record in this respect. What are the British Government doing? The Minister for Overseas Development has still not answered the question why the Government are not pressuring the World Bank to restore the type of development projects in Nicaragua — including agro-fishing, agro-industrial, processing, canning, bottling and dehydration projects—which raise export value as well as improve diet in such countries. The Government have blocked that move. On this, as in other matters, the Government are simply coat-tailing United States policy. Why are the Government doing that? Are the elections in Nicaragua the reason? We have had a debate about those elections, which were free and fair. The United States is shifting the goal posts on article 21 of the Contadora proposals. As soon as it was clear that Nicaragua would agree to the proposals, the United States said, "No, we are not happy." The United States is unilaterally revising the treaty.
  Are human rights the reason why the Government are acting in this way? Amnesty International and international observers from both Houses of Parliament are agreed that there are no human right derelictions in Nicaragua. There are, of course, derelictions of human rights in other countries to which similar criteria have not been applied. I cite just one case. A prominent member of the judiciary in Pakistan, Mr. Raza Kazim, has been denied his right to a review of his case under martial law procedures. That matter was raised in general in The Guardian yesterday and in practice has been raised by many hon. Members. The dereliction of human rights in that case should be set right by the Government concerned. In that case, unlike Nicaragua, the British Government are not allowing the issue to influence their aid programme.
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary made various points about the timing of the Government's

  435
  response. Despite all he said, there was an 18-month warning but the Government moved only in October. The Government have talked of the £5 million in disaster cash and the 6·5 thousand tons of food aid. Where was that food aid going? Was it going to Ethiopia or — this is a straight and genuine question — was it allocated to another country? Was the food aid allocated to Bangladesh? Was that aid unearmarked and unallocated? If the food aid is removed from Bangladesh to Ethiopia, the Government will be giving with one hand while taking away with the other. That is not what is needed in response to the Ethiopian crisis.
  During the reply to the Queen's Speech we did not have much time to go into the development aspects. I grant that neither I nor the Minister for Overseas Development had much time to go into the development aspects beyond the issue of the food aid shortage. But questions of food aid shortage are questions of income distribution as much as questions of food distribution. The issue is whether people can buy food as well as whether Governments and nongovernmental agencies can transport food aid to drought areas involved. Recently, that point was forcefully made by professor Amartya Sen, professor of political economy at All Souls college, in a letter to The Times on 7 November.
  Drought is not entirely an act of God. It is also manmade. There is drought in South Africa, but the only people who are starving are those in the black homelands. There are deserts in Africa, but there is also desertification. The cutting of foliage for food is also done by man. It is a vicious circle of response to earlier droughts where there has not been a sufficient development response. We know the cycle. Crops fail; people leave the land and do not plant; the next harvest never comes; and little hope turns to no hope.
  What are the Government doing? This spring in Eritrea, I was struck by the fact that although the area was suffering from drought, rain was falling intermittently and heavily. There appears to be no adequate expenditure on upstream water resource projects — the simple, not the prestige, projects. I refer to the coffer dams that trap and retain water, and therefore syphon water into underground reservoirs for agriculture and for human consumption. What is the Minister doing? Can he do anything, apart from assisting the non-governmental agencies?
  We need faster action on the overall EC food programme, rather than the slow, slower, stop response from the Community. If the Community budgets are used up this year, how will the Government budget for food aid from next year? What action is the Foreign Secretary taking in the EC Council of Ministers? The Council must act now, if we are to avoid further disaster. The Common Market Council of Ministers is famous for its stopped clocks when it reaches its deadline. The tragedy here is that the stopped clock today is the timing of tomorrow's disaster in sub-Saharan Africa. Those who pay will be in Ethiopia and Bangladesh rather than Brussels.
  The Foreign Secretary did not touch on the International Development Agency replenishment, although I hope that the Minister for Overseas Development will do so. Some of the basic issues are well known and have been well aired in the House. The Government showed their initial willingness to provide an extra $200 million for IDA replenishment if the United States did the same. When the United States withdrew, and despite the
  436
  fact that Japan and Germany said that they would be willing to supplement the £3 billion shortfall, the Government backed down.
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): The hon. Gentleman made that point exactly the wrong way round. It was Germany and Japan that were reluctant to supplement the shortfall and we who said that we would supplement the shortfall.
  Mr. Holland: I am glad that the Minister made that clarification. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will now say what he will do with the money. Will he support the new fund for Africa proposals? Will he make that $200 million available for that project? If so, that allocation, although not through IDA, could be extremely useful.
  The tragedy in Africa is a special case. It involves more than Ethiopia alone. We have seen several indications of that, and they are very distressing. The drought affects not only Ethiopia but Mauretania. It is reckoned that 3·5 million people in Mozambique are suffering from the drought out of a total population of more than 20 million. I also visited Mali and Chad during the last drought cycle, and the position there is now desperate. What funds will be allocated? It is unlikely that they can be allocated bilaterally by the Government. Will the Government support the new fund for Africa proposal?
  Mr. Robert Banks: The hon. Member mentioned a number of countries. It is worth reminding him that the Sudan is one of our old and trusted friends in Africa. It has suffered greatly from the drought and the refugee problem.
  Mr. Holland: I agree that there is a special problem in the Sudan. I saw it earlier this year. It involves refugees from both war and drought. The Sudan has a serious problem and it needs special attention. I reiterate the points that I made in the debate on the Queen's Speech about getting food into Tigré and Wollo. We cannot focus solely on the core drought areas themselves. Sudan will be unable to cope with its refugee problem unless it receives further assistance.
  We have heard a depressing and unwarranted decision from the Foreign Secretary on UNESCO. We note that it is, allegedly, a decision in principle, but nonetheless it will not be welcomed anywhere in the Commonwealth. There is outstanding opposition to our withdrawal. We appreciate that the decision was taken by the Foreign Secretary and the Prime Minister and that the Minister for Overseas Development might have been overruled. But no Third world country is considering withdrawal from UNESCO.
  The Commonwealth, the United Kingdom and the West have a total of 22 out of 51 seats on the UNESCO executive board. If the Foreign Secretary would pay attention for a moment to the argument he might be able to respond. Does he believe that reforms can be achieved better by staying in — as the senior Commonwealth country — and working for reforms rather than complaining from without that reforms have not been achieved? We agree that certain internal reforms are needed in UNESCO. By and large, those reforms are in progress, but how can the Government supervise reforms when they are planning to withdraw from membership?
  Viscount Cranborne: What evidence does the hon. Gentleman have to show that reforms are

  437
  under way with regard to the undermanning of head office, putting more agents in the field and the extraordinary way in which people are hired on a supplementary basis?
  Mr. Holland: We are familiar with the criticisms. Many of them are warranted. I have not only the Foreign Secretary's assurance that he believes the reforms are in progress I have consulted several of the authorities involved and several of those who are responsible on the UNESCO executive board about the progress. Today I spoke to several of the high commissioners in London on this matter. They saw the Foreign Secretary yesterday, and they deplored the fact that Britain might withdraw. He did not tell them what would be in his statement today, only that he would take their argument into account, which he has not.
  Viscount Cranborne: What evidence?
  Mr. Holland: There was no evidence in the Foreign Secretary's statement that the overwhelming arguments put forward by the high commissioners have been taken into account.
  Sir Anthony Kershaw:rose—
  Mr. Holland: I have accepted many interventions; I had hoped to take less than 30 minutes but I shall have to take more time.
  What other agencies are there in the pipeline? What other agencies are targeted by the Government? What about UNCTAD? We know that the Government have reservations about UNCTAD. They claim that it is inappropriate for it to be involved with issues such as the international debt crisis. We do not share that criticism. Debt is a matter both of finance and of the structure of trade and payments.
  Development aid—allocated by individual countries, or multilaterally—has little or no hope of success if the IMF follows a policy of cut, cut and cut again towards less developed countries. The IMF, with its monetarist tunnel vision and its cut packages for so many countries, has now contributed substantially to the global slump in trade between developed and less developed countries. We need powerful, wide-ranging agencies such as UNCTAD to analyse the development implications of debt crisis and act as a counterweight to the fund's policies.
  It would be interesting if we could have a reply from the Minister as to what will happen about UNRWA, because it appears that there could be cuts in the UNRWA programme. What will its programme be next year? What will the expenditure be next year? Will it be dollar-denominated? If not, the cut in real terms will be appalling. It is crucial for the Arab countries that it should be in dollar terms, and also for Africa and the Sudan, to whose refugee problems other hon. Members have referred.
  In the last year of the Labour Government we gave $10 million to UNRWA. It appears that next year the Government will give only $6 million. Those figures are current rather than constant prices. In the overall context of the aid programme, that is parsimonious. It is a pathetic response to the short-term food aid needs and the longterm development needs. The Government's response also is contradicted by everything they have done — and failed to do—in a series of international initiatives.
  438
  The Foreign Secretary said that he was seriously interested in co-operating with the Commonwealth. Why was that co-operation not forthcoming at the New Delhi summit, where the Prime Minister was the only Head of Government to block the recovery proposals made by the Commonwealth? She was the only Head of Government to block proposals for reform of the international monetary system. The Government's record is an indictment of their claim to care for the least developed countries and the poorest people in them. We know that while drought and death are stalking the Third world the Government are looking for some way to cover the nakedness of a cut of nearly 20 per cent. in real aid in the past six years. Talk of avoiding further cuts is eyewash against the background of such a lamentable record and such an outstanding response to the food aid appeals from the British public.
  The Government should spill some of the cornucopia of the Falklands in the direction of the drought areas of Africa and Asia. At £1 million per family in the Falklands surely the Government can spare a few more pence for the starving of the Sahel.
  Instead of minor reactions, the Government should take a major initiative, not just to stave off the cuts but to reverse them. If they cannot commit themselves to 0·7 per cent. as an aid target, whey can they not commit themselves to increasing the aid target to over 0·35 per cent? Instead of snubbing the Commonwealth high commissioners, the Government should be working with them to realise the longer-term development potentials of the New Delhi summit.
  Hon. Members will be aware that the Prime Minister came to office quoting St. Francis of Assisi. She has often been quoted in turn since then. I know that some Conservative Members believe more in the parable in which Christ said:
  "Take up thy bed and walk."
  The starving of Eritrea, Tigré and Wollo and other areas in the Horn are already walking. In Mauretania, Chad, Mozambique and Mali others in their thousands and tens of thousands are following. Can the British Government be so far behind—responding with so little, so late? If so, they should on no account expect the support of Members from either side of the House in the Lobby tonight.
  5.39 pm
  Mr. Edward Heath: It is gratifying to find the interest which has been displayed in the debate and the large number of hon. Members who are listening and wishing to take part. Remembering the sparsely covered Benches during the first debate on the Brandt report in the spring of 1980, one is perhaps justified in feeling that four and a half years' work is at last beginning to bear fruit.
  At first sight, the debate appears to be about the future welfare of the billions of people in the developing countries. That is right. Many of us believe that we have a moral obligation to help those who are less fortunate than ourselves. However, from the Foreign Secretary's speech it has also become apparent that it is about our widespread national interests in regard to the developing countries and the resources that we make available to help them in their development. It involves information being given about Britain through our overseas services and the British

  439
  Council. It is about influencing people and persuading them that our way of life and our culture are worth while so that they will want to be associated with them.
  Britain is now fighting a desperate battle in Europe, in North America and in the world generally to maintain an economic position— not to gain an economic position but just to maintain one. Today the growth area is in the Pacific basin. That is where employment and confidence are to be found. In September a Foreign Minister said to me, "Why don't the British realise that they are losing out everywhere?" That is what the debate is really about.
  The Foreign Secretary rested his case firmly on the fact that the amount to be spent overall on the Foreign Office is the same as was foreseen in the White Paper. He deserves our congratulations on that, because we know the pressures that he has been under to accept a cut in that basic overall figure. But if the basis of that calculation proves to be wrong in any way, and if currency movements prove to be more damaging than is imagined at present, we want to know that he will ensure that in real terms the sum remains the same. If the Foreign Secretary can give that simple assurance it will remove many doubts from the minds of hon. Members on both sides of the House. That is what we want to hear him say.
  The Foreign Secretary said that expenditure on overseas aid has, of course, to be related to overall expenditure and the future of the economy. That is true, but I hoped that he would say that he had found his successor in the Treasury far more flexible than he was himself, and that as Foreign Secretary he had been able to achieve what he wanted to do as Foreign Secretary and not as a former Chancellor of the Exchequer. It is a matter of proportion, and it is that aspect that worries me in considering the approach of the Foreign Secretary and his colleagues.
  If I may coin a dreadful word, akin to "privatisation", what worries me is the automaticity of the Government's approach. They insist that inflation must be at 3 per cent., that it must be kept at an even figure, and that we must not expect anything more in the way of expenditure. But it is in the national interest that we should extend our influence in the world. and that does not require automaticity. In the present critical situation it is necessary to spend more on overseas aid. and I hope to show why.
  I do not wish to go into detail concerning the development of overseas countries, because my views are well known and are set out clearly in the first and second Brandt reports. But the disaster in Ethiopia has brought home vividly to the people of Britain, of Europe and of North America, through television, radio and press, what is happening in developing countries.
  Whenever there is a crisis—a drought, a flood or a volcanic eruption—the British people respond and the British Government respond. That has happened in regard to Ethiopia. But in the past we have never said on the occasion of a disaster, that our contribution to aid must come out of our normal contributions for ordinary purposes. I hope that such a view will never be accepted by my colleagues on the Government Front Bench. If there is a disaster, additional money must be made available. We must have a proper perspective. I am asking for an assurance that there will not be a change of policy, because it has been said that if we contribute aid when there is a disaster such as that in Ethiopia it has to come out of normal expenditure.
  Mr. Raison: Surely the important point is that we have a contingency fund in our aid budget, and that contingency fund is available to meet emergencies and disasters. If we did not have a contingency fund for that purpose, it would be a very bad way to construct a budget.
  Mr. Heath: I am glad to have that assurance and to know that anything we do to Ethiopia will come out of the contingency fund, and that our normal programmes will not be affected. It will take a long time to deal with the crisis in Ethiopia. There will have to be a sustained effort of at least a year until the next harvest. It will probably take 18 months to deal properly with the crisis.
  How are we to help the development of agriculture in the developing countries? There is a lack of confidence between much of the developing world and the developed countries. The developing countries believe that we want to keep them in a primitive state of agriculture, instead of helping them to achieve industrial development. It is in that area that confidence has to be re-established.
  We should be giving the developing countries practical help in elementary ways. They need better seeds and better stock. From our funds we should pay for the fairly simple instruments that they need. We can also help in teaching them. They do not require a great central organisation such as there was with the lamented groundnuts scheme. Individual farmers with small plots need to be taught how to achieve greater production. They can then pass the knowledge on to their neighbours. That is infinitely more valuable than setting up a huge central control organisation and telling it to get on with the job.
  Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman made the very important point that the solution of the problem in Ethiopia will require a sustained effort, extending well over a year. It is said that the immediate crisis will not be over until at least a year from now, when the next harvest is in. Therefore, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that it is odd that the Government, who claim to take a longterm view of the problem, are prepared to permit the aircraft to assist Ethiopia only until just after Christmas? Would it not have been better if the Government had said that the aircraft could stay in. Ethiopia for a year, or for as long as they were needed?
  Mr. Heath: I am delighted that—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I remind the House that intervention are made only at the expense of other hon. Members' time.
  Mr. Heath: I am delighted that the Government responded in the way that they did and that they have guaranteed the help until after Christmas. I hope that when they see that the emergency still exists they will extend the effort that is being made with the aircraft. I am sure that the Government will do that.
  I should like to see an extension of the development programme in the interests of Britain and of our trade. That aspect is sometimes overlooked. The entire Foreign Office Vote is 0·6 per cent. of total public expenditure. That expenditure has to cover the whole of our diplomacy overseas and the protection of this country's interests as well as those of its citizens. When the whole of the development budget is added, it is still only 1·5 per cent. of total expenditure.
  I realise that expenditure has to be kept under control. The Chancellor of the Exchequer, in his announcement,

  441
  said that this year his public expenditure borrowing requirement will be £1·5 billion more than he anticipated. Yet, in matters affecting major national interests, the Government are seeking to save £1 million here or £750,000 there. Our expenditure on those important matters is entirely out of proportion. I want to help the Foreign Secretary as much as possible, but these things are very dear to my heart.
  It is well known in this House that I do a good deal of travelling. Wherever I am, I listen to the overseas services of the BBC. In doing so, I am aware of the intense competition from European countries, our neighbours in the Community, and of the outpourings of the United States in every part of the world, to say nothing of the broadcasts from the Eastern bloc countries every hour of the day. It is disappointing to see how little the BBC is able to do, especially when one finds how desperate people are everywhere to hear the BBC. They want to hear the British view. It is one of our greatest assets, yet we are told that it is necessary to spend £1 million a year less on the BBC. That policy is not serving the national interest.
  In Khartoum the British Council has a magnificent library. Every hour of the day it is packed with people who are trying to read about Britain, British literature and British culture. They are eager to read British newspapers. The British Council should be enabled to do more. Criticisms about people being asked to play a guitar in another part of the world are out of date. The work of the British Council is of immense value for our national interests. It helps to spread our influence and to win trade for Britain in the desperate battle that we are fighting. I had hoped that the Foreign Secretary would say, "I have now been able to convince my colleagues that in the national interest we must give more to the BBC overseas service and to the British Council."
  The Government have taken a lamentable and illogical decision on UNESCO. Increased influence in diplomacy is never achieved by opting out. One example is that of the United States and the International Labour Organisation. President Ford, a Republican President, gave notice that he would withdraw from the ILO. The ILO was not affected. It took no notice even of the United States once it said that it would withdraw. President Carter withdrew from the ILO in 1977. Two and a half years later, President Reagan went back to the ILO. The Americans realised that they had lost all influence in the organisation. They realised that the only way in which they could deal with industrial relations affecting any part of the world was by going back to the ILO. They followed the simple advice that was given by Mr. Attlee and which has been recounted in the House before. He attended a Labour party meeting and he was told by others, "We are organising a walkout and you will lead us." He refused to do so and he was asked why. He replied, "If you walk out, you have always got to go back." That is true. It happened with the United States and the ILO.
  Why do we not use the Community and the Commonwealth to achieve the objectives that we want in UNESCO? No one would say that there is nothing wrong with UNESCO; it is clear that some things are wrong. Some developing countries want to have press control and they are wrong, but we must understand why they adopt that approach. They do so because they believe that they are not getting fair treatment in the Western press. An
  442
  impartial observer will probably accept that there is a good deal to be said for that view. The way to deal with the problem is not to have censorship of the press, and it is up to us to show them why that is so. It is illogical to say that by withdrawing from UNESCO we shall be able to make greater progress with the reforms that we want to see take place within the organisation. We shall not do so by that means.
  Let us get the Community and the Commonwealth together and reach an agreement on what we require. If we do that, no one will be able to resist us. After all, the Commonwealth contains 43 developing countries. Those countries know what the position is and they feel strongly for the Commonwealth. That is the right form of diplomatic activity. I lament the decision that has been taken on UNESCO, which I consider to be wrong. It will achieve nothing and I hope that the Government will change it. It will certainly fail to extend our national influence. Indeed, we shall lose influence if we opt out of a major organisation that has done great things.
  When John Foster Dulles reneged on the Aswan dam and Anthony Eden was forced to follow suit, the Egyptians went to Moscow and the Russians went into Egypt and went on to occupy a large part of the middle east. Only when we said that we would support UNESCO to an extraordinary degree over moving Abu-Simbel, one of the great treasures of the middle east, above the Aswan dam, and ensure its presence for eternity for all to see did we begin to regain some of our prestige in Egypt and the middle east generally. That was a tremendous job.
  UNESCO has done an excellent job in China in Sian with the four armies, especially with the one which is on view and protected. It has also been carrying out investigations in the Ming tombs. This is invaluable work and it should not be spoilt because of our concern about some of the central expenditure and with some of the actions which some developing countries want to take. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary not to go ahead with the UNESCO decision. Let us use our influence with the Commonwealth and the Community.
  It is clear that we are debating British influence throughout the world. That is paramount and I know that my right hon. and learned Friend has it at heart. I hope that he will benefit from the debate in the decisions that he makes. I hope also that he will be able to give us some of the assurances that my right hon. and hon. Friends want.
  5.55 pm
  Mr. Roy Jenkins: It is not for the first time that I find myself in substantial agreement with the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). I note that the Foreign Secretary is leaving the Chamber. Surely this is a debate that should command his presence for most of its duration. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is probably the most resonant speaker in the House—he is generally lucid and anxious to put his arguments clearly before the House — but I have never heard him less resonant than he was this afternoon. He gave the impression that he wished to move as quickly as he could from one topic to another without allowing too much time for the House to take hold of what he was saying.
  Things are not very good but I suppose that they might be worse. The right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup placed emphasis on the Foreign Secretary having

  443
  made much of the fact that the combined Foreign Office budget will not be less than the figure which was originally contemplated in February. But where is sterling in relation to its level during February? How much of a cut does the weakening of sterling involve in our ability to perform tasks overseas, whether in providing aid or diplomacy? The Government do not deserve congratulations on making no cut in money terms in the aid budget. It is disgraceful that such a cut was ever contemplated seriously, and there is no doubt that it was.
  There is a growing food shortage, an increasing population, an overhanging burden of debt and the real possibility of a financial collapse if we are not careful. To contemplate a cut in the aid budget against that background, when it is 0·35 per cent. of national income and lower in real terms than it was 15 years ago when the target was laid down — there is no question of any advance and there has been a retreat over the past 15 years — is in itself disgraceful. Why is it that the Government, having seriously contemplated a disastrous cut in aid, should now draw back?
  Some credit for the Government's decision lies with the timeliness of the motion. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Johnston) on having used the first day of Liberal Supply time for the debate. I do not wish to be divisive among the pro-aid forces, but the first day of Liberal Supply time has been used with a good deal more relevance than the vast number of Labour Supply days are mostly used. Some of the threatening noises that have come from Conservative Members on overseas aid have helped substantially.
  The Ethiopian famine has been vividly portrayed on television screens over the past few weeks. There was a dispute this afternoon between the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) and my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber about whether enough had been done earlier by the Government and the European Community. Not enough was done, but something in advance was certainly done. But that is not the precise point of the impact of the Ethiopian famine upon our affairs. That which has happened in Ethiopia is only an eruption, even though it is a horrible and harrowing one.
  The underlying issue is the advance of the desert and the retreat of agriculture across six or seven countries in northern Africa and sub-Saharan Africa, with the same thing happening in southern Africa. That is a long-term development which, when accompanied by a high rate of growth in the population, spells an almost certain increase in starvation in the medium term. That spells the Ethiopian crisis 10 or more times over. Medium-term water is as necessary as short-term grain in these circumstances. For the Government seriously to have contemplated a cut in aid is a consideration of extraordinary irrelevance.
  Had the Ethiopian famine not occurred and had it not suddenly attracted the attention of the world, including millions in their sitting rooms in Britain, I believe that we would have had from the Government an announcement of a cut in overseas aid. That is the underlying shame. I do not believe that any member of the Government could deny with conviction the underlying truth that it took the Ethiopian famine to prevent overseas aid from coming under the Chancellor's insensitive chopper.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, I am not unsympathetic to
  444
  that view, but is he not being somewhat unfair to the Foreign Secretary? Could one not equally conclude that in certain respects the parliamentary system actually works and that the expressions of opinion in all parts of the House have evoked a positive and welcome response from the Government?
  The right hon. Gentleman has rightly set the issue in the much wider context of the problems of Africa. That must surely mean, however, that the problems cannot be solved by any one country but only by co-operative international effort. Does he agree, therefore, that this should be one of the most important questions on the agenda for the forthcoming EEC summit?
  Mr. Jenkins: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman on both points. I said that the Government had resiled from their disgraceful intention to cut aid, first, because of the mobilisation of parliamentary opinion and, secondly, because of the shock effect of the Ethiopian famine on public opinion. Those two factors together were necessary to make the Government withdraw from a position that they should never have contemplated taking up.
  I agree entirely that we cannot do everything on our own, but if we are to give a lead to a co-operative effort in Europe we must rapidly move from having one of the lower percentages to having one of the higher percentages of aid provided by Community countries.
  Cuts in real terms in any other aspect of the Foreign Office budget are equally regrettable. One of the favourite thoughts of Lord Stockton—rightly in fashion at this time — over many years was the perhaps somewhat romantic view that, although the Americans may be the Romans of the modern world, we can be the Greeks. The Americans may have the power, but we can have the influence, the wisdom, and the rayonnement, as the French, who pay great attention to these matters, would describe it. But if we are to achieve that, we cannot rely on the refulgence of the Foreign Secretary's personality unsupported by the BBC external services, the British Council and, indeed, the sometimes maligned Foreign Office itself and our diplomatic representation abroad.
  The Foreign Office is the only one of the three beat traditional Departments of State of which I have never been the ministerial head, but I have had quite a lot of dealings with it — sometimes in a semi-adversarial capacity when I have been attempting to represent a wider interest than the British interest. In the great majority of cases, I have been impressed by the quality of the Foreign Office. If I have any doubt, it is not that the Foreign Office is weak, ineffective or unsupportive of British interests, but that within the public service as a whole rather too much talent is concentrated there at the expense of some of the other Departments. Equally, I have no doubt that the British system of government works better when morale at the Foreign Office is high than when it is thought that everything has to be decided at No. 10, which produces a very unsatisfactory balance of power.
  At a time when British influence in the world is not great, I do not favour selling off or getting rid of every good bit of real estate that we have in the capitals of the world. It is a great mistake to think that retreating into a villa, as we have done in Copenhagen, increases British influence. In general, I do not believe that there is extravagance in our diplomatic representation abroad. It is vital to keep a sense of proportion when considering these matters. On fortress Falklands we spend between

  445
  £500 million and £1 billion per year. On our defence budget, of which on the whole I am in favour, we spend £17 billion per year. Over a period of five years or so we propose to spend £10 billion, perhaps even £11 billion or £12 billion, on Trident. I hope that the primary purpose of that defence expenditure is not to blow up the world but to increase our influence in world affairs. To spend such vast sums and then to niggle about a few million pounds to make Britain's voice heard in the world shows a total lack of proportion. The trouble is that the Government, the Prime Minister and especially the Chancellor have little sense of history, proportion or compassion, and the absence of all three qualities in confluence is a devastating weakness.
  6.6 pm
  Mr. Edward du Cann: My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) caught the mood of the House exactly when he said that this debate was about British interests, and those interests and the desperate needs of the developing countries are certainly linked. The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins), too, was right when he said in effect that in prosecuting those interests through the satisfaction of the needs of the developing countries there must be no faltering and no parsimony. I agree entirely with that.
  I wish to speak about aid in a practical sense. First, I declare an interest. Since 1972, I have been a director and am now deputy chairman of a British trading company which employs many thousands of people in the developing countries, especially in Africa. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) was right to stress the urgency of the need for action to help people in that enormous continent. Those whom we employ work in manufacturing, agriculture, mining, and so on. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, few people in the past have been alive to the needs of the Third world, and we are glad that more are now taking an interest. I am therefore proud to have been associated for several years with a dedicated and competent team doing what it can in a practical way to help, to produce food, and to create employment and wealth, often in partnership with Governments. The company with which I am associated has put more acres under the plough than any other company in Africa, and I am proud indeed to be associated with that work.
  On aid in general, not so many years ago Mr. Disraeli defined the purpose of political endeavour in our own country as
  "the upholding of the constitution and the elevation of the condition of the people."
  We can all agree that there is much yet to accomplish in our own nation. In the first respect, we did a good deal in the defence of democracy in the last Parliament by improving the machinery for the surveillance of the Executive. On the second aspect, the elimination of social, economic and political injustice, wherever it exists in the world, is an equally important objective. Famine, poverty, disease and hopelessness, I swear, are none of them inevitable anywhere in the world. All can be overcome if we have the will, the wit and the imagination to do what is needed. I hope that I have said enough to make it clear that I speak of what I know.
  446
  I am not alone on these Benches in welcoming the Government's commitment to aid on the substantial scale outlined in the Queen's Speech, and in welcoming the growth in money aid — over £1 billion to over 130 countries. I rejoice in the devotion of so many who are engaged in its administration. I am glad that our country, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development pointed out, took the lead in bringing aid to Ethiopia.
  In the 28 years that I have represented Taunton, I have never before received so many letters on a humanitarian subject as I have lately received on overseas aid. A few of the letters are couched in roughly identical terms. No doubt they come from members of pressure groups. But most of them are from individual citizens appalled by the suffering that they have seen on television or read about and genuinely want to help.
  It is easy, analysing that correspondence, to list a whole series of measures that the Government might pursue or persuade other Governments or international agencies to adopt. For instance, more liberal trade policies are suggested. The United Kingdom has set a good example in that area. Some letters suggest giving the greatest help to the poorest nations. That is the direction of our policy. Other writers suggest longer-term credits and lower interest rates. That is something else that we are working towards. Some people suggest that there should be a greater voice for poorer countries in world forums. I agree.
  Many of the letters end with a plea for greater expenditure of British taxpayers' money. Some people think that money is the cure for every ill throughout the world. I do not agree. Some argue that it cannot be right to give aid to countries where the rulers are corrupt, as too many are, or incompetent, as unfortunately many more are, or antagonistic to the interests of this country. I believe that it is right to give the maximum aid to those countries which are bravely attempting to put their economic houses in order—Ghana is a splendid example —but I do not share that general view. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that there is no moral dilemma. There is only a moral imperative. We do too little for our fellow men, and it is our duty to do all that we can. I hope that we will say clearly to my right hon. and hon. Friends in the Government during the debate that we are doing less than we might, and that we must do more.
  According to a letter in The Times on 5 November:
  "a larger proportion of Western aid should be devoted to helping food production in poor countries".
  However, it is not aid alone that will make the difference. If one examines, for example, any recent disaster in central Africa, one finds that the reasons are usually the same. The climate is perhaps to blame for a large proportion of the disaster. But equally important, more often than not, are two man-made factors. First, the politicisation of the Civil Service of many Third world Governments has made them no longer competent to provide essential services for their people. Second, there is the destruction of the will to cultivate on more than subsistance level, caused by the reorganisation of agriculture on political lines. In too many countries in Africa that reorganisation has, in effect, been a criminal act.
  The peasant farmer—or, indeed, any farmer—will not produce food unless it is worth his while and unless he is encouraged to take pride in his land. No amount of

  447
  aid can alter those realities. If the United Kingdom and the free world were to ostracise those with whom we disagree politically, or send them to an economic Coventry, that would be folly indeed. Attitudes will not change unless we use our influence and help people to put their houses in good economic order.
  The Indian example is most encouraging. Two decades ago universal opinion was that India would always require food aid. India's greatest achievement since independence is that she is now self-sufficient in basic foods.
  Cash aid is not enough. Success — consistent improvement in a desperate scene — will come only from persistent and painstaking effort in a variety of fields. However, cash aid—finance in all its forms—is crucial, and it would have been wicked if Britain's cash contribution to mankind's problems had been reduced in any degree.
  statistically, aid comparisons are notoriously difficult Flows are made of many elements and can be defined in various ways. My own view of the figure which are often quoted and have been quoted today—not least by the hon. Member for Vauxhall — is different from conventional. The Government have always encourage British industry and entrepreneurs to invest abroad. That is what the amendment states, and my right hon. and learned Friend made it clear that it is Government policy. If one counts official aid and private flows together, they now amount to 1·25 per cent. of the gross national product, which is well ahead of the accepted United Nations target of 0·7 per cent.
  We should remember how effective private flows can be. could give a long category of examples of private sector work from my own experience but I shall give only four. The Sudan is one third the size of the United States and twice the size of the enlarged EEC. In 1971 my colleagues initiated t-he world's largest sugar project there. Mozambique lost most of its maize crop this year. We flew 14 sorties carrying 500 tonnes of seed maize. That action may have rescued many thousands of people from future starvation. In Ethiopia we are having discussions about bringing into cultivation many tens of thousands of hectares of land which at the moment produce no food. Perhaps the best example of co-operation between our friends in the developing world and the expertise that is so readily available in the developed countries can be found in Zambia, where high technology expertise has been brought to bear on agricultural production. The secret, of course, is water. Utilising overhead irrigation systems sourced from boreholes, we are now producing very large quantities of produce from previously infertile land—10 million eggs and 1 million litres of milk per year. We also farm over 8,000 pigs, there is a significant dairy herd, and we produce 2 million kilos of vegetables every year.
  That is what one British company has done. Much more could be done, and much more should be done by private industry.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup rightly said, there is great good will towards us in Africa and in every part of the developing world. We enjoy the warmest respect, and it is essential that we should capitalise on that respect not only in our own selfish interest, because there is so much that we can offer and teach, but because so many countries are in a desperate state and it is our Christian duty to assist them out of it. The quickest and most effective way to help is not only to bring pressure on the Government to increase the size of
  448
  the taxpayers' subvention, but to make greater use of the private sector. I believe that to do so will not only help the United Kingdom economically in terms of direct exports, influence and in a hundred other ways, but, most important of all, enable us to keep faith with those who trust us.
  6.19 pm
  Dame Judith Hart: It is a pleasure for me to follow the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. duCann). I welcome his participation in this debate. I also very much welcomed, as always, the speech of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), who has been making speeches on these matters for a very long time. The right hon. Gentleman was very polite about his Front Bench colleagues. I shall be less polite. As an Opposition Member, it may be my privilege to spare no blushes on the Conservative Benches.
  I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is not present to hear me say that his speech was one of the most disgraceful speeches that I have heard in the House for a long time. As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said, the debate is about Britain's interests and how far we care for the world in which we live and those who inhabit it. I find it inconceivable that a Foreign Secretary can tell, us that he has had to give way to the Prime Minister and the Chancellor and impose cuts.
  The BBC's external services have already been pared to the bone. The British Council has suffered grievous cuts. Heaven knows what else the Government can find to cut. Perhaps it is all right to close 12 small consulates., but is that really the way in which to approach the major issue of Britain's having a voice in 1984? It is ludicrous that a monetarist policy, which is so dear to the heart of the Prime Minister and her favourite colleagues, should extend to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the British Council, the BBC", information services and overseas aid when the issues at stake are fundamental to Britain's role in the world.
  Of course the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary can say, "Stop the world, we want to get off," but it is despicable for them then to announce the United Kingdom's withdrawal from UNESCO. Of course there are criticisms of UNESCO, but they have tended to be exaggerated. I heard West Germany's permanent representative at UNESCO speak on the subject last week. He had criticisms of UNESCO, as do other EC countries, but he observed that only 13 per cent, of UNESCO's programmes are controversial.
  I should like to underline what the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup said about UNESCO's excellent work. I have had my tussles with it. In 1978, when the new information order was first proposed, I spent a whole week in Paris negotiating and drafting in an attempt to postpone what looked likely to be a pretty hard UNESCO declaration limiting press freedom. We did not solve the problem, but at least we averted the worst.
  UNESCO does some excellent work and it is not possible to reform from outside. Just as the United States no longer has the slightest influence in UNESCO, so we, henceforth, will cease to have any influence there. We will no longer be able, with our Commonwealth and EC colleagues, to promote the type of reforms on which we are set. The Government's decision is utter folly and it is disgraceful because we were one of the founder members of UNESCO. It was registered here in London. I maintain that UNESCO is one of the three major international

  449
  organisations — the others being the World Health Organisation and the Food and Agriculture Organisation. If we begin by leaving one, where do we end?
  There is a principle attached to participation in United Nations agencies. There is a principle attached to international commitment. But, by today's disgraceful announcement, we have destroyed that commitment with the concept of internationalism. I deplore that. I am sure that a few Conservative Members would like to indulge in similar vituperation, but their ways are more polite.
  As we know, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) said, the aid programme has suffered since the Government came to power in 1979. There has been a cut in real terms of up to 20 per cent. There are two estimates—one of 17 per cent, and the other of 20 per cent. When the Labour Government left office in 1979 we had achieved expenditure of 0·53 per cent, of gross national product on overseas aid — the United Nations target is 0·7 per cent. We were committed in the next four years, as our White Paper on public expenditure showed, to the highest increase in any public expenditure programme on overseas aid. We were committed to a 6 per cent, per year increase.
  Under that programme we should have reached the 0·7 per cent, target this year. Instead of that, we are back to half of the target. Perhaps the Minister for Overseas Development could give us a rather more meticulous elucidation of that, as we were clouded in confusion by what the Foreign Secretary said. Our impression is that, taking inflation into account, there has been a cut in real terms of the cash figure. We should like to have the matter spelt out precisely so that the constituents of the right hon. Member for Taunton, who have been writing to him in their hundreds, may be under no false impression as to what has been announced today.
  Mr. Spearing: Perhaps it would be convenient for me to give an answer to my right hon. Friend's question and that asked by the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). In Cmnd. 9367, in reply to the Select Committee report on Estimates, the Government made it clear that if cuts were not to be made in the existing programme by virtue of differential inflation or exchange rate movements, and if Ministers refused to make such cuts, there would be additional Supplementary Estimates in the spring. The Foreign Secretary did not make that clear, but it is clear from the White Paper. The choice as to whether the Supplementary Estimate is submitted or whether cuts are made rests with Ministers.
  Dame Judith Hart: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I do not see any sign of the Minister leaping to his feet to reply. No doubt he will couple his answer to me with one to my hon. Friend later.
  Another little matter has been undone by the Government. When I left the Ministry of Overseas Development in 1979, the disaster unit, which we had set up to respond quickly to emergencies such as Ethiopia, had 59 vehicles such as trucks, Land Rovers and Land Rover ambulances. That stock meant that there was no delay in getting equipment on to a Hercules or a ship. I recently asked a couple of questions on the subject and discovered that the stock is now down to two vehicles. That is yet another tiny reduction in capacity.
  450
  The Government have also reduced the status of the Ministry of Overseas Development. The Minister will correct me if I am wrong, but I am pretty sure that he did not have the opportunity to attend Cabinet discussions about whether there should be a cut in the aid programme. The Government have also destroyed the development education programme and reduced the proportion of the aid programme that goes on rural development.
  The Government's record has been disastrous. I hope that public anxiety will continue and be translated — there are signs that it will—into action whereby Britain and other industrialised countries provide the basis for development to prevent famine such as we have witnessed in Ethiopia this year and will continue to witness in other parts of Africa and possibly Asia within the next couple of years.
  The special committee of the United Nations development programme, on which Bob McNamara and Sunny Ramphal, among others, served, has just reported. I listened to the result of that report on last night's BBC world service, although if these cuts go ahead I shall no longer be able to do so. It says that to promote the kind of development necessary to prevent famines in Africa and Ethiopia, about $18 billion should be ploughed into development there during the next two years.
  That sounds formidable, if not impossible, but it is not. We are effectively talking about £6 billion a year, which should be compared with planned expenditure on Trident and defence generally. If that sum were divided among the major industrialised nations, it would not amount to much. It is certainly within the capacity of the developed world to raise such a sum.
  About three nights ago, also on the BBC world service, I listened to an Indian talking about the politics of India. He came from a very poor rural area. Although I agree that much has been done in India, and that India has now reached more than self-sufficiency in food production, that has largely been achieved in areas with the capacity to undertake tropical agriculture. Such areas as the Punjab, and Tamil Nadu do not suffer from the drought which afflicts other areas. The dry areas still suffer from poverty, and that Indian politician said quite frankly, "If it rains, you eat." The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. duCann) is right to suggest that the key is water, but the key to water is either small-scale tube wells or the larger-scale projects, both of which cost money.
  The right hon. Gentleman referred to Zambia, where his own company has been able to increase food production but, as I am sure he will agree, such production tends to concentrate on cash crops and does not touch the 70 to 80 per cent, of poor peasants who suffer famine because there is no rainfall or water. The infrastructure of water supplies and irrigation is needed for them. That costs money and, unfortunately, there is no profit in it for private companies. That can arise only through someone's public expenditure.
  If the developing countries fall into debt because the price they receive for their primary commodities has declined and they cannot meet the cost of imported fuel following the successive increases in oil prices, they will not have the expenditure to invest in these necessary irrigation projects. Therefore, it is obvious that the money must come from somewhere else.
  This is where aid programmes, be they multilateral or bilateral, come into the picture and matter so much. If we are to begin to see any hope of ending the starvation,

  451
  malnutrition and high death rates among the millions who try to scrape a living from the land in the poorest countries, there must be an understanding and realisation that the rich countries — in their terms we are wealthy beyond belief—must be responsible enough to accept that what we do will make all the difference.
  I deplore what thr Foreign Secretary said. We ought to have the same commitment that we had from the Government in which I was privileged to serve. There should be a commitment to reach the 0·7 per cent, target within three or four years. Steady increases in overseas aid should follow. There should also be a commitment to participation in the international community in which we live. We should hear no more nonsenses about cuts in the BBC and the British Council or the international institutions of which we should be proud and privileged to be members.
  6.35 pm
  Sir Anthony Kershaw: One fully understands that the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) should think that the sun set when she left Overseas Development, but she should not exaggerate. A certain amount of work, albeit under great difficulty, has been carried out since her departure.
  It is tempting to say that the United Kingdom does not give enough overseas aid. In a way there could never be enough, though it must be properly applied. It is, however, nonsense to suggest that the United Kingdom is doing so much less than others. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said, we are among the top seven or eight aid donors. In real terms our official expenditure is a steady percentage of GNP. That remains the projection to ensure that in the immediate future our spending is not less than that of the immediate past.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. DuCann) made a valid point. One is entitled to add to official aid the private enterprise aid from this country, unlike many others, to developing countries. Together, those two types of aid far exceed the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent.
  Because of the training which it automatically gives to local people, not to mention the employment that it provides, private enterprise aid can in some way be even superior to official aid. It should not be despised.
  In considering this matter we should divide the short term and the long term. In effect, the short term means Ethiopia. I understand that over the last two years the United Kingdom has made special payments to Ethiopia totalling £13 million. To that we have now added £6·5 million, and we have joined the EEC in spending £16 million in that country. We have promises from the EEC and the United States of £35 million each, which means that at present there is plenty of money for the next ensuing months. We have plenty of money now, we have promises of money for the future, but lack the grain which people can eat. My information is that only 9,000 tonnes of grain is quickly available in Ethiopia because transportation has not been sufficiently energetically used. That may be the result of bureaucratic delays, particularly in Brussels. Aid to Ethiopia could be put on its feet if such delays were avoided, and we must now concentrate on supplying the food which people can eat.
  It is alleged that the ODA was not alert soon enough to the tragedy that is about to take place. I do not know whether that can be established. After all, the ODA has a
  452
  special disaster unit whose duties include giving warning of such things. I have no doubt that it did, and the amount of money we spent last year shows that some people were aware of what would happen.
  One can only operate in a country where the Government of that country are co-operative. They must let us know what they want as well as how it can be done. Unfortunately, until recently, Ethiopia, either through a certain shame, which one can understand—the civil war or other reasons—did not ask and did not co-operate. Therefore, the local agencies operating in such countries have been shooting at the wrong target by blaming the British and other Western Governments for getting aid to Ethiopia so late.
  I do not accept the moral blame for that disaster, which many people appear to think we should shoulder. We did not cause the drought, cut down the trees, overcrop the land or start the civil war. Why should we be blamed? The holier-than-thou attitude which many people seem to adopt is attributable more to a political sense than to a love of mankind.
  Nevertheless, I recognise, as will all hon. Members who have received letters from constituents about this, that there is genuine anguish among those who have the welfare of their fellow men at heart. Because the necessary and possible steps have been taken and are now funded, a reduction in aid would not in the short term have an adverse effect on staving off starvation in Ethiopia. If aid is sharply reduced at the end of 12 months, it may make a difference, but for the moment one can be confident that all practicable aid is being given. Therefore, I do not condemn the Government, and I shall support them tonight.
  We have paid a lot of attention to the development of the Sahel area in the long term. We have concentrated, correctly, on rural work and raising food. I disagree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that we should try to organise industrial expansion and activity in the poorest countries. They want to be able to grow their own food to eat, not in plantations, and they should not produce rubber or grow corn for export. We already provide aid for that sort of food growing as we should do increasingly, and we are aware of the problem.
  The effects of the no doubt necessary and to some extent desirable public economies in other parts of the Vote cause me anxiety. I must declare an interest as a vice-president of the British Council. It thought that it had an agreement with the Foreign Office about risen costs and domestic inflation. The sum involved tonight is about £3 million. The British Council needs £7 million to carry on work which it is already doing, and has been given £5·8 million.
  That is divided into £1·2 million risen costs caused by foreign inflation, and the remainder, a little less than £2 million, which is due to domestic rises in costs. That presents not a 1 per cent, but a 3 per cent, cut in the British Council's activities. Hon. Members may say that 3 per cent, is not much, but it is important to remember that there has been a percentage cut every year for the past five years. No private or public business can sustain a diminution of resources year after year without losing efficiency and morale. That is an important point, and it should be considered.
  I am gratified to know that capital expenditure on the BBC overseas services based in Hong Kong, the

  453
  Seychelles and the United Kingdom is going ahead. However, the long-term damage of changing programmes, which will be necessary, should not be underestimated. One cannot keep an audience if one chops and changes programmes. If one abandons 30 minutes of air time to a country, the Russians or the Chinese will leap in at once and take up that wavelength and half-hour. After years of trying we shall not be able to get it back, even after audibility has been increased. Radio programmes are extremely sensitive and cannot be changed year in, year out, because of the withdrawal or addition of a few hundred thousand pounds.
  As my right hon. and learned Friend said, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs advised that the diplomatic service should not be further cut without expecting a drop in efficiency. That is true. If it must be cut again, which I deplore, it is right to cut posts. I do not understand whether the Foreign Secretary proposes to cut only consular posts. I understand that that will not be possible and that some diplomatic posts will have to be cut. Furthermore, some of the those diplomatic posts are almost bound to be in the Commonwealth. Hon. Members should reflect what a bad impression would be caused if the United Kingdom withdrew a diplomatic post from a Commonwealth country.
  Expert and efficient work is necessary abroad. The diplomatic service is already cut to the bone. Our diplomats cannot work harder, and they could not work with such purpose with fewer staff. They could not cover the country or provide the service which is required.
  The Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are the easiest targets for cuts because the Government know exactly now many are employed and how much will be spent, except for risen costs. When one tries to attack social services, which have a monstrous expenditure, it is like cutting a blancmange. One does not know what is happening or whether genuine savings can be made. Because the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence are easy to knock about, they have been made targets. I deplore that. It should not continue.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Eric Deakins: I welcome the debate and congratulate Liberal Members on devoting a day to this important subject. I, like the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), welcome the many new faces in debates about aid. I congratulate hon. Members from all parties on turning up to debate this subject which, until now, has been an unpopular one in terms of parliamentary attendance.
  We have not yet had an assurance that the aid budget for 1985–86 will not be cut. I invite the Minister, when he replies, to say whether the total, which will be unchanged in cash terms, will represent a cut in real terms of between £40 million and £50 million. Will the Minister re-examine some of our aid project priorities? In the past we have, rightly, given large sums for projects in developing countries for cash crops. With the growing onset of famine in parts of Africa—we shall have to face many more famines in future—we should place greater emphasis on the selection of aid projects for growing food for local consumption, even if that is not always the priority of the Government of the country in question. We do have some choice in these matters.
  454
  Will the Minister tell the House whether he has considered, and, if so, has reached a decision on, support for the World Bank project for sub-Sahelan Africa for the future. It seems that Africa is one area where disasters will loom almost every year from now on. We must do something about it.
  I congratulate the Minister for Overseas Development on the speech, of which he must have approved, of his noble Friend Lord Glenarthur at the Mexico City conference on population during the second week of August. As he knows, I am joint honorary secretary of the parliamentary group on population and development, and I had the privilege to attend as a non-governmental organisation observer. It was an excellent speech. I hope that whatever else happens in the aid budget the Minister will continue to give increasing priority to a population component in development projects.
  For hon. Members who worry what all the fuss on population is about, I shall give some figures. The current world population is about 4·6 billion, of whom 1·2 billion are in rich countries and 3·4 billion in poor countries. On World Bank projections, which were mentioned at the Mexico City conference and in this year's world development report, by the year 2050, which is within the lifetimes of children alive today, the world's population will have increased to 9·8 billion, of whom 1·4 billion will live in rich countries and 8·4 billion will live in poorer countries. The proportion of the rich countries will have shrunk from 26 per cent, to about 13 or 14 per cent. That must be a sobering thought for those who consider the economic future of Britain and the other rich countries.
  A fact that is not widely appreciated by many aid agencies and voluntary organisations is that people consume resources and that the more people there are, the more resources they will need, including food. The current population of Africa is about 480 million. By the end of this century, which is only 16 years from now, its population will have increased to almost 800 million and it will increase by leaps and bounds well into the 21st century.
  In the Sahel, an area which worries us all—Ethiopia is only part of that area — the population of several countries is increasing by 3 per cent, a year, with little prospect of a reduction. I invite the House to consider some simple arithmetic. If a population grows at 1 per cent, a year, it will double within 70 years. If it grows at 3 per cent, a year, in the same period it will increase eightfold. That is the prospect for sub-Sahelan Africa and other parts of Africa, which at present are more fortunate in terms of food supplies.
  Aid alone is not enough. The debate, although primarily about aid, has been about other factors. The House should invite the Minister to say that the Government will sign the United Nations convention on the law of the sea by the closing date of 10 December. This debate is about sharing resources, and that convention will enable the resources of the deep sea, which at present belong to no one, to be shared equitably among rich and poor countries. That would be a vital step for the Government to take and would be a sign that their heart is in the right place.
  Poor countries must trade more if they are to improve their living standards and make the best use of their natural resources. A mood has grown in the House during the past few years—it has also grown in the United States and in other rich countries—which could be characterised as

  455
  protectionist. Many Conservative and Labour Members believe that we must protect our industries and jobs above all else. But Britain is a rich country and we should be able to restructure our industries, given time and financial assistance, so that they can meet the challenge that is being posed increasingly by the developing countries.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland), who is an expert in such matters, made several useful suggestions to the Government about the debt burdens of poor countries. I hope that the Government will follow those suggestions.
  More aid to and trade with developing countries will involve social and economic costs to the United Kingdom. I should be interested to hear whether the constituents of Conservative Members, who have written to them about the Ethiopian famine and the need to help poorer countries, recognise that in the long term we must make material sacrifices to help the poor and to narrow the widening gap between our living standards and those of the people in poor countries. I am not sure whether those who have written to the Members of Parliament on moral and Christian grounds—or whatever grounds are appropriate — appreciate the full implications of what they are asking the Government, the House and the nation to do. We have a duty to tell them that the growing gap cannot be narrowed without our making some sacrifices. That is a problem for politicians on both sides of the House. It is not a popular thesis, but it will become increasingly inevitable that if we give more in aid and do more about trade with the poor countries we shall have to examine our material resources to see how best they can be shared with the poor.
  The only way in which politicians can make life easier for themselves as we approach the 21st century, when the problems of famine will become much greater and will impinge much more on everything that we do in the House, is to give more resources to development education. I appeal to the Minister, who has so far maintained the development education budget to the Centre for World Development Education, of whose council I am a member, not to allow it to disappear in two or three years. I have worked for many voluntary organisations, but it is by far the most efficient Third world voluntary body in the country. It gives tremendous value for money, and I hope that the Minister will recognise the value, not only to development education but to politicians in general, of the tasks on which it is engaged.
  6.56 pm
  Sir Peter Blaker: Although my later remarks may be somewhat critical of the Government, I should say at the outset that their decision on UNESCO is correct. They have not, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) implied, opted out of UNESCO; they have given notice, thus keeping open the decision at the end of next year. I have seen something of UNESCO, and I believe that that is one of the few methods available to us to exert pressure during the next 12 months to change that organisation. I hope that it will be changed.
  The reply of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary to my intervention in his speech confused rather than illuminated, and I hope that my right hon. Friend who replies will clarify the position. The simple question was this: do the Government propose any measures to compensate the entire Foreign and
  456
  Commonwealth budget for risen costs outside the United Kingdom as a result of the reduction in the value of sterling or inflation in overseas countries?
  We should ask ourselves why Britain's influence in the world is so strong. Britain is not a super-power, nor is it as rich as Germany and France, but from many travels I believe that our influence is greater than that of those two countries, and in some parts of the world it matches that of the United States. We are in that position partly because of our record of empire and decolonisation, of both of which we should be proud. It has given us long experience of overseas affairs and resulting skills, and we have developed instruments to use those skills to good advantage. The instruments are those which we are discussing today: the diplomatic service, which has been criticised in recent years, but I do not know of a better one; the BBC external services; the British Council; the military assistance programme, which is an important part of the Foreign Office armoury; and the aid budget. They give us an influence out of all proportion to our real strength.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup that our influence in the world is important not only in helping to protect the interests of the free world as a whole but in protecting our national interests, which can be summed up as peace, trade and jobs. However, every few years for some time past—I am speaking not only of this Government but of previous Governments, because the Labour party did it, too—the Government of the day have taken steps to make more blunt the instruments for protecting our interests. I would describe it as a recurrence of "Operation Ha'porth of Tar". The savings about which we are talking are tiny. They are small change in the pocket of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, let alone my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence, as they are for any other Department. Wherever these cuts are made in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, they will have potentially devastating effect.
  Do Ministers realise how the Government are viewed by other countries? Our enemies are delighted when they see us blunt these instruments of foreign policy. Our friends are incredulous, but they are consoled by the fact that British weakness in trade helps them to compete in the markets that we share. They are incredulous simply because the sums involved are so small. I do not know for sure, because I have not been told, but the cuts probably represent about the cost of three Tornado aircraft. Is it sensible to damage so seriously our instruments of foreign policy for such a saving?
  The British Council's total receipts from the Goverment are about £79 million. The diplomatic service receives £374 million, but that includes many other activities aside from the diplomatic service proper. The military assistance programme, which is of enormous value, has £12 million, the diplomatic service has been cut by 20 per cent, in numbers over the past 20 years, but my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary explained in a rather powerful passage, how much more work it is having to do. How true that is. Having seen their work in many parts of the world, I know that our diplomatic offices are overstretched.
  My right hon. and learned Friend went on to say that the Government were proposing to cut out 10 career consulates. But that conclusion did not seem to me to follow from the point he was making about the burden on

  457
  our diplomatic service, not least from greater travel by British subjects abroad. He said nothing about what will happen to the budget of the diplomatic service, and that is an ominous omission. We have already heard about the British Council, which has had a cut of 20 per cent, in its grant over five years. The external service have been cut in scope and the capital spending programme is running behind schedule. We have fewer hours of broadcasting than Albania. In all this, the time has come to say that we have had enough.
  I used to know a maxim which was relevant in many circumstances — "reinforce success". We appear to be destroying success, so we appear to have the thing upside down. Have Ministers, in distant continents, ever fiddled with the dials of their short-wave radio receivers, in a desperate attempt to get the BBC external services, in competition with the louder signals from Germany, Yugoslavia, Australia, the Soviet Union, the United States, France and others? It is an enlightening experience.
  Have Ministers asked their opposite numbers in other countries what they, the Prime Ministers, the Foreign Ministers and so on, think of the external services, because many of them listen to them? All over Asia and Africa, that has been my experience. Have Ministers seen the numbers of people who attend the British Council libraries, in many parts of the world, not least in the Communist countries? Have they talked to scientists and politicians about the benefit to them in their careers of having had British Council scholarships? The other day my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) told me that he has come in touch with a Nobel prizewinner who, when asked to what he attributed his success, included his experience as a British Council scholar.
  I shall say little about the aid programme because many hon. Members have spoken about it, and I am pressed for time. We have done well for the relief of famine in Ethiopia, but why do we spoil the effect that we have created by saying, in effect, that the aid programme will suffer a cut in real terms? I hope that the Government will take note of the strength of feeling that I sense on Conservative Benches. If they do not, and if there are more real cuts in the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Conservative Members may begin to question other parts of Government spendings.
  For example, I have in mind the Falklands. We know how much the Falklands are costing. Some £552 million of spending is forecast for next year. So far, I have been a firm supporter of the Government's policy on the Falklands. It is not conceivable that we should be debating sovereignty at the moment, but if the central organs of our foreign policy are to be cut and damaged as seriously as I fear they may be if the Government are not more generous, many Conservative Members may begin to question the Falklands policy. I am not taking any position on it now, but simply pointing to what I regard as a danger.
  Some of my hon. Friends might regard it as ridiculous to spend about £550 million a year to sustain a small territory, 8,000 miles away, with only 1,800 inhabitants while at the same time we cause irreparable damage to the central organs of our foreign policy, which are of benefit in relation to the whole world, and affect much bigger issues than the Falkland Islands, important though they are.
  458
  Unless assurances are given by the Government that the overseas risen costs faced by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a whole are provided for, the Government have not got their priorities right.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. Before I call the next hon. Member, I remind the House that the 10-minute limit on speeches is now in operation. I appeal for the co-operation of right hon. and hon. Members in observing the limit.
  7.7 pm
  Mr. Geraint Howells: Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am delighted to be the first hon. Member to be called under the 10-minute rule. History is being made, and I am sure that my family and constituents will notice that I am the first hon. Member to have made a speech under the new rule.
  We have listened to leading politicians from both sides of the House making major contributions to the debate. I am convinced that they have been inspired by the public, who believe that more time should be given to debate the needs of the young, the elderly and the needy in the Third world. I hope that, by a concerted effort by hon. Members on both sides of the House, we shall be able to persuade the Government to give of their best to help those in need in the Third world from now on.
  What has inspired this debate today is not particularly a wish to score party points over the Government, although they have laid themselves open to criticism from all sides, but a genuine desire to put forward a view that reflects the strong feelings of ordinary people throughout the country about our responsibilities as a nation to our fellow human beings in other parts of the world. I do not think that any hon. Member, of whatever political persuasion, can now be unaware of these feelings or can remain unconvinced that a majority of people want the Government to take positive action to improve overseas aid.
  Following the harrowing pictures of starving children in Ethiopia and the appalling statistics that have come to light as a result, the conscience of the nation has been stirred as never before. I am sure that we are all aware of the influence of television on the family, and I am convinced that what has been seen on television of what is happening in Ethiopia has stirred the consciences of many in Britain.
  All over the country, groups of people have come together to organise appeals. I know of several in my constituency—many other hon. Members have said that their constituents are doing similar work — including farmers' unions, chapels, churches, women's organisations and many others which hold the view that help should be given to the needy and to those in the Third world. They are all meeting with a generous response, and I am delighted that people are taking up the challenge to help others who are less fortunate than we are.
  Letters have been pouring in to hon. Members — many have said so during the debate—and we all agree that they are sincere in their deliberations. They ask for pressure to be put on the Government not only to take urgent action to help Ethiopia and Eritrea, but to resist any cuts in overseas aid. I am sure that the Minister is well aware of the letters that pour in to his office as well as to those of hon. Members.

  459
  The constituents who write to me—I am sure that they reflect a substantial opinion throughout Britain—do not understand why, of all times, the Chancellor has chosen now to cut back those resources, which will inevitably mean a cut in aid, when we should increase it. My constituents ask: does Britain no longer care? Should we not still aspire to a moral leadership when it comes to humanitarian causes? Should we not be ashamed of a reduction in the amount of aid in real terms since 1979 of between 17 and 20 per cent.?
  Another aspect highlighted by the public response is the stark contrast between the surpluses that have accumulated as a result of the unsatisfactory common agricultural policy and the starvation in parts of Africa. To the ordinary person — I include myself in that description — there seems to be no rhyme or reason for the continuation of that discrepancy: the total imbalance between need and provision. People cannot believe that we have not yet devised a way of transforming a glut in one part of the world to provide for the needs in another.
  When we consider the money—millions of pounds—that is wasted in keeping so-called unwanted food in intervention stores and how it could be better used in transporting that food to other parts of the world where it is needed, most of us are horrified and disgusted.
  I am well aware of the arguments against direct food aid. I accept that food aid at the wrong time can bring about disastrous consequences in social and economic terms. It seems that I shall have to deliver the remaining part of my speech on another day, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Simon Hughes: My hon. Friend has another four minutes by my reckoning. Before he continues, does he agree that what has come across to both of us is that, no matter whether we represent poor constituents in rural Wales or equally poor constituents in Britain's urban centres, the view is the same? People cannot understand the economic policies of cutting back when money in Britain is spent to stockpile resources that we do not need while millions away from home, whom the British people want to help, are not being helped through the Government's agency. That is a shared feeling across Britain.
  Mr. Howells: I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend, although he took two or three minutes of my time to express them.
  Here we are in 1984 with a surplus within Europe. We produce enough food for ourselves and we have a surplus. If there is a will to help our friends in the Third world, I am sure that there is a way. If we believe in Christianity, as some of us do, we should urge members of the Government and others in authority to take action. I hope that they in turn will be able to influence their friends and counterparts in Europe to release the surpluses that we have in Europe so that in the short term—the public are interested in the short-term issue—we may save many of those who are dying in Ethiopia.
  When I was at school I learnt a little verse. I am sure that many hon. Members have learnt the same verse:
  "Let us sow the seeds of friendship
  As our way we wend,
  And we will reap a blessing
  At the journey's end."
  I am convinced that this is the opportune time to sow a few seeds of friendship to help others in need in the Third world.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Francis Pym: I find it painful to have to say to the House that I am afraid that I found the speech of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary not commensurate with the realities and needs of the international situation and inadequate to the maintenance, and where possible the extension, of British interests and influence.
  I think that he was saying in his speech that, no doubt as a result of pressure, the aid programme will be maintained at its existing level in real terms — I am thankful about that—but that that is to be done at the expense of the diplomatic service, the overseas service of the BBC and the British Council. That means that in the public expenditure round he has, unhappily, been defeated. I criticise all his colleagues, as well as himself, for that, because it is to misjudge priorities. They have got their priorities wrong. As many of my hon Friends have said, the amount of money that we are talking about is trivial.
  I also want to criticise the Government's amendment which, among other things, asks us to endorse the Government's continued support for the British Council and the BBC external services, when they then say that they will cut that support. The kindest thing that I can say about that is that it is lacking in integrity.
  There are two separate issues—overseas aid, and the diplomatic services and the overseas services. They are related in various ways which I shall deal with if there is time. It is an extraordinary moment even to contemplate reducing aid. Happily, that has now been stopped. It is a moment when aid should be increased, even if that could only be a modest increase. For decades our aid programme has been a part of our strategy to invest in the under-developed countries to help them help themselves. Of course the programme is never enough. It never could be, but it has been effective. In the past four years we have maintained it through the extremely difficult period of a world recession, which has hit every country and the Third world hardest of all. Its deprivation has been increased. It has also hit us and the other developed countries and constrained the amount of aid that we can give.
  Therefore, from every point of view it has been a central object of international policy to lead the world out of the recession which has brought that hardship and bedevilled relationships. The. economic recovery has been a major objective and various attempts have been made to bring that about. One of the most significant has been the summit of industrialised nations, the latest of which was held in London. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister used the occasion with her characteristic vigour and enthusiasm as chairman to take the most positive line to lead the world out of recession.
  Paragraph nine of the London economic declaration of 9 June said:
  "It has therefore been agreed"
  and sub-paragraph (4) said:
  "to maintain and wherever possible increased flows of resources, including official development assistance and assistance through the international financial and development institutions, to the developing countries and particularly to the poorest countries."
  I do not quite know how today's decision fits in with that. At least the resources are not now falling, but there is nothing about an increase. Three months later, the Commonwealth Finance Ministers' meeting took place in Toronto. The communiqué was quite positive.

  461
  Paragraph 12 states:
  "Ministers endorsed the general objective of maintaining and enlarging, wherever possible, the net transfer of resources to developing countries."
  Paragraph 15 states:
  "Ministers expressed serious disappointment at the continuing sluggishness of aid flows … Ministers urged all donors to make determined efforts to increase aid flows in line with agreed targets".
  I do not know how all that fits in with what we have heard today. In addition to that and since then we have heard of the famine, and Mrs. Gandhi's murder. I referred to her murder last week, and consider it a very significant and important international event that may have all sorts of repercussions that we cannot, of course, assess. Thus, it is clear that the next year or two will be particularly risky and difficult. We must be very positive and constructive in our response, and willing to give extra support. But the Government's decisions do not reflect that need.
  Given the restrictions of time, I turn to UNESCO. My view is that the Government's decision is unwise. It is totally right to bring the maximum pressure to bear, and my right hon. and learned Friend is doing that. I just question whether giving notice now will not be counterproductive. We know that virtually all the high commissioners took a strong line yesterday with my right hon. and learned Friend, and that our European partners take a strong view. As there has been progress, I would have inclined to the view that we should continue in membership and let it be known that, if there is no satisfactory progress next year, we shall contemplate giving notice then. The empty chair policy, or the threat of it, is not a very effective way to proceed. The contemplation of somehow using a subscription to an international organisation to balance the United Kingdom Budget is a grotesque solution to the problem of priorities.
  However, I should like to give the Government one bouquet—I come to a matter raised by the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) — over the IDA, as determined efforts have been made to obtain a replenishment that is better than the one proposed.
  The second part of the equation concerns the diplomatic service, overseas representation and the overseas services. The problem stems from the drop in the value of the pound and overseas inflation rates. I do not know what the cash cost of that is, but I think that it is somewhere between £5 million and £10 million. We have the same problem this coming year, but as the pound has dropped and will probably be at low levels throughout the year, the cost may well be considerably more. Therefore, to maintain our overseas services at a constant level will require more cash, which has clearly not been allowed for. It has not been said that the Treasury will top that up. Therefore, it is not accurate to say that there is no change. The same factors are bound to affect the BBC, the British Council, VSO, UNCTAD and so on, which all face cuts.
  Whether or not the Government like a $1·25 pound, they have no intention of interfering, so the costs are unknown and speculative. To go on from there and to argue that the level of our service overseas and our overseas representation, the workings of the British Council and the BBC should become the accidental consequence or the fortuitous function of the exchange rate is an abdication of responsibility and absolute nonsense.
  462
  There is a right size and structure for our diplomatic service, the British Council and the BBC, and that must be maintained.
  The Treasury must compensate for the fall in the value of the pound and for overseas inflation. In 1982 I felt that the cuts in the Foreign Office had gone too far. Indeed, as soon as I had settled into that office I came to that conclusion. No further cuts were made in my time and in the spring of 1983 I started a process that was going to lead to a recommendation to colleagues to make increases which I would have fought for strenuously. However, I was not there to carry that through and since then further manpower cuts have been announced. I think that I am right to say that a further cut of more than 5 per cent, is required by 1988. That is worse than just short-sighted — it is positively damaging to British interests. The diplomatic service is now being starved to the point of foolhardiness.
  There are facts and figures that I could give about the extra work load on the political and commercial side, but I shall skate over them for now. However, if one adds to all that the present state of the world, this is no time to reduce the effort. Rather it is the time to increase it, and that includes the British Council and the BBC.
  There are, therefore, two distinct facets to our vital international work. Each stands in its own right and each contributes to British interests. Each should be judged on its merits and then given the resources needed to fulfil its role and carry out the level of activity decided upon.
  7.25 pm
  Miss Betty Boothroyd: Given the consistent stand that the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) takes, I would be tempted to vote for him at the next election if he was still my Member of Parliament.
  However, I wish to draw attention to two areas of aid, and to do so in detail. One area is the United Kingdom's funding of the United Nations development programme. But I want first to underline some of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), who referred to aid for population activities. If World Bank projections are anything to go by, those nations that are classified by the World Bank as developing countries will find that in the next 60 years or so their populations will rise from the present 3·5 billion to 8·5 billion. That is a devastating increase of 133 per cent, in little more than half a century.
  In trying to meet such a situation, I see little use in tackling economic problems in development unless the population problem is tackled with equal vigour, because the two are inextricably intertwined. To achieve a slowdown in population growth a number of social inputs are needed. For example, access to health care for the rural and urban poor is necessary if we are to reduce the incentive of parents who desire more children in order to ensure that a few survive. Again, we need to advance the status of women and to provide access for them to education. That is crucial. We already have evidence to show that women in developing countries who have completed primary education have fewer children than those with no education at all. As the education of the mother advances and her awareness increases, the number of children she gives birth to declines.
  Therefore, to slow down the pace of population growth is not to take one area of concern in isolation from others.

  463
  A variety of factors in social development are needed, as well as the provision of the means to limit the number of births. It is the many ingredients working together that provide a powerful combination with which to put a brake on population growth. But the Government have lost ground, because they have failed to build on the momentum generated in the late 1970s. Multilateral funding has been reduced and has not yet been restored to the levels that we achieved in 1979. Much ground has been lost as a result. Even bilateral funding does not look too healthy. Look at the bilateral side of donor aid. Even bilateral funding does not look healthy.
  Judging by the long list of countries in the ODA report, many earlier recipients now get no contribution at all to assist with population activities. Four or five countries in that long list have had their allocations increased but the overwhelming number of countries in that list have had this form of investment sharply reduced.
  Kenya has the largest population growth rate in the world. A survey by the World Bank shows that the need for population programmes goes unmet in that country. Yet British funding to Kenya for population problems has been reduced from an average of £150 million in the late 1970s to £3 million in recent years.
  Although Ethiopia is much in our minds, the emergency in the Sudan is looming large. Last week I received a letter from a friend who is filming there. Soon our television screens will show us the millions of people who exist in abject poverty and are dying of starvation. The population of Sudan is more than 20 million. Nearly half of that 20 million are under the age of 15 years. Its projected growth rate will take its population to the 50 million mark. Yet that country's funding has been reduced to zero.
  No serious-minded person believes that policies to stem population growth are a panacea. They cannot replace action to provide advantageous trade terms, stabilise commodity prices or increase food production and so on. But equally, it has to be recognised that the loss of momentum on the population front cannot fail to slow down other forms of development, and the poor in those countries are the major victims of that slow-down.
  The Minister has been asked numerous questions tonight. Perhaps he can tell the House his proposals for increasing the percentage of bilateral support for population activities.
  Another issue relates to the United Nations and, in particular, to the United Nations development programme. A few weeks ago, an all party group of Members of Parliament met Mr. Brad Morse, the director of the development programme. He happens to be an old friend of mine, but anyone who meets him will agree that his dynamic and dedicated personality is suited to the post. He left us in no doubt that at one time the United Kingdom was high on the list of donors. I am sad to say that that no longer applies. Our contribution has been reduced in recent years. It is now back to the level of 10 years ago. I have news for the director and hon. Members—it is much worse than any of us realised.
  In constant price terms the United Kingdom will be contributing £15 million to the United Nations development programme this year. Ten years ago, in 1974, our contribution was £23·5 million. The cut in our contribution is about £10 million and it is a loss to the programme. In 1978, which was the peak year, our
  464
  contribution to technical co-operation was close to £35 million. A cut of £20 million has been made in that single programme since this Government came to office.
  If the Government are serious about their commitment to halt the movement of people from the countryside to overcrowded cities, we must put the story of Dick Whittington into reverse. We must encourage ambitious young people in developing countries to remain in the rural areas. To do that we must provide facilities and improve living conditions. We must improve the infrastucture and help to improve the standard of life. We must invest in rural electrification and irrigation plant and help with new techniques in agriculture and mining. We must expand technical co-operation so that developing countries can become wealth creating and achieve some self-reliance. That cannot be done by denying the means to bring about that reversal.
  I understand that the pledge for the UNDP for next year has not yet been made. The question is whether the Government intend to remain feeble in their approach to these urgencies or whether they have the will to restore the British contribution to levels which a former Government were able to maintain.
  7.34 pm
  Mr. Jim Lester: I shall not follow the arguments of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) because in 10 minutes I wish to make a constructive speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker), in his elegant way, and my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-east (Mr. Pym), made the case for many of us on this side of the House. I do not intend to repeat their arguments, but I have a shared sense of disappointment at what has been said from the Government Front Bench.
  I am a member of the Select Committee which carefully scrutinises the Foreign Office budger in a dispassionate way. The Committee came to a conclusion that would have avoided the need for this debate and the agony and saved us from a petty cash policy by PESC, which many of us find so devastatingly irritating. I shall find it impossible to support the Government tonight.
  I do not want to minimise what has been done for the Ethiopian crisis by the ODA special committee, which has done remarkably well, nor by the rapid use of the £5 million to stem some of the initial problems. However, I want to suggest constructive ways in which so much more can be done to mobilise the genuine feelings of the British people.
  The Minister knows already of the value of the non-governmental organisations, such as the Save the Children Fund, War on Want and Oxfam, which have been doing much good work in Ethiopia for some time. The Government believe in increasing support for such organisations, as does the public. From the money raised in constituencies and advertising efforts, we know there is tremendous support and a genuine heartfelt response that goes wider than famine relief.
  Under the joint funding scheme, the Government give thousands of pounds for specific projects suggested by those organisations. In 1983, 290 specific projects were funded, 33 per cent, of which were for agriculture, 15 per cent, for health and 18 per cent, for non-formal education schemes. The budget is comparatively small, but it has been expanded this year.

  465
  That is only the tip of the iceberg which the Government should encourage and develop. Just over a year ago, with the help of the local BBC station and the local newspaper, over £42,000 was raised in the four east midlands counties to provide 1 million sachets of oral rehydration salts. That was before the starving children were seen on television. Oral rehydration techniques save children's lives. People were told that if they gave 5p, that would buy a sachet and save a life. I am delighted that the 1 million sachets were in place in February this year. According to UNICEF, which distributed them throughout west Sudan, the lives of about 18,000 children were saved.
  I use that as an example because I am convinced that there are many similar possibilities for people-to-people assistance. One thinks of blankets made in Ethiopian refugee camps which are of value to the people and can be distributed immediately to those in need. One thinks of water in the wells. Young farmers and people who understand the value of water can contribute to schemes to raise money for wells. One thinks of trees in the Sudan. Those who understand the value of trees could undertake to raise money to plant trees. I think of blackboards. In the Sudan, one can see children writing in the sand. Surely we can provide blackboards so that children can work and learn. Those are examples of what people realise in general terms can be done through a heart-to-heart gift.
  I should like the Government to match, pound for pound, all the money raised by the non-governmental organisations and, wherever possible, to encourage specific projects. People will give when they know that the money they are providing will buy something tangible. They are giving at the moment because they feel so desperately upset and sad about starving people, including children, but they will give even more if they know that the money will provide something tangible. I am sure that if we provided the objects for people to buy and the Government matched, pound for pound, the cost of transportation and dispersal in the countries to which they choose to give money, we would have a major impact in the world in terms of our wider constituency. People at every level in our society understand that.
  Those of us who have travelled in the Third world are conscious of the humbling scale of the problems. It is difficult for ordinary people to understand the complexities of multilateral agencies, bilateral aid, and all the rest. The problems are immense. Instead of debating petty cash alterations, we should be debating how, with our experience in Europe and the Commonwealth, we can be the catalyst to mobilise the efforts of the world to deal with some of these dreadful problems. Our role is to lead, not to diffuse, public opinion, to develop an awakened conscience in this country and to help those who recognise that we live in one world, that we are all one with another.
  7.41 pm
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I shall follow the catalytic point made by the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) later, but first I shall thank the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary for the compliment he paid me after my intervention, albeit from a seated position, earlier in the debate. I wish that I could be equally complimentary about the Foreign Secretary, but I have to tell him that the content, delivery and logic of his speech went back to the
  466
  bad old days 10 years ago when he was the Solicitor-General. The cause about which he spoke today was just as mistaken as his cause was then.
  Two main themes, which I wish to bring together, have run through the debate so far — Britain's role in the world and the need to sustain rural subsistence societies. Britain, as the leading and founder member of the British Commonwealth, has inherited an unmatched system of international linkages and scientific institutions that relate to the Commonwealth and are now brought together under the unlikely umbrella of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. I refer to the scientific units of the former Ministry for Overseas Development. The Foreign Affairs Committee in the 1982–83 Session looked at those units in report HC 25-I Unfortunately, they were dealt with in a most unscientific way by our Prime Minister. I make no apology for making a strong attack on that right hon. Lady. She, as a scientific person, should have known better. Those units were "Raynered." Sir Derek Rayner and his assistants looked at those important scientific institutions whose expenditure would have been about £14 million a year out of an aid budget of £1 billion.
  Those institutions comprised the Tropical Products Institute, the Centre for Overseas Pest Research—both of which have been combined into the Tropical Research Institute—the Land Resources Development Centre, and the Directorate of Overseas Surveys. As it happens, all of those institutions were working in Ethiopia or had had projects there in the recent past. One distinctive feature was the fact that they were called in as consultant bodies and assisted institutions in different parts of the world, both inside and outside the Commonwealth.
  The Directorate of Overseas Surveys was concerned with mapping, particularly geological and soil mapping, which is fundamental to most developments of any sort. The Tropical Products Institute is and was concerned with the preservation of food, its efficient and effective storage, its protection from pests and its marketing and distribution. What could be more basic than that when considering rural development and food supply?
  The Land Resources Development Centre, situated in Tolworth, was a multi-disciplinary group concerned with surveys of a geological, petrological and hydrological character, which provided the basis for rural development schemes all over the world. The centre had developed an enviable expertise, including the interpretation of satellite pictures which help in this sort of work. Finally, and not least, there is the Centre for Overseas Pest Research about which the Prime Minister should have known but did not. If the Prime Minister had made some observations of that centre and found that there were entomologists, biochemists and biologists on the payroll of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I can imagine the tantrums that may have ensued on that discovery, particularly if it were found that the centre occupied what were thought to be the relatively expensive premises behind what was Pontings in an old warehouse in Kensington. That might be extravagant, but in fact Kensington is one of the entomological centres of the world. Entymology is the study of beetles, bugs and other pests that eat food and get into human beings' bloodstream. Why is Kensington one of the entomological capitals of the world? That is due to the Victorian virtues of the Prince Consort—virtues that the right hon. Lady does not recognise. She only perpetrates Victorian vice. That is why Kensington was important; yet the Government wanted to move the centre.

  467
  The Centre for Overseas Pest Research gave great aid to the International Rice Institute in Manila in dealing with the brown plant hopper. Only that place, due to its combination of meteorological and climatological skills, was able to deal with that pest. The centre is now working on the East African soldier insect, which bores into the roots of plants. If the centre is successful, the success will not be due to the right hon. Lady.
  The Government wanted to cut those institutions down and were successful in doing so. The number of people involved in those important scientific institutions has been cut from 561 to 410½. The Directorate of Overseas Surveys has been cut to a greater degree from 328 to 180. The manpower of those vital institutions has been cut by about a third by this Government—all for the sake of between £4 million and £5 million. That is all. I am angry because that action shows an awful lack of common sense. It shows also the way in which the Government have gone about their normal tasks. The institutions were involved in the prevention of famine.
  What the Government have done is unbusinesslike, uneconomic, unprofessional, unscientific and uncharitable. That was the theme of the concluding remarks made by the Earl of Stockton last week in another place. He talked of
  "the dreadful, wicked systems which have crept into our lives".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 13 November 1984; Vol. 457, c. 241.]
  Can one of those dreadful wicked systems be a system that says, "Cut public expenditure if you can and if it is easy to do so, irrespective of the effects"? That is the dreadful, wicked system that our Prime Minister and those who continue to support her—I suspect that is a declining number—are putting in place. The noble Earl spoke also of charity and St. Paul. We know that charity begins at home, but of course it does not end there. This Government do not even practise charity at home. It is, therefore, not surprising that they are incapable of practising it abroad.
  7.49 pm
  Mr. Julian Amery: The leader of the Liberal party and his colleagues should be congratulated on giving us the opportunity for this debate; it comes none too soon. Black Africa is dying. Some 1,000—it may be more—Africans will have died of hunger while we have been talking here. What could be even more serious is the fact that the land is dying—the land upon which the survivors and their dependants must depend if they are to have any kind of life. They may be acts of God—if it is not blasphemous to say that—that cause the drought, erosion and over-population, but we also carry our share of the blame. We abandoned our responsibilities in black Africa far too soon; and although we spent a great deal of money on aid—the totals are large—we were ineffective in controlling how it was spent. A great deal of it was wasted through inefficiency and in other ways.
  Our debate has focused to a considerable extent on Ethiopia, where the position is apocalyptic. The famine prevails in the Government administered parts of the country and those controlled by the dissidents. We are right to give all the help we can. I hope that we shall give it to both sides through the voluntary organisations operating from the Sudan and through the airlift in Ethiopia; but the civil war hampers distribution of essential food.
  468
  I understand that the Eritrean and Tigrean movements have offered a ceasefire, but that that has not yet received any response from Colonel Mengistu's Government. I urge my right hon. and learned Friend to apply ail the pressure that he can to try to get the Ethiopian Government to agree to the ceasefire, even if only for a limited time. It is obscene that the Ethiopians should be devoting so much effort to adding to the death roll which the famine has already produced.
  The spotlight is on Ethiopia but, as many right hon. and hon. Members have siad, many other countries are awaiting the charge of the Four Horsemen of to Apocalypse, in particular, the Sudan and Somalia—two countries with which we have long had historical associations. I do not know whether, even now, we shall be in time to avoid the same kind of tragedy taking place in the Sudan and Somalia as is occurring in Ethiopia. i am not sure that we can. The disasters taking place in Ethiopia at least help us to focus on the disasters that could lie ahead.
  One of the difficulties of the debate is that we tend to measure aid in terms of the money supplied—the input—but that is only one standard of the value. What is the money producing? That is tine only way in which we can form a judgment as to whether the Government are doing right or wrong with what they are supplying. We should monitor what the money is producing in welfare for the people.
  I confess to having grave doubts about the amount of our aid contribution that goes towards multinational organisations. UNESCO is a caricature. They are not all like that. I entirely support my right hon. and learned Friend in pulling out of UNESCO, although I should like an assurance from him that when 1986 comes the £5 million saved will not be pocketed by the Treasury but will be used for other foreign service purposes—for aid or in other ways.
  It is interesting to see—if I have my figures right—that about half our aid goes to multilateral organisations, whereas France gives about one sixth to multilateral organisations and the remainder is on bilateral aid. Our French allies give much more than we do. They spend twice as much on aid as we do. It seems to me, without expert knowledge, that the former French territories, which receive the bulk of tine aid, are among the most stable and prosperous countries in the Third world. I wonder whether we should.not look more carefully at their example.
  We are still obsessed with the fear of being called neo-colonialists, but, when people are dying, there is something to be said for concentrating on humanitarian causes and being a bit tough with Governments to ensure that they spend the money that we are supplying in the right way.
  It is a paradox, but I believe that the best way to help the Third world is to help ourselves. If we promote Britain's recovery and the recovery of the European Community, we shall provide a market for the goods that the countries of the Third world make and supply. If we became richer, we shall have more money available to spend on suitable and sensible aid projects. Our prosperity is essential to their recovery.
  There are many ways of fostering that. We went through them in the days of the colonial empire—

  469
  preferences, the old sterling area, bulk buying, commodity agreements, and so on. There is not the time tonight to deal with all those matters.
  I should like to see some recognition that the European Community, and Britain in particular, has a major part to play in nursing Africa back from the death throes into which it is now sinking.
  7.56 pm
  Mr. D. E. Thomas: At the very time when the deflationary policies which are part of monetarism and its effects are ravaging the southern countries, we see the same monetarist policies in terms of controlling public expenditure at home reducing the aid budget.
  It is important that we should have the figure right. It is clear, if I understood what the Foreign Secretary said, that we are talking about a cut in real terms. If we are talking about a level of aid which increases at 3 per cent. while the inflation rate is 5 per cent., that is a reduction of 2 per cent. That is my simple economics. I am sure that if the Foreign Secretary were listening, he would confirm that.
  Our level of aid, in terms of proportion of GNP, is the lowest that we have ever seen. We can compare it with the high peak of 0·52 per cent. achieved in 1979. We can also compare the 1982 figure for raw materials from the southern countries, which was the lowest for 50 years. That is the equation with which we must work. We have seen not just a reduction in the amount of aid but a shift in its nature.
  In the 1970s there was a growth in multilateral aid through international institutions such as the World Bank and, to a lesser extent, UNESCO. This Government and the American Government are now reversing the trend—underfunding aid, withdrawing from the multinational agencies and redirecting ODA resources into bilateral aid.
  That is a shift away from the opportunity for southern countries as a group to have a greater say in the way in which aid is spent. That is part of the issue that we should be considering tonight. We are talking not just about aid, but about the way in which those countries that receive resources control them and can influence the world macro-economic trends which affect them.
  In the reply that I received from the Minister on 15 November about the criteria for aid allocation, it was clear that he was, in reality, talking about an aid programme to assist the export of British goods and services and to improve the procurement of British goods. Therefore, the bilateral aid programmes are not aid programmes; they are investment programmes. When Conservative Members try to include the commercial input as part of the aid programme in GNP terms by throwing in the commercial investment of companies, clearly they fail to understand the reality of economic aid.
  If we consider the position since 1979, there has been a move from aid to aid-trade provisions. That is an example of how a bilateral programme is not being used to enhance the position of the poorest countries. That is why we see a shift of aid from rural programmes into aid trade provisions which are, in reality, commercial transactions with the poorest countries.
  It is important, when looking at the pattern of our bilateral aid programmes, to identify our targets precisely.
  470
  I was appalled to find that our bilateral aid to Turkey is £62 million. Turkey is, of course, one of our great NATO allies—with about 6,000 political prisoners. Our aid to Ethiopia is about one sixth of that amount.
  There have been continual allegations about the withholding of aid from Ethiopia on ideological grounds. The Government have not responded to the criticisms made, both outside and inside this House, by those who are very concerned about the issues. From a letter that I received from the Prime Minister, and from Ministers' responses—they do not, however, appear to be listening—it is clear that the Government have been trying to cover up the figures.
  The Prime Minister told me that in 1982 the United Kingdom provided £5·2 million of food aid to Ethiopia. She told me that in 1983 our bilateral food aid to Ethiopia consisted of 19,000 tonnes of cereals. She omitted to mention that the aid had dropped, in monetary value, to £3·4 million in that year. Not only was the Prime Minister giving misleading figures to me and to the House; but earlier she had claimed credit for achievements of the previous Labour Adminstration as though they were her own. She said that after the change of Government in 1979, aid to Ethiopia averaged over £2 million a year, and that in 1982 it rose to £5·6 million, of which £5·2 million was in the form of food aid. She omitted to mention that, according to the Government's own figures, aid to Ethiopia fell in 1980 to £1·5 million, and in 1981 to £166,000. When I saw the figure in Official Report I thought that it was an error.
  It is essential to repeat in this House that it is quite clear to those of us who have been concerned about the political drift of the Government's aid programme and its political intentions that there has indeed been a deliberate attempt not to provide for Ethiopia the level of aid that should have been provided by the Government from the late 1970s onward. The fact that the Government are now arranging a ministerial visit and trying to have a higher profile in response to public concern must not cover up the political intent of the Government in not maintaining their aid programme at a consistent level. The Minister may want to respond to that point at the end of the debate.
  The Government's political attitude is again reflected in our relationship with international organisations, and in particular in our threatened withdrawal from UNESCO. The Government are not concerned about the inefficiency of UNESCO. They want to follow the United States line. UNESCO is a multilateral agency in which southern countries have some power. The free flow of information internationally is an issue that this House should take seriously, and it has not done so. It should take seriously the critique that has been mounted over the years of the press agencies of the West and their coverage of activities in the southern countries.
  Those who have been looking at the media coverage in Britain of our home affairs in recent weeks can surely understand what it means to Third world countries to be continually stereotyped in the international media. There are serious arguments within UNESCO about the role of the media in the international flow of information. We should be dealing with those arguments within UNESCO, not threatening to withdraw because the United States wants to do so.
  We have to link the present economic crisis and deflationary policies with what the Government are doing in regard to their own aid programme. We must support

  471
  international agencies, we must direct specific aid to areas of crisis, but we must never fail to realise the structural nature of international poverty. We need to tackle the debt crisis and we need to spend far more time in this House considering ways of genuine international collaboration. We should be talking about genuine internationalism rather than the kind of narrow parochialism that this House often displays in international affairs.
  8.5 pm
  Mr. Colin Moynihan: It is much to be regretted that we face a day when once again we are moving away from the United Kingdom goal — the declared intent of both major parties—to move towards the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GDP for aid to the Third world. Our contribution was at 0·35 per cent., it slipped to 0·34 per cent. and is now at 0·33 per cent. of today's figures. That is a safe fact of life and is to be regretted on both sides of the House.
  It is also a sad day when the cash figure for the net aid programme for the next financial year is, as stated in the public expenditure White Paper, unchanged, without reflecting the substantial public and political developments and reactions. That figure is £1,130 million. Hon. Members should bear in mind that that represents a 3 per cent. cash increase on the present figure of £1,099 million but—that seems to be the in word of the day—after allowing for inflation it is effectively a 2 per cent. cut in real terms, before taking into account the relative decline of sterling against foreign currencies, particularly as the dollar is a key currency for many of our multilateral programmes.
  With regard to Ethiopia, hon. Members should note that food aid can make a temporary disaster permanent. It is vital to provide food aid but it is equally important to provide a longer term developmental package to develop the indigenous industries, and to use multilateral schemes to make sure that that aid is effective in the long run. That means encouraging Governments to face up to price structures which are reasonable to farmers in the countries concerned, and to look at infrastructure projects such as road building and regional development. It is essential that the emergency aid should be seen by those concerned as part of a longer term development strategy to assist broad areas of sub-Saharan Africa.
  I welcome the Government's decision concerning UNESCO. The key criterion of our aid policy must be effectiveness — to ensure that as much aid as possible goes to those in need. I think that it was wise of the Government to put before UNESCO conditions, suggestions and recommendations for improvement as long ago as the spring of this year, giving UNESCO 20 months in which to study and implement the proposals. But those proposals should be tied to a decision to leave UNESCO by the end of next year if the proposals are not put into practice. I hope that the Government will not stop there, because we have an important opportunity to investigate all multilateral agencies to which we subscribe. we must make certain that those to which we donate—the Government have added to the list the African development fund — are working effectively through their multilateral aid programmes.
  I should like to take this opportunity to try to break down a distinction which has been created by several right hon. and hon. Members between humanitarian and concessionary aid. It is a false distinction. If in talking of
  472
  humanitarian aid the word "emergency" is implied, why not say so? There are many concessionary aid projects where a factory may be built, a nucleus estate developed and infrastructural and outgoer schemes implemented, followed by significant humanitarian inputs such as hospital schemes, facilities for housing and general projects with a humanitarian bias which are attached to what otherwise we would term concessionary schemes. It is wrong to make a distinction between humanitarian aid and concessionary aid such as aid and trade provision, implicitly claiming they do provide humanitarian benefits. There are substantial humanitarian benefits on that side of the aid programme.
  The House will recall that in May £4 million was agreed to be added to the British Council's budget for 1984–85. That sum represented the rising costs that had been added to the expenditure survey figures for the current year together with the rent increase for the Spring garden premises for a further 10 years at a fixed sum following 10 years of a fixed and low rent.
  The council, in common with many other bodies involved in our aid budget, has experienced overseas inflation costs. These costs have amounted to £2·3 million for the council in the current year net of exchange adjustments but that sum has not been added to the council's public expenditure survey figures for 1985–86 in the autumn statement of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  It must be recognised that increased costs overseas for a body such as the British Council that are granted in one year must be carried forward into the next year. That is vital. If that does not happen, there will be another real cut to the programme. I am a keen supporter of the council's work and the fact that increased costs have not been added to its budget may mean reduced expenditure on scholarships, academic links and visits by specialists to and from Britain. That is to be deeply regretted, especially after a period when the council has suffered substantial cuts and has become a lean and efficient organisation.
  I share the view of a number of hon. Members that we are talking no longer of cutting into the fat of an overweight operation. Many parts of the budget are already lean and efficient. The additional cuts—some of them are paltry but some are more substantial—will be painful to all the recipients of the FCO Vote at the end of the day.
  Stop-go policies for diplomatic representation overseas do nothing to promote British interests abroad, be they commercial or diplomatic. The announcement that 10 further posts are to be closed must be viewed with great regret by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The closure of Stuttgart was a bad move. It is important to have commercial representation in that city. Which other commercial cities will be among the 10 closures that are to take place? British influence abroad requires a long-term presence, the nurturing of contacts, experience and the presence on the spot of our representatives. I am concerned about the effect of another cut to our diplomatic Vote, which is so important in developing British interests overseas.
  Politics is about priorities. A strong diplomatic representation overseas to promote Britain's role in the world is an important priority. A strong aid programme to alleviate hunger and encourage development is an important priority. A trusted and respected BBC external service which reaches the hearts and minds of many who

  473
  regard it as a lifeline of political credibility and external reality coming over the airwaves, is an important priority. A flourishing British Council that promotes Britain's educational, technical and cultural interests is a priority. I regret that today we are unable to sustain the real value of all these budgets.
  8.14 pm
  Mr. Tom Clarke: The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Mr. Moynihan) was at his best when he drew to the attention of the Minister for Overseas Development the plain and undeniable fact that the figures that have been presented to us do not represent an increase in real terms in our overseas aid. I was pleased that the hon. Gentleman advanced that argument. I do not agree with everything else that he said, especially on UNESCO.
  Hon. Members will recall that during business questions this afternoon I asked the Leader of the House whether a statement would be made on UNESCO by the Foreign Secretary during this debate. The Leader of the House replied by quoting Mr. Asquith and said, "Wait and see." I have waited and I have seen, and in common with most hon. Members I do not like what I have seen. We are still waiting for a reasonable explanation of the decision on UNESCO.
  The Foreign Secretary failed to give this House a clear exposition of the Government's thinking. If we are giving UNESCO 12 months' notice, and if we are doing so on the flimsy evidence available to us, we are failing to stand up to American pressure. Against that background it is not likely that we shall say in 12 months' time that we shall remain a member of UNESCO. It is more likely that we shall respond to American pressures and pull out, despite the overwhelming weight of opinion, which has been echoed by a former Prime Minister and a former Foreign Secretary. Their opinions are shared by Commonwealth countries, by western European countries and by almost every country apart from the United States. Other countries share our view that UNESCO has a contribution to make in a democratic setting, which we cherish and which we are encouraging other countries to endorse. It is profoundly wrong to pull out of an organisation because there are members of it who do not agree with us.
  The Minister for Overseas Development might be interested in informing his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and his right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary that they will be disappointed if they think that the Reagan Administration will warmly welcome their compliance. They will be making a great mistake if they take that view. During the summer recess I was at a meeting that took place at the Pentagon. I was in the company of some Conservative Members and some of my hon. Friends. We were told bluntly that the Pentagon was highly critical of the comments of the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary following the invasion of Grenada. The sentiments that we heard expressed were not those that we expected from an ally to which we are responding by giving notice that we are withdrawing from UNESCO. The United States Administration should see us as an ally but as a nation that is capable of expressing its own opinion and not necessarily responding to its every whim, which
  474
  in fact we are doing with our decision on UNESCO. There should be a full debate on the UNESCO decision and I hope that it will take place.
  The debate was to be about overseas development. Given the views of the British people, it seems reasonable that the House should consider the problems of overseas aid. It is a subject on which all hon. Members have received many letters. The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) struck a note that was somewhat different from that of his right hon. and hon. Friends. He said that there was no real reduction in overseas aid and that we must consider the issue in terms of foreign policy. He argued that Britain cannot be blamed for the deforestation in Ethiopia and the mismanagement which, I concede, takes place in that country.
  The British people are not interested in that sort of argument. We realise that people are suffering, starving and dying. I received a letter from Turnbull high school, Bishopbriggs, which was typical of many others that I received. The young people who wrote to me made a comment which I thought was appropriate. They argued that we should not be penalising hungry people because of the regime that happens to be in control of Ethiopia. They added that some Ethiopian people would be unable to tell the difference between Karl Marx and Groucho Marx. That was fair comment. The problem of world poverty is far too serious to allow us to assume that every decision that we take should be based on how the member states will vote in the United Nations.
  The imagination of the British people has rightly been captured and they expect a better response from the Government than today's statement. The Guardian today carried the headline:
  "Overseas aid saved by Howe dodge".
  That is an absolutely correct description of a profoundly cynical exercise. It is not sufficient merely to maintain the present inadequate overseas aid commitment at the expense of other important functions of the Foreign Office—from the British Council to the BBC foreign service and the diplomatic service. I am sorry that the Foreign Secretary is not present. It would have been far better if he had simply told the Chancellor that the Foreign Office could not meet the figures demanded. The Minister said in response to the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) that the money for Ethiopia was to be found from the contingency fund. He was less polite when I put the same point in the debate on the Queen's Speech. If that is so, it is time that we re-examined the contingency fund because it cannot be big enough. No one was surprised about Ethiopia. The crisis was predicted by Members on both sides. It is nonsense for Ministers to say that they were taken by surprise. The British public simply do not believe that.
  The former Prime Minister referred to the Brandt report. It is a poor reflection on our Government and others that the Brandt commission had to produce a second report, "Common Crisis", because its original recommendations had not been taken seriously, by our Government and others. I end by quoting the words of Willy Brandt in his introduction to that report. He said:
  "We too often forget that even today the depth of human suffering is immense. Every two seconds of this year a child will die of hunger or disease. And no statistic can express what it is to see even one child die … 'to see the uncomprehending panic in eyes which are still the clear and lucid eyes of a child' … A new century nears, and with it the prospect of a new civilisation. Could we not begin to lay the basis for that new

  475
  community with reasonable relations among all people and nations, and to build a world in which sharing, justice, freedom, and peace might prevail?"
  I regret to say that on the basis of the Government's statement today we are still a million miles from that objective.
  8.23 pm
  Mr. Reg Prentice: Many of us entered the Chamber today in the hope of hearing from the Government a statement representing a real shift from the position taken by the Chancellor in his public expenditure statement last week. We have been profoundly disappointed. In assessing what has happened, I rely upon the analysis made by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, especially my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker). If we have got it wrong, perhaps the Minister will tell us how we have got it wrong. I shall simply state the position as it appears to me at this moment.
  The figures for Foreign and Commonwealth Office expenditure next year, including the aid programme, will be higher in cash terms than this year and will represent an increase in terms of the expected rate of domestic inflation. They will not, however, contain an element for the higher rate of inflation overseas and they will not contain an adjustment for differential exchange rates. The real value of the aid programme and of the other FCO programmes will thus be cut.
  My right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke earlier of two developments. The first was a series of specific, niggling cuts affecting the BBC overseas service, the British Council and other important services. The other was a more generalised cut in the real value of the aid programme. This was not specified. Perhaps it could not be specified at this stage. Certainly it need not be specified. It means, however, that the already inadequate programme will be even more inadequate in a year's time. I shall be delighted to hear from the Minister if I have made a mistake, but that seems to be the picture given by the Secretary of State.
  It may be argued that allowances have never been made for overseas inflation. There are two replies to that. First, the need to do so has never been more urgent. Secondly, the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs has done a great deal of work on this and provided a techinique for Ministers to use. It would be of some comfort if my right hon. Friend could at least say that those proposals will be carefully considered and might lead to some adjustment. I should certainly be very glad to hear that. At the moment, however, we face an effective cut.
  That reflects very badly on the way in which the Government carry out the public expenditure exercise. That applies not just to this Government but to any Government. As a Labour Minister, I faced the same situation. At least once a year—perhaps more often—there is a scramble, with all the paraphernalia of the star chamber, special Cabinet meetings, and so forth. The spotlight, perhaps necessarily because of lack of time, is on those programmes about which the spending Minister is making the most fuss. There is neither the time nor, perhaps, the inclination for a real analysis of the value of the various programmes or for a proper assessment of priorities. The Government and the House must tackle that general problem urgently and seriously.
  476
  I do not quarrel with the Chancellor's overall strategy or with the Foreign Secretary's comments about the need for discipline in public expenditure, but I believe that the aid programme is a very special case. I have been saying that in the House for well over 20 years, but the same arguments have to be made time and again. Basically, there are four arguments, and they are largely the same as they have been for years. Indeed, we may still be making them in 10 years time. Those arguments must be constantly recycled and re-examined.
  The first argument—this argument, indeed, would stand alone—is that there is a moral compulsion on people living in the most affluent one third of the world to assist those living in the poorest one third of the world. It is important to try to assess what that duty is. We cannot feed these people all the time, although we can provide aid in special emergencies, such as the crisis in Ethiopia. We cannot do the development for them—basically, that is up to them—but we can help them to help themselves. We can put a small part of our capital and technical skills alongside theirs to enable their development plans to work more effectively.
  As for how much we should do, I believe that the target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP, which was fixed by the United Nations General Assembly 15 years ago, is the bare minimum. It was fixed at that modest level so as not to have too much impact on the selfishness of taxpayers in the affluent countries, and I find it deeply embarrassing that this country is now achieving less than half that figure.
  There are many other ways of helping. Trade may be more important. Private investment may be just as important. The quality of the aid programme may be more important than its quantity. Nevertheless, quantity is the clearest single test of our commitment to helping those people to help themselves. We are not meeting that test and we shall slip even further from it next year. In my view, that is a disgrace.
  The second main set of reasons is connected with economic self-interest and can be expressed in the word "interdependence". I echo what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym), when he reminded us of the communiqué of the London economic summit a few months ago. The seven leading industrial countries of the West, together with the European Community, said in that communiqué that the programmes of development assistance should be at least maintained and, if possible, increased in the period ahead. If ours drops in value, we will be letting down our partners in the affluent Western world as well as people in the developing world.
  The third set of reasons is connected with our political stance. This is part of the battle for ideas between the free countries and the Communist countries. We provide aid on a bigger and better scale than the Communists. Inadequate as our efforts may be, theirs are abysmal. The gap must not be allowed to narrow. There is no reason why we should not derive the maximum advantage from the fact that we are helping people to help themselves and at the same time helping to win the battle of ideas—freedom and free enterprise against totalitarianism. That message should be better understood in President Reagan's While House.
  Finally, this is the worst possible time for a reduction in the aid programme. It is a question of trust and understanding between Her Majesty's Government and the British people. Thousands of people in this country are

  477
  deeply shocked by what is happening in Ethiopia. They have been sending donations and organising sponsored events. In villages in my constituency, special action groups have been formed by people who have never done such things before. This is not the moment to cancel out the totality of their efforts several times over by a stroke of a Treasury pen.
  People understand that relief must carry on into development. I have spoken to three village Conservative branches on this matter in the past 10 days and found that people understand that development is the real answer. They urge me to resist—as I am resisting—any cut in our aid programme.
  I hope that the discussion that is emerging in our country will continue. Two countries in western Europe — Sweden and the Netherlands — have engaged in continuing constructive internal debates on these matters for many years. Their aid programmes are bigger than the average. I hope that there will be such a debate in this country leading to a similar result.
  8.33 pm
  Mr. Mark Fisher: As a former Minister of Overseas Development, the right hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Prentice) speaks with authority when he adds his voice to the almost unanimous criticism by hon. Members of the Foreign Secretary's speech.
  This debate is overshadowed by the thought of the people starving and dying in Ethiopia. I doubt whether the debate would have taken place but for the crisis there and the television coverage of it. I pay tribute to the Liberal party for choosing this subject for debate on an Opposition day.
  The Government have responded to the crisis, as the Foreign Secretary said. I welcome the £5 million in aid that has been announced, the 6,500 tonnes of grain, and the Minister's decision — recently announced — to visit Ethiopia next week. However, many people who have written to me and to other hon. Members fear that the Government are doing too little and too late. The Foreign Secretary addressed that criticism in his speech, but he failed to convince me and I suspect that he failed to convince many other hon. Members.
  Is it not a fact that the Ethiopian Government first approached Her Majesty's Government formally for aid in 1983? I believe that it is, because the Minister for Overseas Development himself gave me a written answer to that effect a few weeks ago. Is it not also a fact that our aid to Ethiopia this year, apart from the allocation of EEC aid, has amounted to the princely sum of £300,000 of food and medical supplies and £70,000 of transport aid? I believe that that is true too, because the Minister told me so in another parliamentary answer. I believe that the House and the country were looking for a far more urgent and positive lead from the Foreign Secretary and the Government.
  As hon. Members on both sides have said, the Foreign Secretary's speech was wholly inadequate. The debate gave him an opportunity — in fact required him — to survey the whole globe and to evaluate Britain's interests, responsibilities and contribution. Instead, we listened to the Foreign Secretary myopically stumbling around in an undergrowth of irrelevant detail, quite unable to see the farther horizon of famine and deprivation in the world. In
  478
  one especially demeaning and irrelevant passage, the right hon. and learned Gentleman fidgeted around with information about an increase in the price of entry certificates. What on earth was he doing? He should have been addressing the real problems.
  The other details were even more depressing because they were far more substantial. There was the news about UNESCO, the cut in the British Council, and the cut in the world service of the BBC. Those announcements may have sounded the death knell of British influence in the world. Surely that is not the Government's intention. It is certainly not what the House or the country wants.
  There was another and even more crucial announcement. If I understood the figures correctly—my mental arithmetic may not be as good as that of some other hon. Members—there is to be, in effect, a 2 per cent. cut in our aid budget in real terms. The speech will have to be read very carefully. It will certainly be read carefully in the underdeveloped countries, as an indication of the British contribution and of Britain's priorities. I hope that people will read the report of the whole debate as well, because I believe that it will forcefully represent the views of the House and the people of this country. In their letters to hon. Members, the British people are showing a far more energetic and generous response to the problems of Ethiopia than the Government are.
  The debate has also, rightly, embraced the longer-term problems. As the right hon. Member for Daventry said, there is a question of political will in connection with the United Nations' 0·7 per cent. target. It is a disgrace that we have never reached that target. No hon. Member can be proud of the fact that we now contribute only half that amount. Of course we could do more. Nine other OECD countries contribute a higher percentage than we do. Smaller countries and poorer countries, such as the Netherlands and Norway, do more. We cannot be proud of our record.
  There is also the question of the effectiveness of our aid. I believe that the debate has severely blurred the distinction in terms of effectiveness and in financial terms between bilateral project aid and food and humanitarian aid. We could publish our aid figures in net rather than gross financial terms. We could show the receipts which are connected with project aid agreements — receipts from firms for equipment, staffing, salaries, materials and technical expertise. Those receipts could be netted off against our gross aid and then the real net financial effect of our country's aid programme would be seen to be very different. That might help to concentrate the minds of hon. Members and of the British people on the net financial benefit or loss to this country of our aid programme. That was the altruistic aim behind the 1974 United Nations resolution.
  What are the immediate steps that we could take to improve our approach to aid? We could support the World Bank's initiative in September this year for an emergency programme in Africa. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the $200 million will be devoted to that purpose now that it cannot be allocated for its original purpose under the International Development Association's programme. The Foreign Secretary could encourage greater co-ordination of aid programmes and therefore greater efficiency. Most crucially, he could be encouraging the Government to negotiate immediately and effectively within the EEC to enable food surpluses to be released more swiftly and to be directed more accurately

  479
  and flexibly. Our correspondents have pressed for that. Much aid goes to countries where it undercuts the price of locally produced food. It distorts local markets and acts as a disincentive to local production and investment. We could scrutinise our aid. Although 63 per cent. of our aid goes to the 50 poorest countries — we have a good record in that respect — is the Minister convinced that the aid gets to the poorest people in those poorest countries? I doubt whether any hon. Member could say that it does. Such scrutiny would be supported by most hon. Members and it would ensure much better use of available resources.
  As the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and others have said, the debate is about our national interest, complex choices, political issues and priorities. Far more than that, however, it is about the fact that in spite of our producing vast surpluses, human beings in other continents are starving. The debate is about life and death. That cannot be said of many of our debates. It is a chilling responsibility for the Government which we cannot ignore. From his actions and sincerity I am sure that the Minister understands that. It is also obvious that those who have spoken today understand it. However, from their actions and priorities and from the Foreign Secretary's speech today. there is grave doubt about whether he and the Prime Minister understand it.
  The British people have warmer hearts than the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary. They have responded, especially to Ethiopia, with characteristic and magnificent generosity. They expect the Government to match their generosity and to translate it into political action. They expect the Government to rise to the challenge of Ethiopia and other countries where people are dying. In spite of its fine though rather complacent words, the Government amendment fails dismally to meet that challenge. I hope that the House will support the Liberal motion, stand against the Government and, with constituents who have written to us, reject the Government amendment. If the House does that, it will have made a gesture and have put down a marker on behalf of people who desperately need our assistance.
  8.42 pm
  Mr. Bowen Wells: I rise in anger and sorrow. What we have heard from my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary is short-sighted, politically inept, unnecessary, meaningless in total public expenditure terms and mindless in its pursuit of a budgetary target. It undermines the work that my right hon. and learned Friend and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development have done since they came to office. It undermines the Government's good record in overseas matters. Even if our overseas development programme is not as large as many of us would like, it is effective and has helped and continues to help many people throughout the world. The Government have undermined their good name and let down the British people by the manner in which they have conducted the debate.
  I must balance that statement unless I am to be treated as some kind of nut case who favours aid and ever more aid. Much of the work that has been and is being done is excellent. I wholeheartedly disagree with what the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central (Mr. Fisher) said about the Government's record on Ethiopia. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development imm
  480
  ediately sought ways in which to assist Ethiopia to prepare for the famine as soon as it was clear, two years ago, that famine would come. Bearing in mind the nature of the Government in Ethiopia, the only means by which he could use the overseas development budget was through non-governmental organisations such as Oxfam, Save the Children Fund and the Red Cross. The Government doubled the amount of money available to such organisations and relied on them to get aid to the very people the hon. Member for Stoke-on-Trent, Central, talked about—the poorest people in the poorest areas.
  We have to work in the context of the country concerned and the Government that rule it. We are not a colonial power and we cannot simply say, "You must do development work in this way." The Ethiopian Government's policy involves large state farms producing crops for export. That Government have carried on a vicious civil war against many of their people, especially in the drought-affected areas of Tigré and Eritrea. The Government wanted to stop secessionist movements in those areas and have used despicable tactics to that end.
  The drought has not been rainless. As the Foreign Affairs Select Committee heard last night, there are flash floods. What must be done and what local farmers know how to do is to conserve such water as there is by using small earth dams. Such dams increase agricultural production dramatically. If there is a war, the dams are broken by the passage of troops and vehicles and by the fighting. That has happened and the Ethiopian Government bear a heavy responsibility for that. We can only try to do something about it, even though the Ethiopian Government might oppose our efforts.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, the Ethiopian Government have not yet declared an amnesty to get food which British people, the EC, America and latterly the Soviet Union have sent. The Soviet Union has sent only small amounts of aid and it has supported the Ethiopian Government's iniquitous policies. We have a good record. As I understand it, the Government propose to maintain the aid budget in line with the autumn statement and the White Paper. As has been said, that means a cut if the budget does not compensate for exchange rate variations and rising costs because of overseas inflation. In their reply to the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, in which it was suggested that we establish an equalisation fund, the Government said that instead of establishing such a fund they would bring forward in the spring Supplementary Estimates, sums to compensate the Foreign Affairs budget and the ODA budget for risen costs.
  Neither my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary nor my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development has said whether that remains the case. If it does, the cuts are a matter on which my right hon. and learned Friend should be congratulated. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has said that some of the risen costs in the diplomatic budget must be met but that he will leave the ODA budget alone and let it increase by the amount of its overseas risen costs. If that is so, far from condemning, we should be congratulating my right hon. and learned Friend as this would be the first time that any Government had compensated any Vote for overseas risen. costs. I hope that we shall have a reply so that the House can know what we are talking about. My right hon. and

  481
  learned Friend the Foreign Secretary has left the House in complete bewilderment about what he is talking about, and that cannot be the proper way in which to present a case.
  We live in an interdependent world. We need our Foreign Office posts overseas principally to present our position on major political items such as peace and defence. They should also be concerned with commerce and its promotion. Our economy will not expand unless we export more. That is the nature of Britain. We must export, not only to expand the economy but to enable us to provide overseas development in greater quantities. It is counter-productive and short-sighted to cut posts overseas in the context of expanding our economy in real terms.
  It is also counter-productive to silence our voice through the BBC external service. It is equally counter-productive to silence the promotion of our cultural heritage and the English language through the British Council. That will have a damaging effect on the provision of overseas student places in this country, which the British Council principally administers.
  Interdependence means that overseas countries must have the means by which they can afford to buy goods and services from this country. To do that we must provide the infrastructure of a proper diplomatic service with commercial offices in every area. We must also provide the pump-priming finance to ensure the development that will produce an expansion of world trade as well as the abolition of poverty of the kind in Ethiopia which so disgraces our world.
  8.51 pm
  Mr. Alan Howarth: I should like to make a limited but practical suggestion which I believe will find favour on both sides of the House. We all want to see the maximum possible proportion of money available from the Foreign Office budget channelled towards providing help for people who are starving and in desperate need. At the same time, we do not want cuts which are detrimental to other valuable activities funded from the Foreign Office budget.
  A possibility is available of making a worthwhile switch of funding of up to £20 million—a significant sum — within the overall Foreign Office budget in a manner which should be acceptable to us all. I heard what my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary said about the BBC's external services capital programme, I believe that he has missed a windfall opportunity that was under his nose.
  My suggestion is that my right hon. and learned Friend should abandon the current proposals by the BBC and Foreign Office to build a BBC external services transmitter at Bearley on the edge of Stratford-on-Avon. They would thereby release £19,850,000, a considerable proportion of which could over the next 18 months be added to the sums otherwise available for famine relief and aid. I hope that the House will accept that I am not in an opportunistic way seeking to make a point on behalf of my constituents. The issues raised by Bearley are not just of local significance; they present an important and practical opportunity in the context of the aid budget.
  If the Government follow my suggestion, there will be no detriment to the existing external service broadcasting schedule. I am a strong supporter of the concept of external service broadcasting and very much admire the integrity
  482
  and quality of the broadcasts made. I also want the audibility improvement programme to go ahead, but only on a properly considered and sensible basis. I shall not take up the time of the House by elaborating the reasons why the proposal to use the Bearley site so ill-judged, because I explained them in an adjournment debate on 18 July.
  I shall only say that there has been a catalogue of confusion, incompetence and misrepresentation by some BBC staff who have been responsible for finding a site and advising the director general on Bearley. The formidable weight of technical evidence is that radio frequency interference from this transmitter would have a devastating effect on homes and business. The Royal Shakespeare theatre has stated in plain terms that if the transmitter is built at Bearley it will have to close. A total of 163 Members from all parties have supported an early-day motion urging the Secretary of State not to permit the transmitter to be built.
  I ask the House to agree that, rather than spend £20 million in the next year or 18 months on wreaking havoc in Warwickshire, it would be better to spend it in a special reallocation to help starving people in Ethiopia and sub-Saharan Africa in their current crisis. I hope that the BBC and the Foreign Office will now reconsider their position. They should abandon the Bearley application and either look for another site or develop plans to use satellite technology.
  Meanwhile, in the fiscal year 1985–86, a substantial part of that £20 million earmarked for Bearley should instead go to aid. That would be a decent and prudent course. I very much hope that it will commend itself to all parties and to my right hon. and learned Friend.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Richard Page: In the short time at my disposal I wish to say that we should look at development aid not through the rose-tinted spectacles of those who can only recognise volumes of money but in the context of value for money. But—and this is a but in another direction—we would do well to regard parts of our overseas aid budget as the valuable seedcorn that benefits the donor and recipient countries.
  Before developing that point, I wish to address myself to the question of our embassies and consulates throughout the world, because I believe in helping individuals who export from the United Kingdom. We must reappraise the role of our embassies and consulates and encourage trade organisations, chambers of commerce and trade and exporting countries to develop closer links. In this regard, the Department of Trade and Industry and the Foreign Office can play an important role.
  I am pleased to hear that only yesterday a further step was taken in that direction, when a trade association and some business men held a meeting at the Department of Trade and Industry to explore the opportunities for exporting to east Africa.
  The help to our exporters from our embassies has improved dramatically during the past 10 years. However, we should find out how the volume of that support to the commercial sector compares with that from other countries, and how it stands as a ratio of the total budget. Do any embassy evaluations take place year by year of their commercial impact on the area or country in which they operate? Are they given targets to achieve? Perhaps

  483
  we should examine how Germany operates its commercial sections, how it appoints its commercial attachés and how they operate.
  We need to assess the value of overseas aid, not only for ourselves but for the countries receiving it. We must examine the entire policy, not with a soft, but with a hard-nosed approached. We should ask why other countries—there are a few exceptions—are either increasing or holding level their overseas aid, which is usually tied more closely to a much higher ratio of bilateral to multilateral aid compared with ours. The ratio in France is 6:1 whereas ours is 1:1. Yet as we reduce our aid and other countries increase it, we are getting back 75 per cent. of our bilateral aid out of the £604 million that we gave in 1983. On the aid and trade provisions of £32·7 million, we achieved a further £98 million worth of extra business expended on British goods and services. We also did well from multilateral aid. It is estimated that last year British goods and services equivalent to 120 per cent. of the £477 million which were expended came back in purchases by the agencies concerned.
  These figures raise further questions. Do companies in other countries produce even better returns? Although I appreciate that that could be regarded as commercially confidential, we need the information about additionality to assess the effectiveness of our overseas aid. I hope that the survey commissioned by the Overseas Development Agency with St. Andrew's university will soon be available so that we can assess the effectiveness of our aid.
  Our aid is strongly associated with the poorest countries. On that we should be congratulated. I am not saying that we should cut it, but I ask whether there is a value in providing aid to the more rapidly expanding sections, such as the far east, where other industrialised countries seem to concentrate. My right hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) made that point most effectively.
  That in turn prompts the question: why do other countries concentrate in that area? Are they more philanthropic? Do they care more? Or do they get a better return for their country by reducing unemployment through carrying out a complex calculation in computing the overall benefit to their country, known now as calculating the social cost?
  Finally, I turn to the question of the aid and trade provision. As I mentioned, about £32 million worth of aid generated a further £98 million worth of orders for companies in this country. I believe that that ratio is worth encouraging. However, the aid and trade provision is non-elastic in both time and country. Aid allocated in one year cannot be carried over to the next and aid allocated to a country for a year or for a project that is unspent cannot be re-allocated. With that type of ratio of return I wonder whether some flexibility could not be wisely built into that area.
  The debate shows that we care. I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary made a strong case for our work in the disadvantaged parts of the world. We can be proud of what we do and we should not knock ourselves. However, we can combine practicality and concern for the disadvantaged. It could be that from all of this we might provide employment in this country at a far lower cost by a resultant additionality, which will bring benefits to this country, by establishing new markets as well as helping other nations in the emerging world.
  9.4 pm
  Mr. Richard Ottaway: The hon. Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) and for West Bromwich, West (Miss Boothroyd) mentioned population, and I associate myself with their remarks on that subject. The latter part of the 20th century stands out in history as a period of remarkable population growth. In the early part of the century, growth was at the then rapid rate of 1 per cent.; since then it has accelerated to twice that rate, and between 1950 and today the world's population nearly doubled from 2·5 billion to almost 4·8 billion.
  That explosion is illustrated by two facts. The world's population is growing at the rate of 200,000 babies a day, which is equivalent to the population of a town the size of Southampton each day, or of a city the size of Birmingham each week. The highest growth is in Africa, where a country such as Ethiopia doubles its population every 27 years, and Kenya doubles its population every 17 years. A third of the world's population is aged under 15, and the percentage is increasing. Tomorrow's parents have already been born.
  The increase in the world's population has dropped in recent years from 2·4 per cent. to 2 per cent., but so big is the explosion that numbers are still increasing in absolute terms. The percentage reduction is almost entirely attributable to the draconian policy of China, where marriage is delayed and families are restricted to one child for each couple. However, the population of the world continues to grow, and even if from tomorrow no couple had more than two children, the population would continue to grow for 60 or 70 years.
  Until the 20th century, prosperity and population increase went hand in hand, but during this century., especially since 1950, population growth has been faster in developing countries where incomes are low. Of the 1984 world population increase of at least 80 million, more than 70 million will be added in the developing countries, which now contain about three quarters of the global population. A combination of continued high fertility and much reduced mortality has led to population growth of between 2 per cent. and 4 per cent. a year in most developing countries, compared with 1 per cent. a year in most developed countries. The hard facts are that growth at 1 per cent. a year means that, in 70 years, population merely doubles; at 3 per cent. a year, population grows eightfold.
  It is most important that extrapolations of population should be treated not as predictions but as reasonable assumptions. If the projections of the World Bank are correct, population will grow from 4·8 billion today to 10 billion by 2050. The frightening fact is that 96 per cent. of the increase will be in the developing countries. At the present rate of growth, Ethiopia will have a population of 230 million, whereas its present population is 31 million.
  Rapid population growth slows economic progress. As population grows more rapidly, larger investments are needed just to maintain current capital per person — physical capital in an infrastructure sense and human capital in the needs of education. With so many of the world's population under the age of 15, countries such as Malawi can expect the numbers of their schoolchildren to double or treble by the end of the century. A rapid fertility decline could result in savings of more than 50 per cent. in the school system 30 years from now—savings that could be used to improve the quality of schooling.

  485
  High population growth means, first, rapid expansion of the labour market. In Nigeria, the high fertility of the 1970s guarantees that its working-age population will double by the end of the century. Even in Britain the post-war baby boom is having a significant impact upon the labour market, and is a root cause of increased unemployment.
  Secondly, rapid population growth upsets the precarious balance between man and the environment. In many parts of Africa strains on natural resources are already acute. In Ethiopia the price of wood increased tenfold during the 1970s, and it now claims up to 20 per cent. of household incomes. Competition for land is increasing; in the lowland area surrounding the Ganges in south Asia, population growth and competition for land has forced many people to live too close to the river, in the path of annual floods.
  Thirdly, rapid population growth causes immense urban economic and social problems, with urban systems becoming more and more unmanageable. Sao Paulo in Brazil, which by the year 2000 could be the world's second largest city after Mexico City, was smaller in 1950 than Manchester. Who would have thought that London, which in 1950 was the second largest city in the world, would not even be ranked in the 25 largest cities by the end of the century?
  It clearly follows from what I have said that I strongly believe that more of our overseas aid programme should be spent on population policies in an effort to slow population growth. Many of today's problems are attributable to population growth. We now know that Government programmes can and do make a difference. Many developing countries have shown that fertility can be substantially reduced, and over a short period. It was once assumed that reducing fertility in developing countries was linked to economic prosperity and incomes rising to levels enjoyed by today's developed countries. This view seems to be confirmed by the declining population growth in Korea, Singapore and Hong Kong.
  However, development in a vast number of countries is so slow that we cannot afford to wait, and the Government should not hesitate to assist where they can to minimise the catastrophic effects of population growth in the world. In recent years, population decline has been linked to a different kind of development, that of education, health and alleviation of poverty. The decline in the birth rate since 1965 was much more closely associated with adult literacy and life expectancy that was GNP per capita.
  An analysis of the drop in the population growth shows two fundamental policies working in harmony with each other to contribute significantly to a decline in population growth. One is more widespread education, especially for women, and the other is easier access to contraception. Family planning programmes are shown to be ineffective when it is difficult to operate programmes without some educated women to staff them. Equally, education has had a minimal effect where family planning services have been unavailable. The effects of the two together, however, have been powerful. Evidence from household surveys in India, Egypt and Nigeria shows that parents have fewer children when the education and family planning are readily available.
  486
  Some 87 countries in the developing world, representing about 95 per cent. of its population, now provide publicly-subsidised family planning programmes. Tremendous progress has been made in improving the access of couples to information and services, but much more needs to be done. Nearly all programmes fail to reach most rural people, even in the towns and cities the quality of service is often poor, and discontinuation rates of users are high. Of the 26 countries that have yet to introduce family planning programmes, nearly half are in Africa.
  About $2 billion is currently spent on public family planning programmes in developing countries each year. The World Bank, in its excellent publication entitled "World Development Report 1984", estimates that today, any move to meet the unmet needs of women who would like to space or limit births but who are not practising contraception, would require another $1 billion a year. It states that if developing countries are to achieve a rapid decline in fertility leading to a developing world population of 6·5 billion by the middle of the next century it is estimated that $7·6 billion by the end of the year would be required. To have a standard decline, leading to a developing world population of 8·4 billion in 2050 would require $5·6 billion. These figures may sound a lot, but an official of the World Bank estimated earlier this week that to double the current programme would require only a 0·5 per cent. cut in other aid programmes.
  Like the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins), I believe that there will be many more famines like the current one in Ethiopia, and that the current population explosion is a contributory factor to the difficulties that the world is facing. I accept the financial constraints that any Government will have upon an aid programme but believe that a modest increase in the proportion allocated to population policies will have a significant influence on world population, and will ease the problems that we leave to our grandchildren. An increase in population growth means an increase in the demand for aid. Time is not on our side, and these decisions need to be made now.
  Several Hon. Members rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Mr. Robert Hughes.
  Mr. John Stokes: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. So far, nobody has spoken in favour of the Government. I wish to do so, but I have not yet been called.
  Mr. Speaker: I am still calling Mr. Robert Hughes.
  9.13 pm
  Mr. Robert Hughes: That is the best speech that I have ever heard the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) make.
  We are having this debate because the nation was sickened, as I was, by the harrowing television pictures from Ethiopia. The saddest thing of all is that many of us on both sides of the House have sought to bring overseas aid to the front of our debates for many years, with little success. The Foreign Secretary's response was inadequate. It was bereft of compassion, care, understanding and hope for the future. But the Foreign Secretary was candid about one thing and that was simply that countless thousands will die and countless thousands will face a future of indescribable degradation lest our economic recovery is imperilled.

  487
  The truth of the matter is that our economic recovery is as real as the oasis that appears in the desert, which turns out to be simply a mirage. We have completely failed to see overseas aid other than in terms of emergency or some other sort of food aid. We have done nothing about rural development, developing infrastructure or curing the legacy of colonialism—the lack of transport.
  The Foreign Secretary had no idea of what the future holds. All he did was to shuffle through the figures and leave his hon. Friends on the Back Benches confused, not about whether there was a cut in overseas aid but about precisely how much it would be. No Government in history have ordered their international affairs to solve the problems of poverty and famine. If our generation cannot do it we bequeath a dreadful legacy to those who follow and who must try to solve it.
  9.15 pm
  Mr. David Steel: I am proud that my party chose this subject on one of its rare opportunities to propose a motion to the House. The debate is significant because it is the first to be held under the new ten-minute rule. By its conclusion, 28 Members will have had a chance to speak, which proves the success of the experiment. In that 28 I am not including the hon. Member for Halesowen and Stourbridge (Mr. Stokes) whose valuable contribution drew attention to another feature of the debate—that nobody had spoken for the Government. The hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) put it well and moderately when he said that there was in the House tonight a shared sense of disappointment. Others have put it more strongly than that.
  Let me dispose of one matter at the start. I do not propose to go into the question of our membership of UNESCO. To be candid, that announcement has nothing whatever to do with the debate because it does not affect the budget for the coming year in any way. But no doubt it is useful to fill up newspaper space when there is nothing else to say.
  I hope that the Minister will reply to the point made by the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart). If she is right that the disputed area of UNESCO's policy covers only 13 per cent. of the budget, the Government's reaction seems excessive. I understood that the whole point of giving a year's notice to an international organisation was to enable that organisation to adjust its administration and budget to the fact that a member was to depart. If we are criticising the administration of UNESCO—I understand that that is one of the main criticisms—it is not calculated to help it to announce a conditional withdrawal and then say we might stay in after all in a year's time.
  The main topic of the debate the aid budget. It cannot be said too loudly, too forcefully or too often that whatever gloss is put on the figures or however they are juggled the truth is that for 1985–86 Britain's official contribution to world aid is being cut in real terms because of the combination of real inflation and the drop in the value of the pound sterling since the figures were first calculated in the early part of this year. At the moment it is too early to put a figure on it, but various estimates that I have had put the figure between 2 and 3 per cent. in real terms. Let us not disguise the fact that the announcement made this afternoon means that we shall be contributing in terms of real resources to the poorer parts of the world in the next financial year less than we have been doing.
  488
  A further issue, separate but related in our motion, is the expenditure on the British Council and the BBC external services. Through nearly all my time in the House I have believed that there were three areas of public expenditure from which Britain derives a great deal more than it puts in. One was the British Council, one was the external services, and the third was the subsidy that we gave to the fees for students coming from overseas to our colleges and universities. All three areas have in common relatively trivial expenditure and quite excessive results for the expenditure that they receive. All three have been grievously harmed by the Government.
  Since the announcement this afternoon, the British Council has reminded us that it has already suffered a cut of 20 per cent. in its budget since 1979. The hon. Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) who, I think, is a vice-chairman of the British Council, said that he estimated that the cut announced means a 3 per cent. reduction in the council's budget. The council's other vice-chairman, the hon. Member for City of Durham (Mr. Hughes), implied that he would have to reconsider his position. The House should not underestimate the damage that we are doing to that valuable service, which most hon. Members who have travelled abroad have seen for themselves.
  We have already been through a period in which the external services of the BBC have been trimmed. I thought that the right hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) made a telling point when he said that with the further 1 per cent. cut we would be broadcasting fewer hours to the world than Albania. That is a terrible thing for a country with our reputation and history to maintain.
  In the light of the cuts all round, I am bound to agree with the right hon. Member for Cambridgeshire, South-East (Mr. Pym) that the amendment is lacking in integrity. I do not see how anyone can say that the Government's aid programme is being maintained unless that is qualified by the phrase in the amendment "consistent with" the Government's
  "overall economic and foreign policy objectives".
  Nor do I see how the House can be invited to endorse the Government's continued support for the British Council and the external services of that BBC when that support is delining before our very eyes. The drop in the aid budget: would be serious enough were it not for the record of the past four or five years which has been mentioned many times in the debate. When the Conservative party came to office we were spending about 0·52 per cent. of our gross national product on official aid. That figure has now fallen to 0·35 per cent. But an analysis of the figures reveals an even more serious situation. Since 1979 all the OECD countries except Britain have been increasing their real official aid contributions. The figure for Belgium, Denmark, Germany, Sweden and the Netherlands is up by 5 per cent. and for Austria, Finland, France, Italy and Norway it is up by over 10 per cent. Thus, in the OECD league table Britain is the only one to go in to the negative column as having decreased its aid over that period as a percentage of GNP.
  Moreover, an analysis of the shift in our bilateral aid to the 50 poorest countries shows that in 1979 about 40 per cent. of it went to them, whereas the figure has now fallen to nearer 30 per cent. Thus there has not only been a reduction in real terms but, sadly, the balance of our official aid has been shifting. According to the figures, it is the poorest countries that have been suffering most.

  489
  I should like to take up a point that was made strongly by the Foreign Secretary but with which I disagreed. He talked about the increase in private investment since the lifting of exchange controls. I agree that private investment and trade have a major part to play in assisting the developing world. However, we should be clear that private investment is not the same as aid, but is something upon which people expect to get a return. It cannot be put in the same altruistic humanitarian bracket. Moreover, the figures that the Foreign Secretary gave us show that the amount of the increase in private investment that goes to the poorer countries is infinitesimal. The figures that he gave us included, for example, the great expansion in private investment in countries such as Singapore and Hong Kong since the lifting of exchange controls. People are naturally getting a very good rate of return there, but by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that that is part of Britain's humanitarian effort in the world.
  I hope that the Minister will restrict his consideration to the real topic, which is the official aid programme. At one point the Foreign Secretary almost gave us to understand that the country's entire programme of economic recovery might be blown off course unless the overseas aid programme took its fair share of the cuts all round. To repeat that awful word coined by the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath), this is automaticity of a most extraordinary kind. Even if one examines the Government's theology of monetarism, it is not true to say that they have accepted that every part of Government expenditure must take an automatic cut. Other hon. Members have given examples during the debate. The right hon. Member for Blackpool, South spoke of the £552 million expenditure this year on the Falklands. There is no question of that expenditure having to take an x per cent. cut because that has been decreed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  The same is true of the Trident missile programme, which was first reported to the House in 1980 at £5 billion, although the latest estimate is about double that. Again, the clear evidence is that when the Government decide politically, rightly or wrongly, that they wish to spend in a certain direction they do it. I shall not deal with that argument, although I feel strongly about it. All that the House asks is that the Government operate the same standard on the overseas aid programme and that they use their political will to decide not to cut aid.
  Many references have been made to public opinion. It is encouraging that the public has realised that the long-term solution does not lie in loading Hercules aircraft with grain from Europe and flying it out. The public realises that problems such as irrigation, construction, soil erosion, horticulture and population control have to be solved if we are to avoid repeated disasters.
  We all have memories of particular overseas aid projects. One of the most powerful images that will remain with me all my life is that which I gained when I visited a village of about 5,000 people in Botswana. One member of the Peace Corps had worked there for a year and had transformed the living standards of those people by digging three wells and building a water storage tank. Even if that man does nothing else in his life, in politics, business or in any other sphere, he will have done more to help people than most people in their entire lives.
  490
  The Voluntary Service Overseas programme has a budget of less than £5 million. We could do a lot more to use the energies of our young and skilled people, many of whom are unemployed, and to direct them into overseas aid programmes.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer announced a possible £1·5 billion tax cut for next year. We have not said that such an amount should be used for overseas aid. That sum is more than is spent on the whole overseas aid programme. We have not even said that we should give 10 per cent. of possible tax cuts to the programme. All that we have said is that the programme should be kept as it is. That is a modest request.
  The right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) was right when he said that people had been writing to hon. Members pleading with them not only to help dying children but to prevent more catastrophes. Mention has been made of leading public opinion. In this case public opinion is leading us and the Government should respond.
  9.27 pm
  The Minister for Overseas Development (Mr. Timothy Raison): We have had a serious debate, which is as it should be. A galaxy of Privy Councillors and many other informed and eloquent speakers have addressed the House. The House has been full. Again, that is as it should be and I welcome it. I welcome a major debate on aid and our other overseas activities.
  Many specific points with which I agree have been made. The House understands that our aid programme has to deal with the desperate crisis in Ethiopia recently as well as long-term development. We must never forget that. The House has shown its respect for the work done on behalf of the Foreign Secretary and the many branches of Government for which he is responsible. We welcome that. We have no doubt about the quality of the work done on behalf of the Foreign Office and of the country as a whole.
  The debate has revealed some misunderstandings and my task is to try to clear them up. I cannot answer every point so I shall write to hon. Members on both sides of the House about their specific remarks. I think, for example, of my hon. Friend the Member for Stratford-on-Avon (Mr. Howarth) and others.
  Tonight, I shall try to concentrate on the major themes of this important debate. The House will understand if I tend to concentrate on my own area of responsibility as Minister for Overseas Development. I am proud to serve in that role and I believe that my Department is doing first-class work.
  Important points have been raised in this debate which fall outside the scope of my section of the Foreign Office. I shall first address some of the points made about those other areas that are within the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary. An important point has been made about overseas risen costs. I am, for the moment, talking not about the aid side of the operation where the picture is different, but about the other activities that are the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend.
  More than one hon. Member referred to the observations made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary on the Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on the FCO estimates. The Committee had commented on the impact of risen costs on the FCO diplomatic wing and the British Council. I shall quote

  491
  what my right hon. and learned Friend said in Cmnd. 9367 which was published last month in reply to the Select Committee. His words are important, and I know that hon. Members will listen carefully to them. My right hon. and learned Friend said:
  "rises in expenditure resulting from exchange rate movements and differential inflation will be considered as requirements based on changed economic assumptions … Parliament will when necessary be invited by a Spring Supplementary Estimate to vote those resources which the Foreign and Commonwealth Office cannot find from offsetting savings".
  My right hon. and learned Friend defined those savings as those which are
  "acceptable to Ministers in the light of the Government's foreign policy requirements and its responsibilities for British interests overseas, including cultural interests."
  The command paper explained that the arrangements will apply to the British Council's overseas risen costs as well as the FCO's. My right hon. and learned Friend went on:
  "In fixing the longer term programmes of the Department in the Public Expenditure Survey, account will be taken of changes of economic assumptions up or down in setting the baseline for future years."
  That means that, as far as is acceptable, the British Council and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be compensated for adverse movement in exchange rates and overseas inflation. First, all possible offsetting savings should be sought. I think that the House should see from that statement by my right hon. and learned Friend that we are not up against an immovable brick wall.
  Sir Paul Bryan: Does that proviso cover the BBC overseas service?
  Mr. Raison: I gather that the answer is yes.
  Mr. Geoffrey Rippon: It is obvious that this statement will repay careful study and that it is necessary to do so. Does it mean more or less money this year, for anything?
  Mr. Raison: With respect, that is hardly fair. We cannot at this stage say what it will mean. It is clear from the statement available to the House that we must consider whether it is possible to deal with the impact of these risen costs by offsetting savings. The statement holds out the prospect that, if it is not possible to do that, it will be possible to find the additional money. That is an important statement, and I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hexham (Mr. Rippon) will take note of it.
  Mr. Spearing: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially in view of the time. It is a pity that the Foreign Secretary did not draw that matter to our attention in his speech although I did. When the Minister says that Ministers will decide, does he mean Ministers in the Foreign Office or Ministers including the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister?
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well the system of collective government. His question is frivolous. I quoted clearly what my right hon. and learned Friend said. Hon. Members may wish to study the text which is available. I believe that what I said is of significance to the debate.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: Will the Minister clarify what he has said? He appears to be saying that if there are foreign
  492
  risen costs and if our exchange rate changes, there will be cuts, and that those decisions will not be taken by his Department but by the Government.
  Mr. Raison: I said that Parliament will when necessary be invited by a spring Supplementary Estimate to vote those resources that the FCO cannot find from offsetting savings. That must be a decision by Ministers. There is no alternative to that. I am repeating to the House a statement which I think is of significance. I hope that the House will think carefully about what I said.
  In the case of the British Council, my right hon. and learned Friend has judged that, as against £7million of overseas risen costs, the council should find offsetting savings of £1·2 million and should be compensated by the balance of £5·8 million added to the planned provision for the council for 1985–86 agreed last year. That is a cash increase not a cut.
  In his interesting speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Sir A. Kershaw) said that the offsetting savings of £1·2 million which the council must find represented 3 per cent. of the council's budget. The total resources available to the council are the £67 million core budget, now to be increased by £5·8 million, plus £11 million further contributions from ODA, for example, for the administration of technical co-operation, and £23 million of reciepts from English language teaching arid educational services, making a total for 1985–86 of over £100 million. The £1·2 million savings are thus about only 1 per cent. of that figure. I hope my hon. Friend derives some reassurance from that.
  We must not exaggerate the offsetting savings that the FCO is having to make. Our final decisions or. FCO expenditure next year will take account of future overseas price movements. I am confident that the adjustments that my right hon. and learned Friend has already made will be sufficient for the present to deal with that problem.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has announced an increase of over £2 million for the BBC audibility programme. Reference has been made to the great importance, which my right hon. and learned Friend entirely accepts, of ensuring that those important services can be heard and he has, therefore, agreed to that increase. It will enable important relay stations to be built in Hong Kong and the Seychelles earlier that envisaged, with completion by 1987 rather than 1988.
  My right hon. and learned Friend has also announced an increase of £750,000 towards the BBC's risen costs. They are not overseas risen costs such as those of the British Council, but improved pay and allowances for BBC staff. Those increases are in addition to the planned figures estblished by the February 1984 public expenditure White Paper. He is asking the BBC to absorb a further £1·2 million beyond those figures of risen costs to pay for increased staff allowances. That compares with the planned and agreed provision for the external services of £86 million to which should be added the £15 million spent by the FCO broadcast group on relay stations in Cyprus and elsewhere, operated on behalf of the BBC. So to that £101 million he is adding a further £2·9 million.
  The BBC external services are still broadcasting 720 hours a week, which is higher than the figure in 1979 when we came into office. Since 1979, the provision available' to the BBC external services has grown by 14 per cent. in real terms. That is a good and not a bad record.
  Mr. Johnston: The simple fact is that the BBC external services budget has been cut by £1·2 million. Is not that the case? What effect does the Minister think that will have on the service it provides?
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman must understand that my right hon. and learned Friend is asking the BBC to absorb an element of £1·2 million, but at the same time he is making other resources available to it. I do not think that anybody can look objectively at that picture and deny that what my right hon. and learned Friend is doing is on balance thoroughly helpful to the BBC.
  Mr. Bowen Wells: Will my right hon. Friend explain the matter in layman's language? Are we partially compensating the foreign and diplomatic budget, which includes the external services, for overseas risen costs? We are not meeting the whole of the risen costs; we are meeting part of them. If that is so, it is the first time that that budget has been so underwritten.
  Mr. Raison: May I refer my hon. Friend to the quotation in the earlier part of my speech? The situation is set out clearly in the paper. The House knows perfectly well that I am not saying that there is an automatic compensation factor. The passage that I quoted shows that there is the possibility, if the need is there, for a compensation factor to apply. The House will recognise that that is of real value.
  I turn to the aid programme, which is the area of my own responsibility. The facts are clear. The 1983 expenditure White Paper said that the 1985–86 net aid programme would total £1,130 million. The 1984 White Paper said that the 1985–86 net aid programme will still be £1,130 million. That sum represents an increase of £31 million over the current year's figure.
  The speculation, the rumours, the alarms and excursions have been proved wrong. The aid budget is not being cut by £40 million, £60 million or even, as suggested in the newspapers, £160 million. We are exactly on course, we are exactly on the previous projections, and the aid programme stands as it was.
  We have been discussing overseas costs. There the situation concerning the aid budget is different. They are much less likely to be unfavourable because there is much less of a dollar component in them than in the other parts of the Foreign Office.
  Mr. Stuart Holland: The Minister has not answered the point that was raised by several hon. Members. The 1985–86 figures are given in cash terms and not in constant prices. Do they or do they not take account of inflation? If inflation is 5 per cent., it will be a cut of 2 per cent.
  Mr. Raison: The hon. Gentleman is an economist and knows perfectly well that the old practice of the automatic updating of figures for inflation has been ended and we have moved on to cash terms. [Interruption.] The increase that is represented is about 3 per cent. That is the increase in cash terms. [Interruption.]
  It may be a cut— [Interruption.] It depends on the rate of inflation. We are talking about next year's rate provision. I accept that the increase for next year may not match the level of inflation. On the other hand, over the three-year period of last year, this year and next year, we confidently expect to keep the aid programmes in pace with inflation. We are faced with difficult economic pressures, including public expenditure pressure, and I
  494
  regard it as a considerable achievement that we are able to maintain the aid programme at this level. I am glad that we have been able to do so. The rumours and suggestions of a cut which have been spread over the past few weeks have been proved to be unfounded.
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) has intervened on a number of occasions and the Minister is not giving way now.
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Order.
  Mr. Raison: Hon. Members on both sides of the House who take a genuine interest in the aid programme—I am happy to say that it seems that their numbers are increasing — know that Britain's aid programme is respected across the world for its quality and its achievement. The basic purpose of the programme is to help long-term development. We must help countries to help themselves. We must help them dispense with the need for short-term emergency aid.
  Dame Judith Hart rose—
  Mr. Raison: No, I shall not give way.
  It is the poorest countries which need most assistance. However, the larger poor countries such as India and Pakistan need help as well as the least developed countries. Our aid programme is focused on the poorest countries, especially in the Commonwealth. In 1983, 79 per cent. of our bilateral aid went to the poor countries eligible for IDA funds with an income per head of less than $800. This compares favourably with the record of other donors and with that of the previous Labour Administration.
  Our programme is based on grants rather than loans, which is a factor of great value in these days of mammoth debts. It embodies an important emphasis on technical cooperation and manpower aid. It is geared to achieve the maximum results, often in collaboration with other donors. The days of dispensing aid without caring too much about the results are over. We all know that aid has often achieved too little in relation to expenditure especially, perhaps, in Africa. We must insist that what we provide is put to use. That is why we have put the emphasis on increased donor co-ordination, improved appraisal of projects and improved evaluation of them after they have taken place.
  Mr. Steel: Will the Minister take up the question which has been raised by several hon. Members and explain his calculations on the lost purchasing power of the overseas aid programme because of the reduced value of the pound since the calculations of a year ago and in the light of his optimistic forecast of inflation? If he believes that there is no cut, why does he not accept the motion?
  Mr. Raison: I have told the House what the figure is and given it the percentage rate of increase next year in cash terms over this year. There is no secret about the estimate, and the House can make its calculations. This is part of a picture against which we have managed, with considerable difficulties, over a three-year span to maintain the real value of the aid programme. In the circumstances, I regard that as no mean achievement. I believe that the quality of what we are providing is regarded by the world as quite exceptional.

  495
  It is crucial to achieve effectiveness, and that is why we have placed stress on the European Community's food strategies in African countries and the so-called policy dialogue within the Lomé convention. The House will know that that is the Community's aid and trade agreement with the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries.
  I wish to say a few words about Lomé III. In Brussels on Tuesday we reached the final Community position on the next convention. We agreed on a total for the next European development fund of 7·5 billion ecu or £4.4 billion. Of this, 100 million ecu will go to the overseas territories and the rest to the ACP countries. That represents a substantial increase in real terms over the last convention and is a good figure by any standards. It will contribute especially to developments in Africa where it is most needed. Many Commonwealth countries, of course, will benefit from the convention, as they do now.
  At the same time, however, I am only too well aware of the pressure of multilateral spending, including Community spending, on our total aid budget. Therefore, I have had to stress in the negotiations that there is a strict limit to what we can spend on Lomé out of our aid budget. The result, in my view, looks very satisfactory. The Community has accepted that there should be an upper limit to our contribution to Lomé III of 1,243 million ecu or £740 million. This represents no more than our present share of the 7 billion ecu figure. In other words, there is a useful reduction—from 17·6 per cent. to about 16·8 per cent.—of our share of the convention. That money will not, therefore, be lost to our bilateral programme. It has been a very hard negotiation but the result is a good one and I hope that even today the ACP has accepted it in Brussels so that the convention can be signed in Lomé on 8 December.
  Dame Judith Hart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The House is aware that there is to be a Division at the end of the debate, so it is extremely important that we should be clear about the position. I have been trying to intervene, as have my hon. Friends. In order to vote—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unfair for the right hon. Lady to seek to raise a point with the Minister through me. That is not right.
  Mr. Spearing: The Minister has not replied.
  Dame Judith Hart: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. Speaker: Is it a point of order for me, or a point that the right hon. Lady would like the Minister to answer?
  Dame Judith Hart: As the affairs of the House are involved and a Division is to take place based largely on the Minister's answer, it is important to have clarity. To that extent, I suggest that it is a point for you, Mr. Speaker. The point of clarity is that there is to be at least a 3 per cent. Cut—
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has eight minutes left. No one knows what he is going to say.
  Mr. Raison: As you say, Mr. Speaker, I have eight minutes left. During that time I intend to continue making the points that I wish to make about our aid programme and to answer the debate.
  Mr. Faulds: Obfuscating.
  Mr. Raison: The kind of interventions that we have had do not help.
  496
  Another important point about the aid programme stems from the fact that about 40 per cent. of our aid programme now goes through the multilateral agencies—the Community, the World Bank and the United Nations agencies. When we consider what Britain is doing about development and relief we must recognise that our contribution is not just the bilateral contribution — British aid in the most obvious sense—but our share of multilateral actions, especially in the Community. Specifically, when tackling both the development problems and the urgent relief needs in Africa we have to do so both nationally and as the provider of one fifth of the Community's resources. In considering our future plans in sub-Saharan Africa, we shall and must have that in mind. There has been criticism of what the Community has been doing in Africa. The facts should be noted. First, it happens that Ethiopia represents the largest single programme under the Lomé convention. On the question of food aid, I believe that much has been contributed already, and I have made it my business in Brussels to stress the need for the Community to plan its programme for 1985 and to make sure that food aid is directed to the areas where it is most needed.
  I turn for a moment to the question of UNESCO. My right hon. and learned Friend announced in his speech the Government's decision to give notice that we will leave UNESCO at the end of next year. He made it clear that we shall be prepared to reconsider our position towards the end of next year in the light of the results of next October's general conference in Sofia, if substantial progress has been made in the areas which we have specified as in need of reform.
  I welcome the support of my right hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Sir P. Blaker) and others of my hon. Friends for the step which my right hon. and learned Friend has announced. Let me stress that we hope that sufficient reform will be achieved, and that we shall play our full part in working for it—just as we have done over the past year, thanks largely to very hard work by our officials. We have been in the van of the reform movement, and we shall remain there. But the option of giving notice has always been clearly there, ever since my noble Friend the Baroness Young spelled it out in another place on 25 January this year.
  Many arguments have been put for and against particular courses of action. Our judgment is that the way we have chosen represents the best way of keeping up the pressure, while establishing the ability to make a clean break in a year's time if that finally seems right. It is our own decision, and certainly not one taken on the coat-tails of the United States. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] They have not pressurised us in any way; nor indeed have they played a full part in the reform movement, as we intend to do.
  One thing strikes me strongly about the public debate on UNESCO: the defenders of the way in which UNESCO has been working have been few indeed. Even the right hon. Member for Clydesdale (Dame J. Hart) has not defended it. Everywhere the need for reform is accepted, whether it be reform in its programmes, its operation, its politicisation, its management, its financing or its attitude towards free speech.
  Have we made enough progress in dealing with those deficiencies? That is the question. There has been some progress, but there is still a long way to go. In many respects the crunch will come when promises are or are not

  497
  turned into decisions by the time of next year's general conference. That is why we shall make our final review of the position after that conference has taken place.
  It is time for me to sum up. As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said on 12 November, the provision for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office as a whole in 1984–85 was £1,800 million and in 1985–86 it is £1,870 million. That is in line with the White Paper. That increase of £70 million represents an increase of 4·5 per cent. Of that increase, £31 million goes to the net aid programme, so that our projected figure of £1,130 million is maintained.
  Mr. Holland rose—
  Mr. Raison: Overall, there is an increase in the budget of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office which is in line with inflation. However, there are special cost factors overseas—often, though not always, adverse—and my right hon. and learned Friend is having to do some pruning. I remind the House that the Government are firmly committed to the control of public expenditure. That is what the electors voted for last year. My right hon. and learned Friend has made it clear that he regrets that he has to make changes, but I hope that I have shown that by no stretch of the imagination could those changes be regarded as drastic, draconian or severely damaging. Such a suggestion is wholly ridiculous.
  As in so many other respects, we shall be able to afford the services that we should like only when we have secured the country's economic base. I am glad that I have been able to maintain my projected figure for—
  Mr. A. J. Beith rose in his place and claimed to move, That the Question be now put.
  Question, That the Question be now put, put and agreed to.
  Question put accordingly, That the original words stand part of the Question:—
  The House divided: Ayes 184, Noes 311.

  Division No. 15]

  [10 pm

  AYES

  Abse, Leo

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Adams, Allen (Paisley N)

  Canavan, Dennis

  Alton, David

  Carter-Jones, Lewis

  Anderson, Donald

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Clarke, Thomas

  Ashdown, Paddy

  Clay, Robert

  Ashley, Rt Hon Jack

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Ashton, Joe

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)

  Cohen, Harry

  Bagier, Gordon A. T.

  Coleman, Donald

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Cook, Frank (Stockton North)

  Barnett, Guy

  Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

  Barron, Kevin

  Corbett, Robin

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Bell, Stuart

  Cowans, Harry

  Bennett, A. (Dent'n & Red'sh)

  Craigen, J. M.

  Bidwell, Sydney

  Crowther, Stan

  Blair, Anthony

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)

  Boothroyd, Miss Betty

  Deakins, Eric

  Boyes, Roland

  Dewar, Donald

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Dixon, Donald

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Dobson, Frank

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  Dormand, Jack

  Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)

  Douglas, Dick

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  Dover, Den

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  Dubs, Alfred

  Bruce, Malcolm

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Buchan, Norman

  Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.

  Caborn, Richard

  Eadie, Alex

  Campbell, Ian

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  498

  Ewing, Harry

  Mikardo, Ian

  Faulds, Andrew

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Field, Frank (Birkenhead)

  Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

  Fisher, Mark

  Nellist, David

  Forrester, John

  Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon

  Foulkes, George

  O'Brien, William

  Fraser, J. (Norwood)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Freud, Clement

  Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

  Garrett, W. E.

  Park, George

  George, Bruce

  Patchett, Terry

  Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John

  Pavitt, Laurie

  Golding, John

  Pike, Peter

  Gould, Bryan

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Prescott, John

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Randall, Stuart

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)

  Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith

  Rhodes James, Robert

  Harvey, Robert

  Richardson, Ms Jo

  Haynes, Frank

  Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Robertson, George

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Robinson, G. (Coventry NW)

  Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)

  Rogers, Allan

  Home Robertson, John

  Rooker, J. W.

  Howells, Geraint

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hughes, Roy (Newport East)

  Ryman, John

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Hume, John

  Sheldon, Rt Hon R.

  John, Brynmor

  Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

  Johnston, Russell

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Kennedy, Charles

  Silkin, Rt Hon J.

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

  Lambie, David

  Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'kl'ds E)

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Snape, Peter

  Leighton, Ronald

  Soley, Clive

  Lester, Jim

  Spearing, Nigel

  Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Litherland, Robert

  Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Strang, Gavin

  Lofthouse, Geoffrey

  Straw, Jack

  Loyden, Edward

  Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wainwright, R.

  McGuire, Michael

  Wallace, James

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Wardell, Gareth (Gower)

  McKelvey, William

  Wareing, Robert

  Maclennan, Robert

  Weetch, Ken

  McNamara, Kevin

  Wells, Bowen (Hertford)

  McTaggart, Robert

  Welsh, Michael

  McWilliam, John

  White, James

  Madden, Max

  Williams, Rt Hon A.

  Marek, Dr John

  Wilson, Gordon

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Winnick, David

  Mason, Rt Hon Roy

  Woodall, Alec

  Maxton, John

  Wrigglesworth, Ian

  Maynard, Miss Joan

  Young, David (Bolton SE)

  Meacher, Michael

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Mr. A. J. Beith and

  Michie, William

  Mr. John Cartwright.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Bellingham, Henry

  Alexander, Richard

  Bendall, Vivian

  Alison, Rt Hon Michael

  Benyon, William

  Amess, David

  Best, Keith

  Ancram, Michael

  Biffen, Rt Hon John

  Arnold, Tom

  Blackburn, John

  Ashby, David

  Body, Richard

  Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)

  Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Boyson, Dr Rhodes

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Batiste, Spencer

  Bright, Graham

  499

  Brinton, Tim

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Brittan, Rt Hon Leon

  Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hampson, Dr Keith

  Browne, John

  Hannam, John

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Harris, David

  Bryan, Sir Paul

  Haselhurst, Alan

  Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Hawkins, C. (High Peak)

  Budgen, Nick

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Butcher, John

  Hawksley, Warren

  Butterfill, John

  Hayes, J.

  Carlisle, John (N Luton)

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

  Hayward, Robert

  Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Carttiss, Michael

  Heddle, John

  Cash, William

  Henderson, Barry

  Chalker, Mrs Lynda

  Hickmet, Richard

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Hind, Kenneth

  Chapman, Sydney

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Chope, Christopher

  Holt, Richard

  Churchill, W. S.

  Hooson, Tom

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

  Hordern, Peter

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Howard, Michael

  Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Clegg, Sir Walter

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Cockeram, Eric

  Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'ldford)

  Colvin, Michael

  Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

  Conway, Derek

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Coombs, Simon

  Hunt, David (Wirral)

  Cope, John

  Hunter, Andrew

  Corrie, John

  Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas

  Couchman, James

  Jackson, Robert

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Jessel, Toby

  Crouch, David

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Dickens, Geoffrey

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Dicks, Terry

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Jopling, Rt Hon Michael

  Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

  Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

  Dunn, Robert

  Kershaw, Sir Anthony

  Durant, Tony

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)

  King, Rt Hon Tom

  Eggar, Tim

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Emery, Sir Peter

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Evennett, David

  Knowles, Michael

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Knox, David

  Fairbairn, Nicholas

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Fallon, Michael

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Favell, Anthony

  Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Fletcher, Alexander

  Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lilley, Peter

  Forman, Nigel

  Lloyd, Ian (Havant)

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Forth, Eric

  Lord, Michael

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Fox, Marcus

  McCrindle, Robert

  Franks, Cecil

  Macfarlane, Neil

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  MacGregor, John

  Freeman, Roger

  MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

  Fry, Peter

  Maclean, David John

  Gale, Roger

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

  Galley, Roy

  McQuarrie, Albert

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Madel, David

  Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)

  Major, John

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Malone, Gerald

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maples, John

  Goodhart, Sir Philip

  Marland, Paul

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marlow, Antony

  Gow, Ian

  Marshall, Michael (Arundel)

  Gower, Sir Raymond

  Mather, Carol

  Greenway, Harry

  Maude, Hon Francis

  Gregory, Conal

  Mawhinney, Dr Brian

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

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Mellor, David

  Grist, Ian

  Merchant, Piers

  Ground, Patrick

  Miller, Hal (B'grove)

  500

  Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Mitchell, David (NW Hants)

  Soames, Hon Nicholas

  Moate, Roger

  Speed, Keith

  Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

  Speller, Tony

  Monro, Sir Hector

  Spence, John

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Spencer, Derek

  Moore, John

  Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

  Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Mudd, David

  Squire, Robin

  Murphy, Christopher

  Steen, Anthony

  Neale, Gerrard

  Stern, Michael

  Needham, Richard

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Neubert, Michael

  Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)

  Newton, Tony

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Stewart, Ian (N Hertf'dshire)

  Normanton, Tom

  Stokes, John

  Norris, Steven

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Onslow, Cranley

  Tapsell, Peter

  Oppenheim, Phillip

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.

  Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.

  Page, Richard (Herts SW)

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Parris, Matthew

  Thorne, Neil (llford S)

  Patten, Christopher (Bath)

  Thornton, Malcolm

  Patten, John (Oxford)

  Thurnham, Peter

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Townend, John (Bridlington)

  Pawsey, James

  Tracey, Richard

  Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

  Trippier, David

  Pollock, Alexander

  Trotter, Neville

  Porter, Barry

  van Straubenzee, Sir W.

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

  Vaughan, Sir Gerard

  Powell, William (Corby)

  Viggers, Peter

  Powley, John

  Waddington, David

  Price, Sir David

  Waldegrave, Hon William

  Prior, Rt Hon James

  Walden, George

  Proctor, K. Harvey

  Walker, Bill (T'side N)

  Raffan, Keith

  Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester)

  Raison, Rt Hon Timothy

  Wall, Sir Patrick

  Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)

  Waller, Gary

  Renton, Tim

  Ward, John

  Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas

  Watson, John

  Ridsdale, Sir Julian

  Watts, John

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)

  Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

  Wheeler, John

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Whitfield, John

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Whitney, Raymond

  Rost, Peter

  Wiggin, Jerry

  Rowe, Andrew

  Wilkinson, John

  Rumbold, Mrs Angela

  Winterton, Mrs Ann

  Ryder, Richard

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Wolfson, Mark

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Wood, Timothy

  St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.

  Yeo, Tim

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Young, Sir George (Acton)

  Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

  Younger, Rt Hon George

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Shersby, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Silvester, Fred

  Mr. Robert Boscawen and

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Mr. Ian Lang.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 33 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.
  Mr. Speaker forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House commends the Government's substantial support for development in the Third World including the encouragement of trade and investment; welcomes its prompt response to the famine in Ethiopia and elsewhere; approves the maintenance of the Government's planned aid programme

  501
  consistent with its overall economic and foreign policy objectives; and endorses the Government's continued support for the British Council and the BBC external services.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting, the Friendly Societies Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour. — [Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

Orders of the Day

  Friendly Societies Bill
  Considered in Committee.
  Clauses 1 to 4 agreed to.
  Bill reported without amendment.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
  10.16 pm
  Dr. Oonagh McDonald: As we said on Second Reading, the Opposition do not oppose this measure. It has the agreement of the friendly societies and merely ensures that life policies which have already been issued are legal. The Bill arose from the changes that were made during the Finance Bill to friendly societies' limits, when the Government saw fit to make life less comfortable for the 4,000 pre-1966 friendly societies by lowering the limits of their tax-exempt business on the grounds that there was abuse or fiddling—a claim which was later withdrawn in Committee—[Interruption.]
  Mr. Robin Corbett: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry to interrupt my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald), but for those who wish to hear what she is saying, is it within your powers to ask those hon. Members standing behind the Chair to conduct their conversations elsewhere?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I understand the hon. Gentleman's point, and I find it difficult to hear the hon. Lady. I hope that hon. Members leaving the Chamber will do so quickly and quietly and that other hon. Members will listen to the hon. Lady's speech.
  Dr. McDonald: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Perhaps I may now conclude the enthralling points that arise from the Bill.
  During the Finance Bill Committee stage the Opposition tabled amendments to reverse the Government's decision, which was debated fully and adequately. Similar amendments were tabled on Report, but were withdrawn in the interests of hastening the Report stage of the Bill. We believed that we had already warned the Government in Committee. We were then a little surprised to learn that the Minister, in the correspondence with the friendly societies that he had to have to sort out their legal position, was unkind enough to suggest that the Opposition were unwilling to do anything to protect the friendly societies, such as tabling and debating amendments on Report. I am sure that that was an aberration on the part of the Minister and he did not mean to be quite as unkind and unfair to the Opposition. I am sure that, when he replies to the debate, he will make that point clear.
  It is necessary for the Bill to go through, to protect current policy holders. We cannot have any objection to that as we also wish to protect their interests.
  10.21 pm
  The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Ian Stewart): There are two main aspects to the proposals in the Bill. The first concerns the validity and tax treatment of policies taken out in good faith by 300,000 policyholders in recent years. The second concerns the business that friendly societies will be allowed to do in future, and the limits applicable to tax-exempt policies. The Government decided that it was right to act promptly to solve the problems that had arisen in these areas. Let me emphasise that the policyholders affected have, and have had, no cause to worry. The legislation includes provisions that place their policies in the same position as they have previously believed them to be. Therefore, policyholders and friendly societies will continue to receive the favourable tax treatment that they expected when the policies were taken out.
  As regards the future, it is necessary to remove doubts that have arisen about the legitimacy and tax treatment of various kinds of policies issued by friendly societies. In particular, the application of the tax-exempt limits is now to be clearly defined. One consequence is that it will no longer be necessary to restrict the business of societies established since 1966 so tightly, and they will now be permitted to issue endowment as well as whole life policies. They will be able also to offer policies to all adult members, and not just to those with dependants, as has been the case up to now.
  As I explained on Second Reading, many of the consequential provisions that are suitable for a Finance Bill will be included in the Finance Bill next year. The hon. Member for Thurrock (Dr. McDonald) mentioned the debates that we had in Committee on the Finance Act 1984. These problems are not entirely related to the change of the tax-exempt limit and some of the provisions of the Bill will be of benefit both to the traditional friendly societies as well as those that have been established since 1966.
  I take this opportunity to express my approval of and support for, the friendly society movement which, for 200 years or more, has made a valuable contribution to society, combining philanthropic and social purposes with financial provisions. I also express my thanks to the Opposition for the passage of the Bill, enabling a helpful measure to get on to the statute book as fast as possible.
  I also thank the chief registrar and his staff arid members of the Inland Revenue for the speed and efficiency of their response 'when this problem came to light. In particular I mention Mr. Alec Wilson, the assistant registrar, who was closely involved in this process and in the preparation of the Bill. Mr. Wilson, who was on duty for the Second Reading debate last Friday, has fallen seriously ill since then. On behalf of the House, I convey to him a message of gratitude and of good wishes for his recovery.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    CONSULAR RELATIONS
    That the draft Consular Relations (Privileges and Immunities) (People's Republic of China) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.

    RATING AND VALUATION
    That the Rating of Caravan Sites (Scotland) Order 1984, dated 8th October 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]
    Question agreed to.

  CIVIL AVIATION BILL [MONEY]
  Queen's Recommendation having been signified—
  Resolved,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Civil Aviation Bill, it is expedient to authorise the release of the Civil Aviation Authority from its liability to repay money lent to it under section 12(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1982 or section 10(2) of the Civil Aviation Act 1971 up to a maximum of £6 million.—[Mr. Archie Hamilton.]

  Social Security (Contributions)
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Contributions, Re-rating) (No. 2) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Social Security (Treasury Supplement to Contributions) (No. 2) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 12th November, be approved.—[Mr. Newton.]
  10.25 pm
  Mr. Michael Meacher: I beg to move,
  That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Social Security (Contributions) Amendment (No. 2) Regulations 1984 (S.I. 1984, No. 1756), dated 8th November 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 12th November, be annulled.
  Although other recent changes in the social security rules as announced in the Chancellor's autumn statement —I refer to changes such as the flawed restoration of the 5 per cent. cut in invalidity pension, the restrictions on board and lodging charges claimed by private home owners and restrictions on young people leaving home and claiming benefit—have had a great deal more publicity, the changes proposed by the regulations are much more significant and, in one case in particular, much more damaging. That is why the Opposition have sought to pray against them this evening.
  By far the most serious and reprehensible change is the proposal to reduce the Treasury's contribution to the national insurance fund from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent. That seemingly small switch conceals a cut in potential benefits of no less than £530 million. The background to that lies in the Government Actuary's report on the financial state of the national insurance fund, which shows an estimated surplus for the current financial year 1984–85 of £661 million. That favourable position is expected to continue into the next financial year 1985–86 so it is not short-lived and it is in no way an aberration.
  Since the contributory principle is presumed to operate —the Government have never formally denied that—and since contributors have therefore paid into the fund with a contractual expectation that those on benefit will receive commensurate benefits, the only reasonable course for the Government to take would be either to increase benefits or to reduce contribution rates or to adopt some combination of the two. In fact, the Government have chosen the one alternative that is not reasonable, which cheats those on benefits of their entitled rights, which goes against the whole post-war tradition of the fund—to cut yet again the Treasury supplement.
  I cannot protest too strongly to the House this evening that that is a gross abuse of the national insurance fund. The fund is being transformed into a Treasury lapdog in order to serve the function of making the Treasury's revenue-raising role so much easier. In practice, it means that the Department of Health and Social Security is no longer operating an insurance system; it has opened a bucket shop for the Treasury.
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer has raided the national insurance fund in order to scrounge £0·5 billion this year to assist with reducing, in as secret and furtive a manner as possible, his notorious over-run on public expenditure. Every hon. Member knows that he overshot his target this year by more than £1·5 billion, and has screwed back one third of it at the expense of those on

  507
  benefit who are mainly pensioners and who would otherwise be getting higher pensions, which have been paid for. That is the meaning of the regulations.
  This is the fourth time that the Government have played that trick on pensioners. In 1980, they reduced the Treasury supplement from 18 per cent. of contributions to 14·5 per cent. Then they reduced it to 13 per cent. Last year the Chancellor did it again, and reduced it by a further 2 per cent. to 11 per cent., thereby saving the Treasury £450 million. The other side of the coin is that he was cheating pensioners of £450 million which they could otherwise have received. Under these regulations the supplement has been reduced by yet another 2 per cent. to just 9 per cent., which is half the level that this Government inherited from the previous Labour Government.
  In all, therefore, by 1985 the Treasury will be paying into the national insurance fund a sum that is £2,000 million less, on an annual basis, than it would have been if the 18 per cent. level inherited from Labour in 1979 had not been tampered with. That is the significance of the regulations. That is either a measure of the cut that the Government have brought about in benefit levels which would have been achieved if the arrangements inherited from Labour had simply been continued, or it is a measure of the deliberate shift a more regressive system of taxation, in the form of national insurance contributions which have had to be raised much higher than would otherwise have been necessary. It is because the Government's policy in that respect is unjust—and gratuitously unjust, because it is not necessary — because it is yet another redistributive device by this Government that favours the rich by hitting further at the poor, and because it subverts the national insurance fund into an instrument for pegging public expenditure rather than meeting need, that we feel we must pray against the regulations.
  I repeat that higher pensions and other benefits have been budgeted for and paid for. It is only the Treasury's deliberate intervention in the form of this hole-in-the-corner device that is preventing higher pensions from being paid. If DHSS or Treasury Ministers had any guts—I say that to the Secretary of State, and am glad to see him here—they would have come to the Dispatch Box and made the following public announcement: "Contributors have paid for higher pensions but we have decided not to increase pensions in line with the contributions made. We have decided instead to use the money for other purposes. Instead we have sacrificed the pensioners' money to maintain the Chancellor's puff that he is controlling public expenditure." That is what the Secretary of State should have told the House.
  I cannot say too strongly that it is iniquitous that pensions are not being raised higher when the Government Actuary estimates that, even after this lower Treasury supplement is paid into the national insurance fund there will still be a surplus on the national insurance fund of £834 million for the next financial year. That sum, plus this reduction in the Treasury supplement, could have been used to increase pensions next Monday by an extra 50p a week for every single pensioner and by £1 for every married couple in retirement. That is the measure of what the Government are denying the pensioners, partly by these regulations.
  We have a further reason for opposing the regulations. A second order amends the lower and upper earnings limits in line with inflation. The national insurance contribution
  508
  is a regressive means of raising revenue. The lower earnings limit is substantially lower than the tax threshold. Moreover, as soon as earnings exceed the limit—this affects low paid, part-time women workers — contributions are levied on earnings below the limit and above it, thereby imposing a greater burden on the low paid. We are talking about the national insurance contribution trap in the same way as we talk about the poverty trap.
  An upper earnings limit above which contributions are not levied — at about one and a half times average earnings — means that a much lower burden is placed upon the high paid. The relevance of what the Government have done is that the lower earnings limit is linked to the flat-rate retirement pension. Had pensions under this Government still been uprated in line with average earnings and not with prices, as they were under the previous Labour Government, the pension would now be about £36·85 a week for a single pensioner instead of £34·05. That would have meant rather higher upper and lower earnings limits.
  The fact that the lower earnings limit is lower than it would have been means that the poor are forced to pay more for their benefits. The fact that the upper earnings limit is lower means that the well-off pay less for their benefits. That is the other reason why we object to the regulations and believe that they are unfair.
  The regulations abuse the role of the national insurance fund for the purpose of counterfeiting lower public expenditure targets. They deny benefits to pensioners and others who have paid for them. As part of this Government's redistributive programme from the poor to the rich, the regulations increase the contribution burden on the poor and reduce it further for the rich. For those reasons we strongly oppose them.
  10.38 pm
  The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Tony Newton): Before I deal with the comments by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), I shall outline the purpose and main features of the regulations associated with the prayer.
  This is a regular, annual, exercise in which the Government bring before the House their proposals for national insurance contribution rates and related matters.
  I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would acknowledge that for the second successive year there is to be no change in the rate of class I national insurance contributions. I understand the complaints when national insurance contributions are increased. It would have been pleasant if some reference had been made to the fact that this year they are not to be increased. The lack of increase benefits both employees and employers and reflects something which the hon. Gentleman's speech conspicuously failed to reflect—a determination to keep the tax contributions burden as low as possible.
  I also hoped that the hon. Gentleman would mention that the year under discussion will be the first in which employers will receive full benefit from our abolition of the huge burden placed on them by the last Labour Government in the form of the national insurance surcharge. [Interruption.] I wonder how many jobs in the constituency of the hon. Member for Oldham, West were lost as a result of the national insurance surcharge. If the hon. Gentleman represents a constituency in which no jobs were lost because of the imposition of the national

  509
  insurance surcharge, he must be unique among Members of Parliament. The abolition of the national insurance surcharge is alone worth more than £800 million to employers in the full year 1985–86. That, too, is part of the background to what we are debating.
  The hon. Member said that, although the rate of class 1 contributions remains constant, there is, as usual, a change to the lower and upper earnings limits for employees' and employers' contributions. We are simply fulfilling the requirements laid down in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975 which requires the lower earnings limit to be equal to or no more than 49p below the basic rate of retirement pension and the upper limit to be between 6·5 and 7·5 times that rate. A pension rate of £35·80 next year — it will represent a real increase in the value of retirement pension in the period during which the Conservative party has been in office — points unavoidably to a lower earnings limit of £35·50, if we follow the usual practice of dealing in multiples of 50p.
  The upper earnings limit permits a little more discretion. It would have been possible to extend it to £268·50, but the figure that we have chosen—£265 — represents a 6 per cent. increase on the current limit of £250 and is broadly the same as the general increase in the level of earnings. It is equivalent to 7·4 times the basic pension rate and therefore is close to the maximum legally permitted within the range of 6·5 to 7·5 times that limit, again as laid down in the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.
  I do not think that any of us would say that we think that the existing limits for lower and upper earnings are perfect and should stand unquestioned for all time. Clearly, the operation of those limits is one of the aspects that we shall be considering in relation to the social security reviews. Everyone would acknowledge that some features of the lower earnings limit, including the bunching of quite a lot of employment aspects which bring one just below the earnings limits—for example, hours and pay rates—raise some question marks.
  I hope that the hon. Member, if he follows the full logic of his remarks, will acknowledge that merely to sweep away the existing arrangements and, for example, to exempt all earnings below the lower earnings limit from contributions payable by those whose total earnings are above the lower earnings limit would cost, according to the last estimate that I saw about £6 billion in revenue. Where then would all the hon. Gentleman's commitments about higher benefits and the rest go? I hope that the hon. Gentleman will at least acknowledge that, whatever the criticisms that may be made about the operation of the present system, a number of difficult questions are involved in considering how best the system might be altered. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will simply accept from me that we shall be looking at these problems in a constructive spirit—I am especially glad to see my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State nodding his head in what I take to be agreement—in the social reviews that we are undertaking.
  Most people earn between the existing lower and upper earnings limits, and so will be virtually unaffected by these changes. Their contribution will rise only in so far as their earnings rise. The contributions of employees with weekly earnings of over £250 will increase by up to £1·35 per week, and up to £1·05 in the case of contracted-out
  510
  employees, because of the increase in the upper earnings limit. For the same reason, employers will have to pay increased contributions for employees with high earnings. The maximum increase will be £1·57 per week. Again, that will be slightly different for contracted-out employees for whom they will be £1·01.
  If there are those in the House—I sense that there will not be too many on the Opposition Benches—who are worried about the additional burden that may represent for some employers, I should also observe that another significant factor in the proposals that the Government are currently putting—if I may stray a little, Mr. Deputy Speaker, from the proposals that we are debating—is that we intend alongside the proposed extension of statutory sick pay, to relieve employers of the cost of the secondary contributions that they make on payments under that scheme. We intend to introduce that relief on existing statutory sick pay in advance of our proposals for extending the scheme as a whole from April, 1986.
  That will mean savings to employers of up to £40 million a year from their national insurance contributions on their payments for spells of sickness pay up to eight weeks—as well as meaning in the longer term that they will not bear the costs of employers' contributions on the additional payments of SSP which they would make from April 1986 if Parliament endorses the proposals in the Social Security Bill that we shall be debating on Monday.
  Mr. Tim Smith: I was most encouraged to hear what my hon. Friend said about the lower earnings limit. There is now a widening gap between the starting point for the payment of national insurance contributions and the payment of tax. It seems that if we do nothing about it that gap will widen judging from what my right hon. Friend the Chancellor said recently. In his review, will my hon. Friend consider the possibility of removing the link with the single person's pension to see whether we could substitute a new link perhaps with the starting point for tax?
  Mr. Newton: I note my hon. Friend's suggestion. He will understand that while we are studying thoroughly and, I hope, reasonably openly, many social security issues, I do not wnat to be taken too far down the path of commenting on that in detail.
  I ask my hon. Friend and perhaps the hon. Member for Oldham, West to recognise that, apart from the financial consequences that might flow from alterations in the existing arrangements which would plainly have to be taken into account, raising the lower earnings limit in a way that leaves more people outside the national insurance system means also leaving them outside the rights conferred by that system to receive benefit in certain contingencies. If people are freed from paying national insurance contributions, they are in certain circumstances paying a price as well as gaining the immediate benefit of not having to pay the contributions while they are employed. There are many people for whom that balance would be difficult to draw, a fact which Ministers and Opposition spokesmen should take into account.
  Hon. Members will be aware that self-employed people pay their contributions in two parts—the flat rate class 2 contribution and the profits-related class 4 contribution. As it is not proposed to increase the class 1 rate, it follows that no increase is needed in the class 4 rate which is derived from it. The profits limit for class 4 contributions

  511
  rises automatically each year like the earnings limit for class 1 contributions. The figures proposed this year are £4,150 and £13,780, the latter figure being 52 times the upper earnings limit.
  The formula for determining the class 2 rate gives a figure of £5·05 a week. However, for the past few years we have set that rate at a figure 20p below the one given by the formula as a deliberate and modest but helpful incentive to small businesses. I am glad to say that we have been able to increase that abatement to 30p so that the new weekly rate of class 2 contribution will be £4·75—an increase of only 15p a week.
  The effect of the changes is that for self-employed people who pay only class 2 contributions there will be an annual increase of £7·80. But for those with profits between £4,150 and £13,000 there will be a reduction of £4·80 a year, assuming the same level of profits as in 1984–85. Like employees who earn more, those self-employed who make higher profits will, of course, pay more. For those with profits of or above £13,780, the new upper profits limit, the increase will be £44·34 a year—less than £1 a week. The small earnings exception from class 2 liability also rises automatically—in this case from £1,850 to £1,925 a year. Lastly, the proposed voluntary class 3 rate is, as usual, 10p below the class 2 rate, giving a figure of £4·65 a week from next April.
  I should like to refer to some of the remarks that the hon. Member for Oldham, West made about the Treasury supplement to the national insurance fund. Without attempting to engage in a lengthy debate with him about the philosophy and purpose of the fund, I must observe that his remarks appeared to show a misunderstanding of the fact that the national insurance scheme, whether in relation to pensions or anything else, is not a funded scheme; it is a pay-as-you-go scheme.
  The implication of the hon. Gentleman's approach to the scheme appears to be that, if there is more money in the fund, that should automatically be paid out to the beneficiaries. The more normal way of looking at the position would be that if the fund is taking in more money than it needs to pay the benefit rates, the benefit should accrue to contributors. I do not want to engage at great length now in that argument, but I do not believe that the Government of whom the hon. Gentleman was a member, or any other Government of whom I am conscious in the years since the national insurance fund was set up, has operated the fund on the basis that if the income from contributions rises at any time, the automatic consequence of that is to increase the benefits that are paid out. I do not believe that the fund could sensibly operate on that basis.
  Mr. Meacher: The Minister has not answered my point. Where there is a substantial surplus running into several hundred million pounds, and where there has always been a Treasury supplement substantially larger than the Government are now permitting it to be, there could be a significant increase in pensions, which I estimate to be 50p a week per pensioner, or there could be a cut in contribution rate. My objection is that the Government have done neither of those things but have used the opportunity to grab back the money so as to pretend that they are holding public expenditure in check.
  Mr. Newton: I move on to the point which I think is most significant in relation to the hon. Gentleman's remarks—his apparent belief that the way in which the
  512
  expenditure on benefits is being financed represents a steady reduction in the burden on the taxpayer in comparison with the burden on the contributor.
  It has to be recognised that: in recent years the tendency has been for a growing amount of social security expenditure as a whole to be met directly by the taxpayer out of the Consolidated Fund—in particular, as the hon. Gentleman has rightly acknowledged, in respect of supplementary benefit, but also to a significant extent as a result of the growth in non-contributory benefits of various kinds.
  In his remarks the hon. Gentleman also appeared to fail to acknowledge that the proportion of benefit expenditure met by general taxation has risen substantially overall in recent years—from about 40 per cent. of total benefit expenditure in 1976–77 to about 49·5 per cent., estimated, in 1984–85. Against that background, it does not seem unreasonable—I accept that this is a matter on which there can be differences of judgment—to say that it is appropriate to maintain a balance which is less heavily weighted to increase the burden on taxpayers given the developing structure of the payment of the benefit system itself.
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood: If we follow the Minister's logic, should we expect him to take another 2 per cent. next year? As the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, the Government have halved the contribution since 1980. Is he implying that he will take another 2 per cent. next year?
  Mr. Newton: I am not implying or intending to imply anything for the future. Given the way in which the burdens of social security expenditure have changed in recent years and the way in which the pattern of social security expenditure has changed in recent years between contributory and non-contributory benefits, it does not seem to be unreasonable to say that the funding of contributory benefits paid out of the national insurance fund should be met increasingly by contributions directly from contributors rather than from contributors' contributions from the taxpayer. The taxpayers' effort should be directed increasingly at the benefits which properly and rightly fall on the taxpayer, which is the growing part of benefit expenditure which has nothing to do with the national insurance fund. I do not want to be taken as saying anything about what conclusions might be drawn from that in any other year as that will be a matter of judgment at the time. I merely say that a reasonable set of judgments have been taken over a period.
  Mr. Tim Smith: What is the theoretical justification for the Treasury supplement? Why do we have one? Es there a historical explanation?
  Mr. Newton: The theoretical justification goes right back to the Beveridge report and the concept that the national insurance system was a tripartite collaboration between employees, employers and the taxpayer. That concept was based on contributions from the first two and general taxes from the third. When we consider how the world, the social security system and the pattern of national insurance contributions has changed since the Beveridge report was published, we quickly come to the conclusion that to lean on that original concept some 40 years later would be to lean on a stick so far bent as to be on the verge of breaking. Indeed, I would say that the stick would be broken already.

  513
  The speech of a Minister on such an occasion is geared inevitably towards employers and employees, those who are concerned with the existing labour market and especially those who are employed within it. I hope that the House will not forget, especially certain Labour Members who have challenged me from a sedentary position, that national insurance can be a significant factor in influencing the level of employment. Employment is rising—
  Mr. John Prescott: Part-time employment.
  Mr. Newton: Employment is rising against the background of a rising population of working age. The burdens of the national insurance system are an important factor in that. When considered in the wider perspective, the most important single feature of the order, together with the other matters that I have referred to such as the abolition of the surcharge and our proposals for contributions and statutory sick pay, is that the burden of contributions on employers next year is expected to be significantly less in real terms than in the current year despite the rising labour force. We believe that that will be a significant contribution to one of the aims that we all share, which is to improve the prospects for jobs.
  11 pm
  Mrs. Margaret Beckett: I followed the Minister's argument with great interest. It could be summarised as follows. The Government's economic policy is failing, has failed and is seen to fail. There is mass unemployment, which they expect to continue to rise. The burden of that mass unemployment will fall increasingly not on the portion of the burden borne by the taxpayer, which is a relatively fair way for the burden to fall, but on this regressive form of tax—that is, national insurance contributions. As mass unemployment rises, the burden will fall more on the poor and less on the rich. That is the logic of the Minister's argument.
  If we look at the Government's record during the past year or so, we realise that, as the Minister pointed out, employers' contributions in the coming year will be significantly less. That is in line with the pattern of the Government's record which has meant a rise in the contribution of employees.
  There has been reference to the level of the lower earnings limit — substantially less even than the supplementary benefit level for a couple, let alone a couple with a family, and less than half the level of supplement for a one-child family. It is an indication of how regressive is the tax and how much it falls on the lower paid.
  The balance of the fund is rising as contributions rise and benefits fall. We hear a great deal from the Government about value for money and efficiency. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has said, the surplus in the fund in the present year will run at £661 million. He has dealt admirably with that point, and I do not propose to dwell on it.
  However, I propose to refer briefly to the balance in the fund. The Government are, characteristically, showing some divergence between their actions and their words. They speak constantly of efficiency. They speak of how they are against waste. They speak of taking the advice of those who tell them what the balance of expenditure
  514
  should be. But the advice of the Government Actuary is, and has been for many years, that the minimum level of the balance in the fund should be maintained at 16·6 per cent.
  We recognise that the Government might want to run it a little above that figure. Indeed, last year, when similar orders were debated in another place, the Government spokesman said that the balance was running comfortably above what the Government Actuary had recommended — it was scheduled to run at 21·7 per cent. of the benefits payable from the fund. Next year, the Government propose to run the balance at 27 per cent. of the benefits payable from the fund — 10·4 per cent. above what the Government Actuary recommends. That may sound a rather obscure figure, but if we recognise that it is £2,348 million more than the Government Actuary said was prudent to keep in the national insurance fund, it makes the constant claim not only by Ministers from the Department of Health and Social Security but by the Chancellor that there is not enough money to pay benefits look more than a little ludicrous.
  For £2,348 million we could pay not only the increase in benefits to the unemployed, and put them all on the long-term rate—which the Government continually say that they cannot afford—but also the full increase in child benefit that the TUC sought at the time of the last Budget, and the increase that my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West identified as an additional 50p for every pensioner and £1 for every married couple. We could probably throw in the invalid care allowance as well. That is not, by anybody's standards, prudent management—it is waste, and inefficiency at the cost of the most vulnerable in our community.
  We are running somewhat late and I know that hon. Members do not want to dwell on the details of the order. I ask the Minister to deal with one further point. I note that even with this level of surplus and balance in the national insurance fund, the Government hope that the further changes will increase those balances even more. I wonder why. The Government's record and rhetoric make two possible answers spring to mind. One of them is that the Government are seeking to promote the argument that we cannot afford the pension scheme introduced with all-party consent in the social security legislation of 1975, because of the burden that will fall on contributions. It will enhance that argument if the Government shift the burden of social security expenditure towards contributions and away from the taxpayer. I wonder whether it is in support of their argument that the pension scheme must be cut back that the Government wish to see the balance and the surpluses continue?
  The other possibility is just as likely, or even more so. It is that the Government themselves do not believe their own forecasts of economic prosperity. I note from the Government Actuary's report that he costs out every increase in unemployment of 100,000 at an extra cost of £190 million in public expenditure. I therefore again ask the Minister to tell us whether the excessive surplus and the excessive balance that the Government keep in the fund reflects their actual expectations of economic prosperity and the future trend in unemployment.
  The Government must tell us one way or the other. Either all their words about greater efficiency mean nothing or their words about an expectation of reduced

  515
  unemployment and an increase in economic prosperity mean nothing. They cannot believe in both. The Government must choose which explanation they prefer.
  11.7 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Health and Social Security (Mr. Ray Whitney): This is the first time that I have had the privilege of speaking from this Dispatch Box as a junior Minister at the Department of Health and Social Security, and I am happy to have the opportunity to do so. I have found the debate a somewhat surprising experience. The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) seemed to be describing a world that I found difficult to understand.
  Mr. Tony Banks: The real world.
  Mr. Whitney: It has little to do with the reality of the financial position of the country, or the excellent management of the social security system by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of States
  The hon. Gentleman commenced by talking about what he called the notorious over-run in public expenditure. It was difficult to imagine that those remarks could be coming from the Opposition, because we constantly hear Opposition Members demand greater and greater over-runs in public expenditure. The number of tens of billions of pounds which they demand seem to depend on what day of the week it is.
  To hear a complaint about a notorious over-run in public expenditure—a far cry from accurate complaint, in any case—was my first surprise. The second was the hon. Gentleman's colourful comment that my right hon. Friend was operating a bucket-shop for the Treasury. Only 10 days ago, my right hon. Friend announced an addition, over the public expenditure White Paper, of nearly £0·5 billion on the social security budget, taking it to nearly £40 billion a year. He can hardly therefore be described as running a bucket shop for the Treasury. It is a record which has added, since we came to power, 27 per cent. more in spending in real terms. Of course, that is accounted for in part by the existence of 700,000 more pensioners and in part, sadly, for reasons that we all understand, by an increase in unemployment. We on the Government Benches realise, though the Opposition may not, that there are also real increases in the rates of benefit. It was surprising to hear the Opposition use that particular attack.
  The main concern was of course the question of the Treasury supplement and the role that it plays in the calculation of the social security budget. That point was dealt with by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, but, as the hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) also touched on it, perhaps I should seek yet again to make the point clear. We have to examine both the Treasury supplement and the contributions from the Consolidated Fund. It is therefore essential to take account of what has happened in recent years: — the Treasury contribution has increased greatly. It was interesting to examine the time when the hon. Member for Oldham, West was a Minister in the Department of Health and Social Security as, at that time, some 40 per cent. of benefit expenditure came from the Treasury. It will be 48·5 per cent. in the next financial year. The arguments that my hon. Friend the Minister advanced clearly show why it is right that, in this re-rating, we take the opportunity to reduce the Treasury
  516
  supplement from 11 per cent. to 9 per cent. That is especially so as, for the second year running, we have held the employer's and the employee's contribution steady. That is an important record, especially when it is set against the fact that this is the first year in which employers will benefit from the abolition of national insurance surcharges, which Labour introduced.
  The hon. Member for Derby, South mentioned the size of the national insurance fund. A careful balancing act is involved. The Labour Government recognised that but they forget the case for the upper and lower limits, for example, when they were happily transferred to the Opposition Benches. The balancing act with the national insurance fund involves keeping a prudent head of benefit as a working reserve. In March 1986 it looks as though we shall have something like 14 weeks head of benefit. That can be regarded as par for the course. In March 1981 the national insurance fund stood as high as 17 weeks head of benefit and in March 1983 it went as low as 10 weeks. We are proceeding along a middle course above the level of any incipient danger, considered by the Government Actuary's Department to be about nine weeks head of benefit, but well below the more cautious reserve which has been thought right at other times.
  That is an adequate state of affairs and I hope that, with the benefit of the explanation offered by my hon. Friend the Minister of State and that which I have offered, the Opposition will accept it has been a considerable achievement to have held steady the Class 1 national insurance contributions, to have increased the levels of benefit ahead of prices, to have protected pensioners and all other beneficiaries and, above all, to have held the balance of the national insurance fund so that employers are helped. We have avoided the notorious over-runs of expenditure of which the Opposition are so fond which would sound the death knell of our hope and intention to restore employment and prosperity. I therefore urge the House to reject the prayer.
  Question put:—
  The House divided: Ayes 58, Noes 162.

  Division No. 16]

  [11.14 pm

  AYES

  Alton, David

  Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth)

  Banks, Tony (Newham NW)

  Home Robertson, John

  Barron, Kevin

  Hughes, Dr. Mark (Durham)

  Beckett, Mrs Margaret

  Hume, John

  Beith, A. J.

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Bell, Stuart

  Leadbitter, Ted

  Boyes, Roland

  Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)

  Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)

  Loyden, Edward

  Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)

  McGuire, Michael

  Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Canavan, Dennis

  McKelvey, William

  Clark, Dr David (S Shields)

  McNamara, Kevin

  Clarke, Thomas

  McWilliam, John

  Clay, Robert

  Marek, Dr John

  Clwyd, Mrs Ann

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

  Meacher, Michael

  Cohen, Harry

  Meadowcroft, Michael

  Corbett, Robin

  Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Nellist, David

  Craigen, J. M.

  Pike, Peter

  Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'I)

  Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)

  Deakins, Eric

  Prescott, John

  Evans, John (St. Helens N)

  Rogers, Allan

  Gould, Bryan

  Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)

  Hamilton, James (M'well N)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Hancock, Mr. Michael

  Skinner, Dennis

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Smith, C.(lsl'ton S & F'bury)

  517

  Spearing, Nigel

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Welsh, Micheal

  Mr. Don Dixon and

  Mr. Frank Hayes.

  NOES

  Alexander, Richard

  Garel-Jones, Tristan

  Amess, David

  Gregory, Conal

  Arnold, Tom

  Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

  Ashby, David

  Ground, Patrick

  Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)

  Gummer, John Selwyn

  Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

  Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

  Baldry, Tony

  Hanley, Jeremy

  Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

  Hannam, John

  Batiste, Spencer

  Hargreaves, Kenneth

  Bellingham, Henry

  Harris, David

  Benyon, William

  Harvey, Robert

  Best, Keith

  Hawkins, Sir Paul (SW N'folk)

  Bevan, David Gilroy

  Hayward, Robert

  Biggs-Davison, Sir John

  Heathcoat-Amory, David

  Boscawen, Hon Robert

  Heddle, John

  Bottomley, Peter

  Henderson, Barry

  Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

  Hickmet, Richard

  Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

  Hind, Kenneth

  Braine, Sir Bernard

  Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)

  Bright, Graham

  Holt, Richard

  Brinton, Tim

  Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)

  Brooke, Hon Peter

  Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

  Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

  Hubbard-Miles, Peter

  Bruinvels, Peter

  Hunter, Andrew

  Buck, Sir Antony

  Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey

  Burt, Alistair

  Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

  Butterfill, John

  Jones, Robert (W Herts)

  Carttiss, Michael

  Key, Robert

  Cash, William

  King, Roger (B'ham N'field)

  Channon, Rt Hon Paul

  Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

  Chope, Christopher

  Knight, Mrs Jill (Edgbaston)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

  Knowles, Michael

  Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

  Lang, Ian

  Colvin, Michael

  Lawler, Geoffrey

  Conway, Derek

  Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

  Coombs, Simon

  Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

  Cope, John

  Lester, Jim

  Couchman, James

  Lilley, Peter

  Cranborne, Viscount

  Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

  Dorrell, Stephen

  Lyell, Nicholas

  Dover, Den

  MacGregor, John

  Dunn, Robert

  Major, John

  Durant, Tony

  Mather, Carol

  Evennett, David

  Mayhew, Sir Patrick

  Eyre, Sir Reginald

  Montgomery, Fergus

  Fallon, Michael

  Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)

  Favell, Anthony

  Murphy, Christopher

  Fenner, Mrs Peggy

  Needham, Richard

  Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

  Newton, Tony

  Forth, Eric

  Normanton, Tom

  Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

  Norris, Steven

  Fox, Marcus

  Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

  Franks, Cecil

  Pawsey, James

  Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

  Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth

  Freeman, Roger

  Prentice, Rt Hon Reg

  Gale, Roger

  Rathbone, Tim

  Galley, Roy

  Rhodes James, Robert

  518

  Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

  Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)

  Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

  Roe, Mrs Marion

  Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

  Rossi, Sir Hugh

  Thurnham, Peter

  Rowe, Andrew

  Tracey, Richard

  Ryder, Richard

  Trotter, Neville

  Sackville, Hon Thomas

  Twinn, Dr Ian

  Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

  Viggers, Peter

  Shelton, William (Streatham)

  Waddington, David

  Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

  Walden, George

  Silvester, Fred

  Waller, Gary

  Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

  Ward, John

  Speller, Tony

  Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

  Spencer, Derek

  Watson, John

  Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

  Watts, John

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Wheeler, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Whitfield, John

  Stern, Michael

  Whitney, Raymond

  Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)

  Wilkinson, John

  Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

  Wolfson, Mark

  Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)

  Wood, Timothy

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Yeo, Tim

  Sumberg, David

  Taylor, John (Solihull)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Terlezki, Stefan

  Mr. Michael Neubert and

  Thomas, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Archie Hamilton.

  Question accordingly negatived.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.).
  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c

    CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
    That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 5) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1306), dated 15th August 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th August, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.
    That the Customs Duties (ECSC) (Amendment No. 6) Order 1984 (S.I., 1984, No. 1452), dated 11th September 1984, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th September, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Peter Lloyd.]
    Question agreed to.

  COMPANIES CONSOLIDATION (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Lords Message [20th November] communicating the Order, That the Companies Consolidation (Consequential Provisions) Bill [Lords] be referred to a Joint Committee on Consolidation &c. Bills, be now considered.—[Mr. Mather.]
  Lords Message considered accordingly.
  Resolved,
  That this House doth concur with the Lords in the said order. —[Mr. Mather.]
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  Harwood Methodist Infants' School, Bolton
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr Peter Lloyd.]
  11.25 pm
  Mr. Peter Thurnham (Bolton, North-East): May I say how glad I am that we are having an Adjournment debate tonight, and thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for making available this opportunity to debate the future of Harwood Methodist infants' school. The school is not only the last remaining Methodist school in Bolton, it is believed to the oldest Methodist school in the country. Therefore, the local authority's proposal to close it is of concern not only to local residents but to all the people of Bolton and to all Methodists. I welcome in the public Gallery Mr. John Morgan, national education secretary of the Methodist Day Schools.
  Bolton has a long history of voluntary schools. The Methodist tradition is especially strong in Bolton, and the school, which dates back to 1822, contributes to the strong Methodist community in my constituency. There is great concern among my constituents about the future of religious education. We await anxiously the publication of the forthcoming Swann report. Parents in Harwood were horrified to learn that teachers in the authority's schools have been instructed never to mention the name of Christ in schools. The Secretary of State must stand up to Labour-controlled local authorities which wish to reduce parents' right to have proper religious education for their children. Too many voluntary denominational schools are being forced to close in Bolton. This is the second in my constituency this year, and a third in Bolton is threatened with a similar fate. Schools are faced with closure because of falling pupil numbers and limited financial resources. If financial resources did not count, we could have one-to-one teaching for all our children.
  During the past nine years, primary pupil numbers in that part of my constituency have decreased from more than 1,400 to little more than 1,000. We all accept that something must be done to reduce excess capacity. Harwood is a popular place in which to live, and proposals have been submitted to build a further 1,000 houses in the area where the school is. Harwood historically was well served by voluntary primary schools. The three oldest schools—all voluntary—are preferred by parents. The two Church of England schools are more than fully subscribed, and the Methodist school used to be fully subscribed until the local authority built two additional primary schools close by. Those two additional schools have created the excess capacity of 1,000 desks for 500 pupils.
  The council considered three schools for closure in 1981 — the two new local authority schools and the Methodist school, which had been rebuilt as an infants' school in 1964 in accordance with the council's policy then to have separate schools for infants and juniors. However, because the council changed its policy and wished to integrate infant and junior schools, it chose in 1981 to pick on the Methodist infants' school and to close it, and change its nearby junior school into a new county primary school. The council attempted to justify this bureaucratic decision in 1981 on the grounds that the Methodist school was the smallest school of the three
  520
  options considered and would therefore cause the least disruption. However, in terms of admissions, the infants' school is not the smallest, but the biggest school. In the age group four to seven, it has 50 per cent. of the pupils of the three schools, and this year over half total admissions.
  Despite the threatened closure, parents clearly prefer this school. The council has chosen the most popular school to close, and the one whose closure will result in the smallest financial savings. Merging the Methodist infants' school with the nearby junior school will do nothing to ease the problems of the other two primary schools.
  This explains the storm of protest that has arisen. Over 2,233 objections have been sent with a petition to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Faced with this level of protest, and the realisation that its original choice was not in the best interests of parents, the council has retired behind a bureaucratic smokescreen, saying that there would be just as many objections if any other school were chosen for closure.
  However, the danger is that a further closure might still be necessary. The chairman of the education committee told parents on 18 November last year that their objections could lead to a second school having to close.
  Parents and governors of the Methodist school have repeatedly asked for the financial costings behind this decision but have been told that costing does not come into it. In a letter on 16 November 1983, I was told by the council that:
  "Financial factors cannot be quantified at this stage."
  The director of education added:
  "I intend that the relevant information on running costs will be made available"—
  but that—
  "other financial factors cannot be quantified, for example possible capital receipts from the sale of site and premises."
  A year later, we are still wailing for all these facts. The council can only say that:
  "There are complex legal and financial procedures in terms of evaluating and apportioning assets."
  Parents believe that the council would be £300,000 better off if one of the other options were chosen. The failure to disclose this information can mean only that the council is incompetent, or that it has in mind a second school closure as soon as this one is out of the way.
  It was the council's decision to propose closing the Methodist school to my hon. Friend the Minister. I am disappointed that he has not found sufficient grounds to oppose the council's decision, despite the fact that the Government have disallowed 55 closure schemes out of 650 school closure proposals over the past five years.
  Has my hon. Friend the Minister been given all the facts? The parents have submitted four weighty volumes of evidence to him. I have them here, and I hope that they have been read. Parents have been denied access to what the governors described as the most vital information of all—the financial costings for each option projected to next year on the latest admissions data. On what grounds has my hon. Friend made his decision? If on grounds of parental choice, or quality of education, the parents' evidence shows that he has had the wool pulled over his eyes by the council. Is he satisfied that he has done all that is possible. Does he consider that his powers are sufficient to see that justice is done? If the public are to have confidence in him, should not his powers be widened? if

  521
  he has only half the facts, should he not be empowered to ask for all the facts? Can he monitor the implementation of his decisions? For instance, will there be sufficient provision for children with special needs?
  This matter goes again before the full council on 12 December. It is not too late for the council to reconsider its decision. The education committee meets on 28 November, and on this coming Monday, the chairman of the education committee meets the officers. The councillors should demand the full financial costings for all three options, and I call on my hon. Friend the Minister to use his influence to force the council to reveal the full figures. Failing that, the parents have a case for the local ombudsman.
  In conclusion, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to thank you for allowing me this opportunity to debate the future of this historic Methodist school. This unjustified closure proposal would unnecessarily destroy 160 years of Methodist history. It would further reduce religious educational opportunities in Bolton. It would reduce parental choice. It does not give significant financial savings. Worst of all, it does nothing to reduce the problems of excess capacity at the other two schools where the authority says that there is a danger of a closure of a second primary school in Harwood.
  I urge the council to think again before it is too late to save the school. It is not too late for the council to submit a better proposal to my hon. Friend the Minister. I appeal to my hon. Friend for an urgent meeting to discuss how he can use his influence with the council, to ask for the full financial facts behind each of the options to be laid before the public. Councillors will then have no option but to oppose this disastrous decision to close unnecessarily this unique school in order that a better proposal can be put before my hon. Friend the Minister.
  11.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Science (Mr. Bob Dunn): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Thurnham) on his success in raising this issue, which is clearly of great concern to his constituents. I must, however, make clear to the House from the outset that the Department's letter of 6 November last said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is minded to approve the proposals from Bolton local education authority to cease to maintain Harwood Methodist infant school and Houghfold county junior school and to establish a new county primary school in the premises of the latter. The final decision has yet to be taken because my right hon. Friend is consulting the local education authority, as he is statutorily required to do, about a modification that he has proposed to postpone the date of implementation from 1 January 1985 to 1 September 1985. That was the purpose of the Department's letter of 6 November. I understand that the authority is to discuss the proposed modification at the next meeting of its education and arts committee next Wednesday.
  In addition, as my hon. Friend knows, I cannot debate with hon. Members or other objectors details of proposals which fall to my right hon. Friend to decide. It is also my right hon. Friend's practice not to provide objectors with detailed reasons for his decision where he approves proposals. Where my right hon. Friend has approved
  522
  proposals, it may be taken that he has generally accepted as sufficient the main arguments advanced by the proposers and has conceded that the merits of the proposals outweight the objections to them. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will understand if I do not seek to answer the detailed points he has raised on these particular proposals. I intend rather to consider the general issues which my right hon. Friend has to address in reaching his decision on statutory proposals.
  Proposals made by local education authorities under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 fall to my right hon. Friend to decide where, as in this case, they relate to voluntary schools; where they attract statutory objectors; or where my right hon. Friend gives notice to the local education authority within two months of receiving the proposals that he wishes to decide them. For all other section 12 proposals the authority must determine whether or not it wishes to implement the proposals. My right hon. Friend considers each set of proposals which falls to him to decide on its individual merits. He has to take account of all the relevant factors including educational and financial considerations, the arguments advanced by the objectors and his own policies as set out in circulars 2/80, 2/81, 4/82 and in administrative memorandum 4/84 and to assess whether the balance of advantage lies in approval, rejection or approval with some modification of the proposals.
  Educational considerations have to be a major factor and the issue which my right hon. Friend has to seek to decide is whether the proposals will lead to improved educational opportunities for the pupils involved or at least to no worsening in them; whether adequate arrangements have been made for the redeployment of teachers affected by the proposals and whether the proposed transitional arrangements will minimise the disruptive effect of the proposals on pupils' education.
  Financial considerations also have to be a major factor in my right hon. Friend's decision. The number of pupils in primary schools has fallen by over a quarter since its peak in the early 1970s: a similar fall will occur in the secondary sector between now and the end of the decade. This fall in the pupil population has inevitably led to a substantial surplus of school places with its consequential drain on resources. While we recognise that some of this surplus can be put to effective use to improve the educational opportunities for pupils and that some of it should be retained against a future upturn in pupil numbers, we have in circular 2/81 encouraged local education authorities to seek the financial and educational benefits of taking surplus places out of use by the removal of temporary accommodation and the closure of whole schools.
  It is vital to the Government's policy of seeking to restrain local authority expenditure and of seeking better value for money that authorities continue to seek opportunities to rationalise their provision. I should stress here that it is not simply the direct financial savings on premises expenditure, important though those are, that my right hon. Friend considers in reaching his decision on proposals, but equally important is whether the proposals will allow the available resources to be used to better effect. Small schools need more generous resourcing than the average if they are to provide their pupils with the appropriate range of curricular experiences, and, with sharply falling rolls, an increasing number of schools is

  523
  having to be generously resourced. Within a fixed level of resources overall, this can only be at the expense of pupils in larger schools.
  Proposals, especially those which seek to amalgamate two or more schools in the premises of one of them, frequently require capital expenditure. While it might be argued that this could nullify the estimated revenue savings, it has to be recognised that in many cases the revenue savings will not be possible without some adaptation work. My right hon. Friend has, therefore, to assess whether the capital expenditure that would be involved would represent good value for money in terms of the revenue savings it would bring and the potential educational benefits to the pupils.
  My right hon. Friend has, of course, to consider all the arguments advanced by those objecting to the proposals. What he has to consider is whether those arguments collectively are, or any one of them individually is, of such force as to outweigh any financial or educational merits which the proposals may have. Those objecting can and do, of course, challenge educational and financial arguments put forward by the authority in support of its proposals. My right hon. Friend having heard the arguments from both sides has to try to assess where the advantage lies.
  Finally, my right hon. Friend has necessarily to consider how far the proposals are consistent with his policies as set out in circulars 2/80, 2/81 and 4/82, and administrative memorandum 4/84. One of these policies is that of maintaining the balance between county and voluntary provision; and I can assure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend had careful regard to this, as well as to all the other matters to which I have referred—not least because the number of Methodist voluntary schools in the country is already much reduced. The circulars also
  524
  cover the general educational and financial considerations to which I have referred and include, in addition, evidence of parental preference, the need for adequate prior consultation, and the need for adequate time between the publication of proposals and the proposed date of implementation. This last factor is relevant to the proposals with which my hon. Friend is concerned, since in my right hon. Friend's view it would be preferable if there were to be a longer period before the proposals are implemented to allow the authority and the teachers involved more time to plan for the amalgamation.
  As I said earlier, my right hon. Friend has to assess where the balance of advantage lies having considered all the factors and all the information available to him. He cannot reject proposals simply because he would have preferred alternative proposals: the responsibility for publishing proposals rests with local education authorities and the governors of voluntary schools, and not with my right hon. Friend. He cannot substitute his judgment for theirs. Even his power to modify proposals is limited and is most commonly used, as in this case, to defer the date of implementation. Any modification he proposes must leave the proposals substantially unchanged, otherwise he would incur the risk of successful legal challenge in the courts.
  I recognise the strength of feeling of those objecting to the proposals to close Harwood Methodist infants school, and which has prompted my hon. Friend to raise this issue in the House. Nevertheless, I hope that he will accept that my right hon. Friend has reached his view on the proposals only after the most careful consideration of the factors and has not simply ignored the arguments of the objectors.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Twelve o'clock.

ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Small Claims Courts
  Small Claims Courts
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid Act 1974
  Legal Aid Act 1974
  Consolidation of Enactments
  Consolidation of Enactments
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
ENERGY
  Nuclear Power
  Nuclear Power
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Gas and Electricity
  Gas and Electricity
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Newman College, Birmingham
  Newman College, Birmingham
  Manchester
  Manchester
EMPLOYMENT
  Clothing and Footwear
  Clothing and Footwear
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Youth Training and Work Experience
  Youth Training and Work Experience
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Wages (Underpayment)
  Wages (Underpayment)
PRIME MINISTER
  "Britain's Undefended Frontier"
  "Britain's Undefended Frontier"
  Taoiseach (Talks)
  Taoiseach (Talks)
  Engagements
  Engagements
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Paymaster General (Sermon)
  Paymaster General (Sermon)
  Data Protection
  Data Protection
  EC Foodstuffs (Surpluses)
  EC Foodstuffs (Surpluses)
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Illegal Radio Stations
  Illegal Radio Stations
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Invest in Britain Bureau
  Minerals
  Minerals
  Mines Working Facilities and Support Acts
  Mines Working Facilities and Support Acts
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Privatisation
  Privatisation
  European Regional Development Fund
  European Regional Development Fund
DEFENCE
  Cruise Missiles
  Cruise Missiles
  NATO Meetings
  NATO Meetings
  Nuclear Tests (British Personnel)
  Nuclear Tests (British Personnel)
  Service Children (Education)
  Service Children (Education)
  General Belgrano
  General Belgrano
  HMS Conqueror
  HMS Conqueror
  Signals Logs
  Signals Logs
  Boards of Inquiry
  Boards of Inquiry
  Lance Corporal A. A. Allen
  Lance Corporal A. A. Allen
  Tornado
  Tornado
WALES
  Chronic Diseases
  Chronic Diseases
  Food Hygiene
  Food Hygiene
  Hospital Kitchens
  Hospital Kitchens
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Youth Training
  Youth Training
  Waiting Lists
  Waiting Lists
  M4 (Signposts)
  M4 (Signposts)
  Mental Illness
  Mental Illness
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Turkey
  Turkey
  St. Helena (Visit)
  St. Helena (Visit)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Offenders (Cautions)
  Offenders (Cautions)
  Prison Chaplains
  Prison Chaplains
TRANSPORT
  Greater London Council (Roads)
  Greater London Council (Roads)
  Street Furniture
  Street Furniture
  A1 (Wetherby Roundabout)
  A1 (Wetherby Roundabout)
  Sidcup Bypass
  Sidcup Bypass
  Bypasses
  Bypasses
  London Buses (Privatisation)
  London Buses (Privatisation)
  Driving Test Examiners
  Driving Test Examiners
  Malaysian Airline System
  Malaysian Airline System
  Barking Relief Road
  Barking Relief Road
  M25
  M25
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  European Assembly (Elections)
  European Assembly (Elections)
  Tristan da Cunha (Generators)
  Tristan da Cunha (Generators)
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  Iran-Iraq War
  Iran-Iraq War
  Iran
  Iran
  Foreign Affairs Council
  Foreign Affairs Council
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Children Act 1975
  Children Act 1975
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Bed and Breakfast (Charges)
  Bed and Breakfast (Charges)
  Dentists
  Dentists
  Supplementary Benefit (Birkenhead)
  Supplementary Benefit (Birkenhead)
  Prescription Charges
  Prescription Charges
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Cigarette Advertising
  Cigarette Advertising
  Salmonella Poisoning
  Salmonella Poisoning
  Cardiac Surgery Service
  Cardiac Surgery Service
  Cervical Cancer
  Cervical Cancer
  Mr. K. Bales
  Mr. K. Bales
  Artificial Limb Centres
  Artificial Limb Centres
  Cigarettes (Children)
  Cigarettes (Children)
  Social Security Reviews
  Social Security Reviews
  Kidneys
  Kidneys
  Civil Defence Planning
  Civil Defence Planning
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Criminal Offences (Statistics)
  Criminal Offences (Statistics)
  Civil Defence
  Civil Defence
  Drugs
  Drugs
  Kerb Crawling
  Kerb Crawling
  Shotguns
  Shotguns
  Drug Trafficking
  Drug Trafficking
  Fine Defaulters
  Fine Defaulters
  Iranian Nationals
  Iranian Nationals
  Cable Authority
  Cable Authority
  Picketing (Offences)
  Picketing (Offences)
  Sunday Trading
  Sunday Trading
  Magistrates' Courts
  Magistrates' Courts
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Vietnamese Refugees
  Licensing Laws
  Licensing Laws
  Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1984
  Betting, Gaming and Lotteries (Amendment) Act 1984
  Teenage Courts
  Teenage Courts
  School Premises (Entertainments)
  School Premises (Entertainments)
  Metropolitan Police
  Metropolitan Police
  Television (Concessionary Licences)
  Television (Concessionary Licences)
  Civil Defence College
  Civil Defence College
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Emergency Planning Staff
  Emergency Planning Staff
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis
  National Reporting Centre
  National Reporting Centre
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Miss Hilda Murrell
  Firearms
  Firearms
  Prostitution
  Prostitution
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Police Officers (Cautions)
  Police Officers (Cautions)
  Remand
  Remand
  Charities
  Charities
  Paedophilia
  Paedophilia
  Mr. Roy Meads
  Mr. Roy Meads
  Released Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Released Prisoners (Accommodation)
  Motorways
  Motorways
  Longmoor Base, Hampshire
  Longmoor Base, Hampshire
  Mr. Edward Hopson
  Mr. Edward Hopson
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Prisoners (Statistics)
  Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984
  Repatriation of Prisoners Act 1984
  Trent RHA (Premises)
  Trent RHA (Premises)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Forestry Commission (Sites of Special Interest)
  Forestry Commission (Sites of Special Interest)
  Beef Producers
  Beef Producers
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Common Agricultural Policy
  Northern Agricultural Trade Board
  Northern Agricultural Trade Board
  Poultry
  Poultry
  Scotch Whisky
  Scotch Whisky
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Share Ownership and Profit Sharing
  Share Ownership and Profit Sharing
  Companies (Taxation)
  Companies (Taxation)
  Isle of Man
  Isle of Man
  Companies (Christmas Entertainment)
  Companies (Christmas Entertainment)
  Correspondence
  Correspondence
  Clothing and Footwear Industries
  Clothing and Footwear Industries
  Children's Clothing and Footwear (VAT)
  Children's Clothing and Footwear (VAT)
  EC (Value Added Tax)
  EC (Value Added Tax)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Double Taxation Agreement
  Double Taxation Agreement
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man (Tax Liability)
  Channel Islands and Isle of Man (Tax Liability)
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Departmental Costs
  Departmental Costs
  Fuel Duty Rebate
  Fuel Duty Rebate
SCOTLAND
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Local Authorities (Expenditure)
  Agriculture (Expenditure Cuts)
  Agriculture (Expenditure Cuts)
  Local Authorities (Capital Allocations)
  Local Authorities (Capital Allocations)
  Housing Stock
  Housing Stock
  Housing Subsidies
  Housing Subsidies
  House Building
  House Building
  Roads
  Roads
  Forestry
  Forestry
  Land Sales
  Land Sales
TRANSPORT
  Channel Tunnel
  Channel Tunnel
ENVIRONMENT
  Untreated Sewage
  Untreated Sewage
  Maltby Common
  Maltby Common
  Third London Airport (Siting)
  Third London Airport (Siting)
  System-built Dwellings (Demolition)
  System-built Dwellings (Demolition)
  Merseyside (Financial Provision)
  Merseyside (Financial Provision)
  St. George's Hall, Liverpool
  St. George's Hall, Liverpool
  Rates Act 1984 (Press Campaign)
  Rates Act 1984 (Press Campaign)
  "Protecting the Ratepayer"
  "Protecting the Ratepayer"
  GLC and ILEA
  GLC and ILEA
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Scotland)
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest (Scotland)
  Empty Dwellings
  Empty Dwellings
  Local Government Finance Studies
  Local Government Finance Studies
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
Preamble
The House met at three of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Energy Efficiency: Research Expenditure
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what was the level of reseach and development expenditure in 1983 on nuclear energy, non-nuclear energy, and energy conservation.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, expenditure by Government departments, the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, the research councils and the energy nationalised industries in 1983–84 on research and development is as follows: energy efficiency, £44.8 million: non-nuclear sources of energy, £210.5 million; and nuclear, £265.5 million. Total research and development expenditure in the private sector is estimated to be on a scale similar to the overall public sector effort. Most of this spending is concentrated on non-nuclear research and development, notably in the oil and gas sector, and on improving energy efficiency.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer. Would he not agree that too little is being spent on energy efficiency and conservation? This is an area to which the Government are devoting a great deal of attention. Does he not believe that the efforts being made by the Secretary of State for Energy to spread the concept of energy efficiency could be supported by a greater allocation of research and development expenditure?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I know, of course, of the very great interest that the noble Lord takes in these matters. I would suggest to him, however, that the efforts being made in this field by the Secretary of State for Energy are very considerable. In September, he announced plans for the energy efficiency demonstration scheme to be expanded to a total of over 500 projects at a cost to government of £65 million. This scheme is aimed at achieving £800 million a year savings on fuel bills. Indeed, it has already achieved its first target of stimulating £60 million a year in savings, and it is well on its way to reaching its December 1985 target of £120 million a year in savings.
Lord Taylor of Hadfield: My Lords, it may interest the House to know that Britain has accumulated the equivalent of 300 years of experience of nuclear electric power stations without one single incident, and that the knowledge of Britain on the nuclear side is
678
predominant in the world. Indeed, today, in addition to the Government, many private enterprise companies are spending a lot of time and money on nuclear research.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. Of course, I agree with him that the contribution made to the whole power industry by nuclear power is significant and will continue to be so in the years ahead.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two questions? First, is it not a fact that the amount of money we spend on research into renewable energy is very small indeed in relation to that spent by other countries, and is it not necessary, in spite of our huge reserves of fossil fuels, to have a balanced energy programme that includes a good portion of renewable energy? Secondly, in relation to nuclear research, is it the intention of the Government to shift the burden of funding work on the fast breeder reactor and nuclear safety from the Department of Energy to the CEGB? If that is so, would that not be loading the bulk of the cost of nuclear research on to electricity consumers through increased electricity prices?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, on the first point that the noble Lord has raised, I am sure he appreciates that the amount of research and development funding for renewables is essentially less than that for nuclear power. One of the reasons for this is that a great many of our renewable sources of energy have simply not yet reached a stage where they could absorb vast injections of funds, whether from the private or the public sector. Nevertheless, there is a continuing programme taking place of research into renewables. When we look at what is happening in relation to various substitutes—for example, natural gas and gas liquefaction projects—there is a considerable amount being done. We shall benefit from those in due course, in the future.
As to the funding of nuclear energy, we have a major nuclear energy research programme into which we have pumped money for many years. This is unquestionably successful. We are not as far ahead as we should or could be with our nuclear programme, but we are, I think, in a situation in which we are now able to capitalise on the earlier research. We have been in the fortunate situation that, because of our abundance of fossil fuels in the form of coal, oil and gas, we have perhaps not needed to pursue our nuclear programme in the way that, for example, the French have had to do. Nevertheless, we have made substantial progress and we shall continue to do so.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am sorry, but I do not think that the noble Lord answered the question. Is it the Government's intention not to fund the nuclear research programme through his own department but to swing the expenditure on to the CEGB? Is the CEGB to carry a far greater proportion of the expenditure on research in the future than it has done in the past?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, the CEGB obviously has an important part to play in research. The amount that it spends on research is very largely in its own hands, as to how it feels it should use the funds available to it for research. There is certainly not any plan at the moment to divert from the Department of Energy to the CEGB the responsibility for research that is presently being carried out by the department.

Garbage: Disposal at Sea
3.8 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy on the disposal of garbage by ships in the North Sea and the Channel.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, the Government's policy is to stress to the shipping industry the need to avoid disposal of garbage at sea and to recommend voluntary compliance with the provisions of Annex V of the International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships, known as MARPOL 73–78. It is our policy also to seek at the International Maritime Organisation to amend the content of Annex V to a form more acceptable to the United Kingdom, so as to enable the United Kingdom to ratify this annex at the earliest possible time.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord for that information, may I ask whether he is aware of the research carried out by the Keep Britain Tidy group, with which I happen to be connected, which has proved conclusively that most of the litter on our beaches, particularly bordering the North Sea and the Channel, derives from the dumping of garbage by ships at sea? In those circumstances, why is Great Britain one of the few maritime nations that has not signed Annex V of the convention to which the noble Lord refers?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are very concerned with the disposal of garbage at sea. We admire the work that the Keep Britain Tidy group does. The reason that we have not ratified Annex V is that the problems of garbage disposal for operators of large cruise liners result from a shortage of shore reception facilities in potential special areas abroad.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, would the Minister not agree that other parts of the British coastline are affected, besides those mentioned in the Question? I have in mind, for example, the west of Wales and the Gower coast, which almost every other day is polluted by this criminal activity of garbage being dumped on the high seas which then swills ashore? Can the Minister tell us, following upon what he told the House a moment ago, what action has been taken, who has been brought to court, and who has been given a penalty for committing this grievous offence against the coasts of our country?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are well aware that it is not only the North Sea and the English Channel that are affected by this practice. As to the noble Lord's point about disposal, it is garbage we are talking about at this moment. The noble Lord may well be referring to the disposal of other items, such as containers and drums of dangerous chemicals. These are covered by another annex of MARPOL—Annex III. Already 99 per cent. of the activities covered in that annex are against the law in this country.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, with the greatest respect, would the Minister not agree that all of it is garbage? Some parts of it are more venomous than others. If the Government do not see that, I am quite prepared to come along and give them a hand. I want to know what action has been taken. In any part of the coast of our country it is only when there is a great wreck and something terrible happens, and we see it on our TV screens, that we are aware of it. Is the Minister aware that there is hardly a part of our coastline which for some reason or another is not affected by this activity? Can we be told whether action has been taken, what action can be taken, and who takes it to defend the coast of Great Britain?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have said that we hope to agree to the annex of the international convention as soon as possible, when we get the amendments which we are looking for to protect our own shipping industry when they go to other parts of the world where the facilities are not as good as they are in this country.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, bearing in mind that the UN Law of the Sea Convention deals, among many other issues advantageous to Britain, with pollution of the seas, why are the Government so reluctant to sign this convention, in the negotiation of which, to my personal knowledge, the UK has played so active a role? Are we going to sign this convention, or are we not?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I hope that we will. I come back to the point that until other parts of the world can produce the shore reception facilities that our liners would require—this would refer particularly to the special areas, such as the Mediterranean—we do not want to jeopardise our trade until we can get those amendments through. We are working for that at the moment.
Lord Morris: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the disposal at sea of vegetable matter and, indeed, any other edible matter is greatly welcomed by both oysters and bottom feeding fish?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, as a lover of oysters, I welcome my noble friend's remarks.
Lord Oram: My Lords, is not the deadline for signature of the treaty 9th December? Can the noble Lord give us any hope that the undertakings that he is seeking will be received before 9th December?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid I was not aware that the deadline was 9th December. I

681
would point out, though, that in order for Annex V to become law it requires, I believe, to be signed by 50 per cent. of the gross tonnage shipping of the world. Even if we signed it now, it would not reach that figure. Two of the largest ship-owning countries—Liberia and the United States—are not yet signatories.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, would it not be advisable if members of the Government were a little cautious about answering questions always in the affirmative, as if they can do something about it? Is it not a fact—I say "a fact"—that those areas in the Channel, any part of our coast, any part of the seas throughout the world, where garbage is disposed of are the best fishing grounds?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am aware that we cannot always do something about it. What we can do is to try to do the best we can.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that when he is asked by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, what the Government are doing, and so forth—quite reasonable on one point of view—considerable difficulties lie in the path of Her Majesty's Government in taking any action outside territorial waters in the absence of the convention to which he has referred?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am well aware of this. Even if we signed Annex V, we would only be able to get at shipping either under our own flag or which called in at our ports.

Seat-belts: Road Accident Figures
3.15 p.m.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: 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 statistical analysis of lives saved and serious injury prevented since the introduction of compulsory seat-belts is now completed; and if so whether they will make a statement.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, recently published figures show that fatal and serious injuries to front-seat occupants of cars and light vans in the first six months of 1984 were 20 per cent. fewer than in the first six months of 1982. The department will continue to publish information throughout the three-year period of the regulations. The 1983 edition of Road Accidents Great Britain and a specially prepared report by the Transport and Road Research Laboratory will both be available shortly.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that helpful Answer and observe that I shall look forward to seeing those statistics published shortly. Can my noble friend say what progress is being made in achieving uniformity of fastenings and whether there is an intention by Ministers to propose
682
in the EEC that this uniformity should be made general throughout Europe by a suitable regulation being proposed by the Commission?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am afraid that my noble friend has got me there. I am not aware of any progress being made in the uniformity of fastenings, or of what the EEC have said. If I may, I shall write to my noble friend when I get this information.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I am anxious for information if the Minister has it now; if not, perhaps he will follow the new procedure and make it available. I should like to know whether any progress has been made in adding back seat-belts to the regulations covering front seat-belts.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, in regard to rear seat-belts, we are awaiting the report from the Select Committee on Road Safety, which is expected in mid-December, about the compulsory fitting of rear seat-belts. However, we have no plans at the moment to extend compulsory wearing to rear seat-belts.
Lord Underhill: My Lords, is the Minister able to confirm that the figures for observance of the seat-belt wearing law are as high as they were the last time we were given this information, which was then most encouraging? Also, are there any figures as to the number of prosecutions for not observing the seat-belt law? If so, how many of those were by direct action and how many were as a result of motorists being stopped for other offences?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, we are pleased that, as far as we know, the observance is still 95 per cent. In 1983 there were 6,826 prosecutions. I gather that nearly all, if not all, of them arose from stopping for another offence at the same time.
Lord Monson: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that since seat-belt wearing became compulsory preliminary statistics show that many more cyclists and pedestrains have been killed or injured by over-confident motorists, as many of us feared would happen and indeed as anyone with the slightest knowledge of human psychology could have foreseen?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: No, my Lords; I would not agree.
Lord Spens: My Lords, are there any statistics on the number of persons who have been killed in accidents as a result of wearing seat-belts?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I have no statistics with me. This will be a subject in the report when it is published, but at this stage we do not believe that there is any significant number that could be attributed to wearing seat-belts.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that his answer about the possibility of uniformity in fastening was somewhat disappointing, and that this is an important aspect of seat-belt wearing both for the convenience of wearers and for

683
their safety in the event of an accident where a quick release is important? Would he be good enough to give an assurance to the House that he will as a Minister pursue this matter and in particular look at the possibility of promoting it as a regulation in the EEC?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I am not sure that I can give the second assurance the noble Lord is requiring. I will certainly give the assurance that we shall look at the matter.
Lord Soames: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind in this context, before he writes to my noble friend Lord Nugent, that what matters is that the fastenings should be effective? To invite the Commission to make every member country of the Community have exactly the same fastening seems to me to be encouraging the Commission to make just the sort of regulation which it is often brought into ridicule for making.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I will certainly bear in mind the noble Lord's remarks.

Pound Note: Withdrawal Consultations
3.20 p.m.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: 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 which consumer organisations they consulted before deciding not to continue the issue of £1 notes after 31st December next.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur): My Lords, over 80 organisations were consulted before the coin was introduced, including representatives of the elderly, handicapped and blind. Consumer attitudes were also tested. It was implicit in these consulations that the coin would eventually replace the note.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that that is no Answer to my Question? But I shall leave that for the moment because there are two other points which I wish to raise. Does the Minister recall that last week his noble friend Lord Gray of Contin (who is himself a Minister of State at the Scottish Office) told us in what high repute the Government hold consumers and about which opinion I felt a certain amount of scepticism? But does he recall that during those remarks his noble friend mentioned the great importance which the Government attach to the views of consumers? If we are to believe that, does the Minister not agree that consumers should have been consulted on everyday matters like these, because surely shoppers know better than Whitehall what effects this will have on them?
684
Moving on from that point, will the noble Lord the Minister ask the noble Viscount the Leader of the House whether he can help on this matter? I wonder whether the noble Lord recalls that on 6th November last the noble Viscount very proudly spoke to us about being a Scotsman, saying that he was still a Scotsman? Is the noble Lord aware that the Bank of Scotland has stated quite simply that it intends to continue the issue of £ 1 notes on what I should have thought was the very good ground that people like them. Can the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, and the Leader of the House get together on this matter and change the decision for us?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I must confess that I am not totally aware of my noble friend's comment when he spoke earlier, but in due course I shall make myself aware of them. However, I must tell the noble Baroness that the Consumers' Association the National Consumer Council, together with the National Consumer Protection Council, were consulted before the £1 coins were issued. They were invited to make comments, and in fact at that time they showed little interest. I have to tell the noble Baroness that none of the organisations was specifically asked to comment on the coin once it had actually been issued. As regards Scotland, of course it is up to the directors and shareholders of the banks to decide whether or not they want to keep the note. Speaking as a Scotsman, I suppose that I ought to declare an interest and say that I am glad that they have said the same as the noble Baroness has said. However, the fact also remains that the costs of the original note compared with the costs of a coin means that there will be savings to the taxpayer by adopting the coin instead of the note in this country.
Lord Broxbourne: My Lords, will my noble friend the Minister confirm or otherwise correct my impression that the consideration leading to this decision which has been taken must have been by people enviably youthful and possessed of very keen clarity of vision? Will he kindly give sympathetic consideration to the views of that not inconsiderable number of our citizens who are not possessed of these desirable characteristics and who have difficulty in distinguishing between these coins and, for example, the 20p and 5p coins? Following that sympathetic consideration—which I am sure he is about to say that he will give—will he recommend to Her Majesty's Government the desirability of continuing the issue of the popular and acceptable £1 notes?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in recognition of the special problems to which my noble friend refers, the organisations for the elderly, the handicapped and the blind were consulted as part of the consultation process before the coin was issued. Tests were carried out by Nottingham University for the Royal Mint using blind and disabled people who, through their organisations, volunteered to help with these tests. That is a fact, and that shows that the decisions which were taken reflect their view.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, the noble Lord has said that there was consultation at the time when the £1 coin was introduced. Was there consultation with

685
organisations such as the disabled and the elderly about the idea of totally withdrawing the £1 note? The noble Lord implied that there was not. Can he please clarify the matter for the House?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I said that it was implicit in the earlier consultations that the coin would eventually replace the note. I think that the noble Lord is right; I do not think that there were specific consultations after the decision had been taken to introduce the coin. The fact is that three years or so was the time-scale envisaged and that is why the decision has now been taken.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that the withdrawal of the £1 note discriminates against men because heavy coins do great damage to pocket linings? Does he not think that this is likely to lead to an extension of male handbags, and in this case will male handbags be permitted in the Chamber?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I suggest that if my noble friend has a problem, he changes his £1 coins into perhaps a £5 note or even a larger denomination note.
Lord Kilmany: My Lords, arising out of the original reply, may I ask whether my noble friend has read in The Times of yesterday's date a letter from a person who lives in Hong Kong stating that a two dollar note in Hong Kong has a circulation life at least 10 times as long as a £1 note appears to have here? If the question is asked, "How can this be?" the answer is that better quality paper is used in the printing process. Can Her Majesty's Government not consider following that example?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, at the end of the day it boils down to a question of cost and the fact that the way in which £1 notes are being used has changed considerably since the 1970s. I do not think that my noble friend's suggestion would help.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, does the Minister think that continually to repeat "wrong" information makes it right? The Minister has not answered the Question that I asked him. From what he has said, am I correct in assuming that no consumer organisations were consulted immediately prior to the decision to withdraw the £1 note? The fact that they were consulted when the coin was issued is nothing whatever to do with the matter. Can the Minister please look at his Answer again and see what else he can say?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, I said that I do not believe there was consultation before the decision was taken to phase out the £1 note. The important point is that the consultations took place beforehand. However, I think that there is a balance to be made in all this and that is that the coin is not as totally unpopular as perhaps this particular exchange of views indicates. There are those who find that the coin is a better means of exchange than the note. In fact, the circulation of the coin for this year has risen steadily as people are getting used to it.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, as there is an Ünstarred Question on this very subject on the Order Paper for next Tuesday, I think that we have probably taken up enough time on it now.

Oxfordshire Bill [H.L.]
3.29 p.m.
The Chairman of Commmittees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a third time.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord Underhill: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to make a few points on this Bill. I am advised by the Oxford City Council that this matter involves a principle for which 1 and a number of other noble Lords have indicated our support in recent years. When this Private Bill was deposited it included a clause which was disallowed at the Unopposed Committee stage. That clause—it was then Clause 31—would have authorised the Oxford City Council to make arrangements for travel concessions for the unemployed and for those involved in youth training schemes.
I am informed that evidence submitted on behalf of the city council pointed out that there were some 4,300 unemployed in the city and some further 800 persons involved on youth training schemes. Bus fares within the city of Oxford are among the highest in the United Kingdom. The average city bus fare is no less than 31 p; and an analysis of the residential distribution of those persons unemployed and of the particular journeys they might have cause to make would entail fares ranging from 32p to 75p, which noble Lords will appreciate is a lot of money to take out of unemployment and other benefit.
Should it be argued that special assistance is given to meet the cost of journeys to seek work—we have discussed this before—I must point out that letters were presented in evidence from the manager of the DHSS local office and also from the Manpower Services Commission which make clear the limited nature of these particular arrangements. The Department of Transport submitted a written report with regard to this clause. I understand that this was considered when the department's representative came before the committee. It was stated that the Secretary of State objected to the clause on various grounds. May I draw attention to these? First, although Section 137 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives a local authority power to incur expenditure up to a 2p rate, it was argued that this provision is specifically designed not to cover areas which are already the subject of other legislation.
The second point was that Section 138 of the 1968 Transport Act provides that concessionary fares shall be limited to certain groups—those of pensionable age and the disabled. The third point was that on four occasions in the last two years Parliament has rejected similar proposals in Private Members' Bills, and also that such proposals were debated during the 1983

687
Transport Bill. The fourth point of the department was that the clause would create a precedent for other authorities, and the cost of such extended concessions could have possible implications for local government expenditure generally. Finally, it was said that the unemployed are only one of such groups to which assistance could be given.
I also understand that before the committee the department's representative put forward another point: that the department would have no objection to the promotion of schemes for travel concessions for the unemployed on a self-financing basis; and that the department were aware of a number of schemes promoted by local authorities and public transport undertakings which enabled unemployed persons to travel at off-peak times at concessionary rates on the ground that the seats occupied would otherwise be vacant. It would be interesting to know whether consideration was given to making this proposal to the Oxford City Council.
On the points mentioned by the department in their written evidence, certainly the 1968 Act, in Section 138, gives an authority the power to arrange concessions for persons of pensionable age and the disabled, but surely it must be stressed that it is the purpose of a Private Member's Bill to endeavour to get parliamentary approval for matters which otherwise are not in legislation.
I and other noble Lords are fully aware of the decisions taken, including those in your Lordships' House, on the question of concessionary fares for the unemployed. May I explain what happened in your Lordships' House? To the 1983 Transport Bill I proposed an amendment on behalf of the Opposition which received support from various parts of the committee. It was to give this provision to all unemployed persons and those in training. On that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Bellwin, questioned whether that was the appropriate means by which to secure the desired objective. On that basis I said that I would withdraw the amendment, but would consider bringing it forward at Report stage.
Before the Report stage my noble friend Lord Molloy introduced a Private Member's Bill to achieve the same objective. On that occasion the Government said that their principal objection was the consequence to public expenditure of this being generally applied. The Second Reading was refused on an amendment by the noble Lord, Lord Nugent, which he said was on procedural grounds and not on the principle. That amendment to defer the Second Reading was agreed.
At the Report stage of the Bill I proposed the same amendment. On that occasion we were told that a Private Member's Bill was not the way to handle the issue. The Minister has tried to have it both ways up to this stage. All that the Oxfordshire Bill was seeking under Clause 31 was that only the Oxford City Council would have this extra provision to have concessionary fares for the unemployed and those in training.
In addition to the points already made I ought to mention that the Oxford City Council makes available—and I think that everyone will applaud this—sports facilities free to the unemployed, those on youth training schemes and those claiming various
688
social service benefits. I have here a photostat of the brochure issued, with the list of all the sports amenities in the city of Oxford which are available free to the unemployed.
Noble Lords may recall when we discussed the general principle for the whole country that I made the point that what we were seeking were not just facilities for the unemployed to travel to seek work but so that they could live proper and full lives. The Oxford City Council gives these free facilities for sports, but many of them are such a distance that they would incur the type of bus fare to which I have referred, which is outside the pocket of those on unemployment benefit.
The Oxford City Council is not seeking to add expenditure beyond that for which it has authority. It intended, if this clause had been allowed, to meet the cost of the proposed arrangements from the proceeds of the 2p rate permitted under Section 137 of the 1972 Act. It has pointed out that the product of a 2p rate in Oxford is some £421,000. The only item currently provided under that provision is some £185,000 spent principally upon highway and traffic management schemes. It is estimated that if the clause had been allowed the cost of the proposal for concessionary travel for the unemployed and those on training schemes would have been £105.000. That could have been taken out of the 2p rate provision which the council could have used up to that figure if it had this permission.
I hope I have managed to convince your Lordships that there are sound arguments why this clause should have been allowed. The Oxford City Council are anxious for these views to be made known, and say how much they deeply regret the clause was disallowed. On behalf of the Opposition I should like to add my support to that. I am certain that other noble Lords who supported the principle when we discussed the issue in your Lordships' House would likewise regret that this clause has been disallowed.
3.37 p.m.
Lord Brabazon of Tara: My Lords, I wonder whether I may be allowed to give the Government's view, briefly. We of course share the general concern for the unemployed felt on all sides of the House, but we do not believe that the measures of the kind proposed in that clause of the Bill represent the most sensible or effective way of coming to their assistance. On the contrary, we believe that by increasing the burden that subsidies impose on the ratepayer and the taxpayer they are more likely to inhibit the economic growth which represents the best hope for reducing present levels of unemployment.
Both your Lordships' House and the other place have considered these arguments on a number of occasions in recent years, during the passage of the Transport Act 1983, to which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, referred, and in relation to Private Members' Bills introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, and in another place by Mr. Alf Morris, MP.
The proposals for the introduction of concessionary fares for the unemployed have not, however, been accepted in any of these contexts. In view of these decisions at national level we did not believe it appropriate that the present Bill should contain

689
provision for the introduction of these fares in Oxford City, since there would seem to be no way in which the position in Oxford is different in this respect from that in other parts of the country.
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, your Lordships have heard exactly the same arguments this afternoon as were put to the members of the Select Committee when they listened to the promoters' and the Government's view on this particular clause. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has put forward the arguments that were made on behalf of the Oxford City Council and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, has put the contrary arguments that were put by the Government to the members of that committee.
I cannot quite agree with the terms in which the noble Lord. Lord Underhill, defined private Acts, but what I would say is that promoters of private legislation have to show need for all the powers that they seek. Where a proposed provision in a private Bill seeks to amend public general legislation, especially legislation involving important considerations of public policy, the onus of the promoters to show that there are exceptional local circumstances justifying the amendment is particularly high.
The committee on the Oxfordshire Bill was not satisfied that the promoters had discharged that onus in the case of this clause, especially as the powers that were sought to allow travel concessions for the unemployed had—as both the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, and the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, mentioned—been rejected by Parliament four times in the last two years in Private Member' Bills. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, also reminded us, in the course of the proceedings on the Transport Act 1983 he himself moved amendments to this effect and 1 think that both were withdrawn at the Committee stage and the Report stage. I would only add that in this case there was a strong report against the clause from the Department of the Environment and, although of course committees are not bound to give effect to such reports, in this case the committee had no hesitation in accepting the force of the objections to the clause which were contained in that report.
On Question, Bill read a third time, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Sound Broadcasting: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting:—

Ardwick, L.

Cathcart, E.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Phillips, B.

Winstanley, L.

That the Committee have power to adjourn from place to place and to report from time to time;
That two be the quorum of the Committee;
That the Committee have power to appoint Specialist Advisers;
That the Committee have power to join with any Select Committee on Sound Broadcasting that may be appointed by the Commons;
That the Committee have power to agree with the Commons in the appointment of a Chairman for any joint meeting.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to; and it was ordered that a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Hybrid Instruments: Select Committee
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That, as proposed by the Committee of Selection, the Lords following, with the Chairman of Committees, be named of the Select Committee on Hybrid Instruments:—

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Beswick, L.

Brandon of Oakbrook, L.

Cawley, L.

Collison, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Drumalbyn, L.

Fletcher, L.

Prys-Davies, L.

Sligo, M.

Stamp, L.

Teviot, L.

Wise, L.

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

Lochaber Water Power Order Confirmation Bill
Read a third time, and passed.

Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984
3.44 p.m.
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone)The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone) rose to move, That the four sets of regulations laid before the House on 31st October be approved.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the four Motions standing in my name on the Order Paper and, with the permission of the House, I

691
shall move them en bloc. The first two Motions relate to legal aid and legal advice and assistance in England and Wales. The other two relate to Scotland.
On this occasion last year I said that I had decided to make a November uprating for the financial limits as administered, since it was more convenient to uprate the legal aid limits at the same time as the increases in supplementary benefit. This is because the dependants' allowances for legal aid are automatically increased in line with those for supplementary benefit, and it is not only more convenient but also less confusing for applicants to have all the increases coming into effect at the same time.
The first two Motions increase the income and upper capital limits respectively for civil legal aid and for legal advice and assistance. The increase is 4·7 per cent. This maintains the present relationship between legal aid and supplementary benefit. But there is no increase in the lower capital limit for legal aid. Alignment of this limit with the supplementary benefit capital limit was introduced last year. Since the supplementary benefit limit is to remain the same as last year—that is. £3,000—it seemed preferable to keep the legal aid lower capital limit unchanged also.
The Legal Aid Regulations raise the lower disposable income limit (that is, the level of disposable income below which no contribution is payable) from £2,050 a year to £2.145. The upper income limit (that is, the level above which legal aid is not available) increases by the same proportion from £4,925 a year to £5,155. As I have said, the lower capital limit is to remain at £3,000; the upper capital limit above which legal aid is not normally available is, however, to be increased from £4,500 to £4,710.
The Advice and Assistance Regulations raise the upper disposable income limit for the green form scheme from £103 a week to £108 a week. The capital limit above which assistance is not available increases from £730 to £765.
The two sets of Scottish regulations—the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984 and the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984—make the same increases in the financial limits for Scotland.
The House will also be aware that I have made a further set of regulations for which an affirmative resolution is not needed. These are the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations. These increase the lower disposable income limit for the green form scheme from £49 to £51 and revise the scales of contribution which an applicant for advice and assistance may be required to make. A similar increase in the lower disposable income limit and a similar revision of the scales of contributions, relating to Scotland, is contained in the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) (No. 2) Regulations 1984.
I am also proposing to increase the financial limits for criminal legal aid. The Criminal Proceedings (General) (Amendment) Regulations 1984 increase from £42 to £44 a week the disposable income above which a person receiving legal aid in criminal proceedings under Part II of the Legal Aid Act 1974 is required to pay a contribution; the regulations also
692
amend the scale of contributions. These are subject to the negative resolution procedure.
I should also inform the House that I have made, and placed before it under the procedure subject to negative resolution, three instruments which have the same effect on the legal aid and legal advice and assistance provisions for Northern Ireland.
At the time of the last uprating I informed the House that I proposed to increase the capital limit for assistance by, way of representation (which is an extension of the legal advice and assistance scheme and provides representation for certain specified proceedings before courts and tribunals) to £3,000; that is, to the same level as the lower legal aid capital limit. As this requires primary legislation, I have had to wait for an appropriate opportunity; that opportunity will arise with the Administration of Justice Bill, which is to be introduced during this Session, and I intend that Bill to contain an appropriate amendment to the Legal Aid Act 1974. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Aid (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.
Moved, That the Legal Advice and Assistance (Scotland) (Financial Conditions) Regulations 1984, laid before the House on 31st October, be approved.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble and learned Lord for introducing and explaining these legal aid (financial conditions) regulations. Two sets of them relate to England and Wales and another two sets relate to Scotland. Indeed, it would be very astonishing, and a very dangerous course for the Government, to differentiate between the respective scales for Scotland as compared with those for England and Wales. They are the same; and the need for the continued existence of legal aid and advice is of course common throughout the country. We shall be interested to see when the Northern Ireland provisions arise that they conform to the same financial scales as apply to those that are being introduced today.
With regard to the financial limits for criminal legal aid, I confess I was not aware that those changes were being made. As I understand it, they do not arise on the regulations that we are considering today. But of course it is equally important—if not more important—that the financial arrangements in regard to criminal legal aid should be just as beneficial—if not more so—to those seeking the help of legal aid in the criminal courts as in the civil field. Your Lordships may think that it is essential that eligibility limits should be raised regularly and realistically and should keep up with the rate of inflation, otherwise those needing and entitled to receive legal aid and advice would diminish in number as long as inflation continued.

693
I am interested to note the percentage increase in the financial eligibility which is provided for in these regulations. Last year it was 6–25 per cent.; but the noble and learned Lord says that these regulations provide for an increase of 4·7 percent., and perhaps he will give us an explanation. It may well be that the difference is explained by the different rate of inflation in the respective period.
Another figure which perhaps the noble and learned Lord can also give to us is what percentage of the whole population is covered by these provisions of eligibility for legal aid. Last year I think that the figure was about 70 per cent. of the whole population, which is gratifying so far as it goes. It does not mean that the legal aid is free. On the contrary, contributions above the levels that are indicated in these regulations will be expected from those who become eligible for legal aid. But as a matter of interest it would be reassuring to know that the coverage for the whole population is substantial.
As I have said, we welcome the extension of availability of legal aid. It has provided a great service to the community and it is one of the most important social services. I am not making a party political point of this; I very rarely make party political points. The scheme was initiated way back in the 'forties, when my noble friend Lord Shawcross and I, with full all-party support, had some part in introducing it. A great deal of benefit has accrued to our people at large by the existence of these regulations, and I think they are probably unparalleled in any other equivalent society. So let us keep on with them, maintain them, and earn enough money to increase an extension of them even more to our people as a whole.
3.53 p.m.
Lord Wigoder: My Lords, these are extremely modest proposals and it is therefore not surprising if I extend a somewhat modest welcome to them. They do not seek substantially to increase the number of people who are eligible for legal aid or advice or assistance. They merely seek to ensure that the number is not reduced as a result of the effects of inflation. That is in itself to be welcomed, but it is a very limited step forward. It is not easy on that particular narrow issue to make a passionate or enthusiastic speech, and I do not propose to do so. I should like, however, very briefly, to raise two closely associated matters.
First, when we are discussing—as we are at the moment—the eligibility of people for legal aid, it is crucially important to ensure that those who are eligible for legal aid in fact receive it. I am concerned particularly about the procedures in relation to criminal legal aid before some of the magistrates' courts, not those presided over by metropolitan magistrates in London, where it has been known—certainly throughout all my time at the Bar and indeed even in more recent years—that there are some courts, particularly in London, that are extremely reluctant to grant legal aid even to people who are obviously eligible for it. Whether they take the view that they are in some way contributing to the national economy by declining to grant legal aid, I do not know. I know that occasionally and unhappily those who appear before those courts get the impression that the courts are taking the view that it appears to them, before a case has been tried, that the defendant ought
694
to be convicted and therefore they are reluctant to expend public funds in order that the defendant might be given the opportunity of raising any doubt about his guilt.
The noble and learned Lord is very well aware of what are called the Widgery rules, as to guidance to courts as to when legal aid, particularly criminal legal aid, should be granted. There have been recent figures produced in the press, as the noble and learned Lord may have seen, which show the most remarkable variation in the granting of legal aid in some of the London courts. Although the noble and learned Lord will appreciate the difficulty of any direct intervention to those courts, he might consider that it would be helpful if the attention of the courts was drawn very forcefully to the Widgery rules and the courts were invited to adhere perhaps rather more strictly to them than one or two have been doing in London.
The other matter that I draw to the attention of the noble and learned Lord—though I know it is never far from his mind—is whether it is possible in the near future to extend to some extent the categories of people to whom legal aid or advice or assistance might be granted. I gather from all the speeches on the gracious Speech that were made from the Government Front Bench that the economy is now booming and it may well be that there is just a very limited amount of money to be available so that legal aid and advice and assistance might be extended. If that is to be so, I respectfully urge the noble and learned Lord to consider in particular the tribunal system of this country, and the possibility that some citizens who appear before that body might be given legal assistance.
I know there is always the possibility that having lawyers present before a tribunal may add to a totally unnecessary degree of formality in the proceedings. On the other hand, there are very many tribunals in which the orderly presentation of evidence is important. There are many tribunals not presided over by a legally qualified chairman or with the aid of a legally qualified clerk where points of law may arise, and in those circumstances there are strong arguments to be made for extending our legal aid and advice system to as many tribunals as possible as soon as it is practicable in expenditure terms. I would not want to suggest at this stage that it might be possible to do so to all tribunals; but I invite the noble and learned Lord to consider in particular those tribunals where the liberty of the subject may be at stake, or where the health of the individual may be in issue. Perhaps the noble and learned Lord will be able to indicate that he views with approval, for example, the report of his own Legal Aid Advisory Committee, which has urged that legal assistance should be available in particular for those who are asking for bail in front of the immigration appellate authorities.
I would suggest for my part, too, that just as assistance by way of representation has been of very great help to people appearing before the mental health review tribunals—an advance much appreciated by everyone concerned with those tribunals—that might be extended as soon as possible to the vaccine damage tribunals, where again there is a strong case for helping the ordinary citizen to make out his case.

695
I add two other priorities: they are the social security commissioners, who deal with matters of great moment to individuals, and the industrial tribunals, which, similarly, have to take decisions of great gravity. However, I accept that those latter two categories of tribunal deal with a very large number of cases and, unless it were possible to provide some sort of preliminary sieve, it would be financially impracticable at this stage to move forward in that direction.
I hope that the noble and learned Lord will be able to give a little encouragement to those who welcome the present operation of the legal aid and advice and assistance procedures and who would like to see its extension, as soon as possible, to many citizens in this country to whom it would be of the very greatest importance.
Lord Wilson of Langside: My Lords, from this Bench I express, as it were, the Scottish interest and extend a welcome to these measures which is, not surprisingly, similar to that of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. I always enjoy the statutory joke of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, on these occasions about the importance of ensuring equality of benefit to Scotland and to England. This I do welcome.
I share, too, his reminiscences about the introduction of the legal aid scheme in 1949 by the Labour Government of which I was then something of a supporter, albeit as a humble activist. Indeed I remember that the scheme was greeted with such hostility by the Scottish Bar that only two of us—I was surprised at my own courage because I was a very junior member of the faculty at that time—were prepared to speak for it. The paradox of that is that the Bar could not have survived without it. Were any attempt made to take it away today there would be a revolutionary situation in Edinburgh.
For my interest and from my experience I have only one remark. I speak only from knowledge of the Scottish position. I hope that the Government are carefully monitoring the operation of the criminal legal aid scheme—I confine my observations to the criminal legal aid scheme—to ensure that the benefits of this great scheme go in the first place to those for whom they were intended—that is to say, that they go to secure an improvement in the administration of criminal justice and to protect the innocent against the possibility of guilt. I have made enemies in my own profession by saying this, but there was a feeling—just a feeling. I put it no higher—that perhaps the legal profession was too much the beneficiary of the scheme.
The Lord Chancellor: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have participated in this discussion for the knowledgeable comments they have made. I make only two remarks of a general nature. One is that all three schemes—the green form scheme, the aid scheme and the criminal scheme—are among the most rapidly growing and I think actually are the most rapidly growing of all the social services. Demands to increase them in the light of that fact and in the light of the kind of constraints to which all government departments are subject are not likely to reach very
696
extensive degrees of acceptance. I do my best and I do not think that I have done badly in keeping the coverage about the same, keeping it in line, roughly speaking, with the inflationary targets set year by year. If I were to ask for a larger range of applicability I think that I should almost inevitably have to spread my butter rather less thickly on the places where it is most needed. That is my first general observation.
Secondly, I refer to the comments of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and of the noble and learned Lord. As they correctly stated, the original 1949 scheme was introduced under a Labour Government, but it was produced as the result, I believe, of the Rushcliffe Report. My late friend the first Lord Dilhome was on that committee. It was never a matter of party controversy as such.
In reply to the noble and learned Lord, yes, 4.7 is the figure to keep in line with the supplementary benefit figures. It is the same. Therefore inflation is the basic yardstick by which it is measured. Yes, 70 per cent. of households is the right percentage which is supposed to be covered if these regulations are now passed.
I am not altogether in agreement with what was said about magistrates' courts. As the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, raised the subject and the noble and learned Lord also mentioned it, though it is not entirely relevant to the present discussion, it is an important question and should be answered in broad terms. In the Lord Chancellor's Department, we entered into quite an extensive survey of the grant of criminal legal aid in magistrates' courts. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was quite right in referring to the Widgery criteria. By and large they are conformed with.
The pattern of work in the different courts is not necessarily the same. One does not, as a rule, give criminal legal aid, for example, for a parking offence. The first of the criteria relates to danger to reputation or to liberty and the others are covered considerations such as, "Does the defendant speak English sufficiently well to understand what is going on without professional help? Has he some impediment in speech, sight or hearing?" That would be common to all courts. I do not think it could be made a general charge against magistrates' courts that the merits of the case heard in advance of the hearing have anything to do with the grant or withholding of legal aid. I think that would be unjust to them. I think they try conscientiously to apply the Widgery criteria.
I accept at once that the study which we introduced indicated disparities which suggested that there might be differences of interpretation between one court and another, attributable to what constitutes a criminal offence and so on. As a result, we gave guidance in a rather long document which was sent out. Whether and how far it will be successful, one does not know, but it was supposed to be couched in fairly intelligible language to tell magistrates, roughly speaking, how the Widgery criteria should be construed and applied.
As I said at the outset, we operate under the constraint of the kind of financial limits to which all Government departments are subjected and one has to choose very largely between keeping the aid on a sufficient level for those who already get it and trying to extend it. I am not very much in favour of extension. Take for instance defamation cases.

697
Logically speaking, one can see very little answer to the demands that defamation cases should be within the scope of legal aid. However, they never have been so, and I can see reasons quite different from the pure financial constraint which have led successive Lord Chancellors to say "No" to the siren voices of those who want to add them.
As regards tribunals, that is of course a very much more difficult matter because there is such a wide range of tribunals about which one has to speak. There are some to which legal aid in the ordinary course is given. I think that the Lands Tribunal is one, unless I am mistaken. There, the process is virtually one of an ordinary litigious process before the ordinary courts. But a great number of these tribunals were introduced in the first place precisely in order to render professional representation unnecessary and there always is a strong lobby of laymen at any rate—lawyers are rather less keen—to say that you ought to simplify the procedure in front of these tribunals so that the ordinary man or woman can speak for himself or herself and that the lawyers should be kept out of it. I gather from something that he let fall in his own speech that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, might be of that school of thought. But in the main we will consider individual cases subject to what I have said about resources if and when a demand can be successfully put forward towards it. However, the more you introduce lawyers, the more formal the procedure will get and the more expensive it will become for the taxpayer.
Having said that, I should like to say to the noble Lord. Lord Wigoder, that one has to remember in relation to criminal legal aid that the criteria are not always exactly the same. For instance, the civil legal aid applies to potential plaintiffs; criminal legal aid applies solely to actual defendants. They can go to the green form scheme in advance of the case but it does make a difference to the nature of the grant. Again, in matrimonial cases—and I remember that I complained (I think probably wrongly) at the time when legal aid was withdrawn from the main divorce proceedings—the parties to a divorce case are there because they have to be there. There is inevitably a virtual necessity for lawyers to come into it at every stage once you get to the stage of questions relating to custody and access, care and control, and ancillary relief, maintenance and division of property. As long as people are above the financial limits, they more or less have to have it.
Having said that, my Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what they have said. I hope that this is not too controversial a matter and, unless there is something that I have inadvertently left out, I should like to beg to move that these four Motions be agreed to.
On Question, Motions agreed to.

Food and Environment Protection Bill [H.L.]
4.13 p.m.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Lord Belstead): My Lords, I beg to move that the Food and Environment Protection Bill be read a second time.
698
This Bill deals with three subjects—contamination of food, deposits in the sea, and pesticides—each of which is relevant to protection of food and the environment. I hope that this legislation will underline the major environmental role of the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food in these and other areas of its responsibilities.
Environmental issues have a tendency to become more complex as time goes by. This reflects in part our success in tackling some of the more obvious aspects of the legacy from Victorian industrialisation. It reflects our growing knowledge of the subject and our scientists' ability to measure effects which were previously overlooked; and it reflects the growing public interest in these questions.
It is here that a Bill of this kind has to face a difficulty which is inherent in many environmental issues. It would be impossible for Government, however lengthy their legislation might be, to eliminate every single aspect of risk from our lives. We have to focus on issues as they become clearly identified, assess their relative priorities and do our best to deal with them specifically.
The priorities in the Bill are to safeguard our food supplies (that is Part I), to protect the marine environment (Part II), and to set up a new statutory framework for approval and use of pesticides (in Part III). I emphasise that we shall see all these exercises, and particularly that relating to pesticides, as part of a continuing dialogue with all the different responsible interests concerned, whether those interests identify themselves mainly with the environment or with industry. Indeed, I do not think really that the distinction between industry and environmental interests is particularly helpful, as usually each is aware of the need to take account of the interests of the other. What Government have to do is to listen and in due course to put proposals to Parliament. So in the part of this Bill dealing with pesticides this proposed legislation would establish a framework, to be supplemented with regulations.
I would emphasise equally that this Bill is not designed to restrain trade. A basically free market system can work best within a fair regulatory framework. This Bill is intended to set higher standards for protection of food and the environment without obstructing the industries concerned.
Perhaps I may say a few words about Part I of the Bill. This would provide greater protection to the public in the event of food becoming unsuitable for consumption following a release of harmful substances. I would make it quite clear that the powers here would be activated only in the most serious of emergencies where there was a threat to the safety of food. In the past we have relied on voluntary arrangements, which have worked well on the very few occasions they were used. The fact that we are taking statutory powers does not mean that we expect a serious incident. We do, however, regard immediate counter-measures as a prudent insurance policy.
Your Lordships will recall the terrible accident at Seveso in Italy in 1976, involving the release of highly toxic chemicals which widely contaminated the surrounding districts. We have, thankfully, never experienced an accident of such magnitude in this

699
country. We have had serious accidents involving harmful chemicals, but none has affected the safety of food to the extent that emergency prohibitions under the Bill would have been introduced.
A good example is the sinking of the "Aeolian Sky" off Portland Bill in November 1979. The ship was carrying highly toxic chemicals. In the event, the cargo was securely stowed and was not breached, and the accident did not occur in an area of major importance to fisheries. Your Lordships will appreciate, however, that the circumstances could have been very different if the accident had involved the spillage of highly toxic substances in the rich North Sea fishing grounds at the height of the fishing season.
One of the most important features of Part I is that the procedures could be operated very quickly if the situation demanded, within hours of an incident. Clause 1 provides for emergency orders which would prohibit any or all of the activities listed in Schedule 1. Emergency orders would come into effect immediately but would require affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament in order to continue beyond 28 days.
After an emergency order has been made, Clause 2 gives Ministers the power to give directions as to how unsuitable foodstuffs should be dealt with. The power to give directions would continue beyond the expiry of the emergency order in case food that had been rendered unsuitable subsequently came to light.
Clause 3 deals with the authorisation of investigating and enforcement officers. Investigating officers would give advice following an incident—whether an emergency order should be made, and what restrictions should be imposed. Enforcement officers would enforce the emergency orders and Ministers' directions. A distinction is made between the two functions because investigation would require greater powers; in particular, the power to act before an emergency order was made.
Similarly, in Clause 4 and Schedule 2, which deal with the powers of entry, I hope your Lordships will feel that care has been taken; and in particular paragraph 7 of Schedule 2 provides that entry to a dwelling can be effected only by means of a magistrate's warrant.
Part II of the Bill extends and inproves the controls in our existing legislation—the Dumping at Sea Act 1974—while retaining the basic principles underlying that Act. The changes are those which 10 years' experience has shown to be necessary to improve the protection of the environment.
Your Lordships may recall that legal control of dumping at sea began with the Oslo and London Conventions, both signed in 1972. The Oslo Convention, related to the North East Atlantic—an area which covers all the seas round our shores—while the London one is worldwide. They otherwise have broadly similar provisions, which were implemented in the United Kingdom by the Dumping at Sea Act 1974.
Control is exerted by means of a licensing system. Applicants have to submit full details and a sample of the material they wish to deposit, and these are scrutinised closely by scientists working for the
700
licensing authority. Only if the authority is quite satisfied that the operation can safely be carried out is a licence issued.
I know that concern is sometimes expressed about the safety of dumping at sea and the possible long-term consequences. The Government believe that the state of the seas around our shores is generally good and that dumping, if properly controlled, does not pose a threat to them, either immediately or in the longer term. Dumping in fact accounts for only a small proportion of the total inputs of contaminants into the sea, and it has to be said that in general rivers and land-based discharges account for a much higher proportion.
In Part II, Clause 5 sets out the activities which are to require a licence. The framework here is similar to that in the 1974 Act, but there are a number of changes. First, deposit from floating containers and the scuttling of vessels, together with their related activities of towing and propelling, are included for the first time. Secondly, deposit by foreign vessels loaded in the United Kingdom would now be licensed out to British fishery limits, rather than just within territorial waters. This is an additional control which I hope your Lordships will welcome.
Clause 6 extends a very similar system of licensing control to incineration at sea; another activity which was not mentioned at all in the 1974 Act. Marine incineration is used to dispose of liquid industrial wastes, especially organochlorine compounds, whose composition makes them less suitable for disposal by means of land-based incineration or treatment. In order to ratify the Protocol which the Oslo Convention agreed in 1983, the United Kingdom needs to be able to lay down detailed conditions on those matters, and we should be able to do this by using Clause 6 and the provision to impose conditions in Clause 8.
There is just one other aspect of Part II to which I would draw particular attention. Although Clause 8, together with Schedule 3, deals with licensing procedures on similar lines to the Dumping at Sea Act, there would be broader discretion for granting licences or imposing conditions, so that the fullest appraisal could be made of applications for deposit or incineration. Ministers would also have power to broaden the basis of the licence fees to include the costs of monitoring, a change which was recommended by a Rayner Scrutiny of the Ministry of Agriculture's research and development.
In Part III of the Bill the proposed controls over pesticides are again inspired by the search for safer standards of environmental protection. The present non-statutory control system—the Pesticides Safety Precautions scheme—has provided us with a good safety record in the use of pesticides over the 27 years since it was first introduced. However, it has come under pressure in recent years because of the import of uncleared pesticides and from criticism by the European Commission about its trade implications. It was these pressures which first led us to decide that we should come to Parliament with statutory proposals concerning pesticides. But we have taken this opportunity also to review the whole scope of pesticide controls, and in our review we have been greatly assisted by comments and advice from all quarters with an interest in the way pesticides are used.

701
Following the debate on this issue prompted by the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, we are committed to ensuring that United Kingdom pesticide use is the minimum necessary to ensure the efficient production and distribution of food and to safeguard human health. In doing this we seek to reconcile what are sometimes two contradictory needs.
On the one hand, the use of crop protection products had made the old hand-sower's rhyme of,
"One for the rat,
One for the crow,
One for to rot
And one for to grow"
a thing of the past. We have achieved, as we all know, high levels of productivity, and we depend to a degree on pesticides to maintain that productivity. On the other hand, we need to protect the environment from the risks arising from the use of pesticides.
So Clause 15 provides the powers to ensure that all pesticides intended for use in the United Kingdom will be required by law to be submitted for scrutiny before being marketed. Until now, we have been largely dependent on the good will of the pesticides manufacturing and distributing industries to enforce similar provisions under the voluntary scheme; and I think that their co-operation in, and support for, the PSPS has been ample evidence of the responsible attitude which they have taken. Nevertheless, the scheme's dependence on a restrictive agreement between manufacturers and suppliers—that they would handle only products cleared under the PSPS—created a conflict of loyalty for suppliers. They were faced on the one side with that agreement and on the other with the possibility of supplying customers with products from overseas, which are sometimes cheaper. This situation was not really tenable.
This clause would also allow us to impose conditions before pesticides are approved under a statutory scheme. Many of these conditions will be familiar to those who operate within the existing schemes, but for the first time we shall be demanding of all products evidence not simply of safety, but of efficacy as well. Under the conditions of approval we intend to ensure that no pesticide will be released on to the United Kingdom market unless it is demonstrably beneficial to agriculture, horticulture or public health.
The clause would also extend pesticide controls to the field of use—and this is a major change. At present safety often depends upon the user adhering to recommended conditions of use on the label, and the record of pesticides in human safety demonstrates the care with which the great majority follow the recommendations. We are, however, faced with an increasing range of concerns, from water and wildlife interests to residue levels at the point of consumption of food; an increasing range of pesticide types; an increasing range of systems of application; and, very likely, an increasing degree of competition for market shares. In these circumstances it does not seem feasible to control the environmental effect of pesticides at the approval stage alone, and that is why it is intended that the new scheme will exert statutory controls over use.
It is not, of course, our intention to create a straitjacket for the farming industry, and I am
702
confident that we can develop ground rules for the application of pesticides which are sufficiently strict for the risk involved but permit the development and use of new and more effective practices and application systems. I know that some people are concerned that third world countries may import pesticides which are banned or restricted in use in the source country. This Bill proposes to take powers to require information from producers and exporters which will enable us to meet any international obligations in this area.
Many people have expressed concern that, as far as they can see, this Bill will not provide powers to control particular aspects of pesticide supply and use, despite what I have endeavoured to say to your Lordships already. Examples often quoted are aerial spraying, product labels and packaging, and application rates. I should like to give a reassurance to your Lordships today that the powers in Clause 15 are sufficiently broad to cover the full range of conditions which might affect safety and efficacy. It is noticeable, for instance, that Clause 15 would also enable maximum residue limits to be set for pesticides in food crops and animal feedingstuffs, which, once again, represents a move away from dependence on approval alone, for our safety arrangements.
As regards the regulations to be made under this clause, I should like to emphasise two points. First, the Bill requires us, as is proper, to consult the Health and Safety Commission on any regulations affecting worker health or safety. We shall also consult, in detail, all groups or organisations with an interest in pesticides use before settling the details of these regulations. Secondly, and even more importantly, these regulations will be made by the affirmative resolution procedure, thus affording opportunity for debate in both Houses before they are made.
The remaining clauses in Part III provide what one might call "good housekeeping" powers, in that Clause 16 would enable Ministers to charge fees to persons seeking approval in order to recover the costs of scrutiny and assessment, and Clause 17, together with Schedule 2, provides the powers necessary to enforce the provisions I have described. In this context, I am sure the House will wish to note that we envisage a requirement for additional staff in both the Health and Safety Executive and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, in order to ensure that we can and do achieve the improvements and environmental protection which we seek.
In the remainder of the Bill, Clause 20 provides a defence of "due diligence", which applies generally to the offences throughout the Bill, and mitigates the otherwise strict liability which would apply. This will protect people who have taken steps to avoid the commission of an offence, but who, through no fault of their own, have committed a certain act.
I apologise for a rather long introductory speech on what is a three-part Bill. It is not without some complications and, if it is acceptable to your Lordships, I shall distribute Notes on Clauses after the weekend.
The Government believe in the highest standards of environmental protection that we can achieve. In the three areas of food safety, marine pollution and

703
pesticides this Bill identifies major issues or concern and introduces practical legislation to deal with them in each of the three areas of the Bill. I think it goes a long way to reconcile the twin demands of a safer environment and maintenance of prosperous commerce and industry, and in doing so it will introduce a higher standard of safety for all concerned. My Lords. I beg to move.
Moved. That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Belstead.)
4.35 p.m.
Lord John-Mackie: My Lords, the Minister has made a very good job of introducing this Bill. He has apologised for taking rather a long time. Quite frankly, he indicated to me that he might be longer, so it is a surprise that he took less than 20 minutes, which I shall do my best to emulate. It is amazing how brotherly love spreads across political parties.
The noble Lord made a very good introduction, particularly of the background to the Bill and the necessity for it. He finished by saying that it is only a three-part Bill, but it is not without considerable complications—and he can say that again! The Bill does not give us a lot to get our teeth into, as it is basically an enabling Bill giving the Government power to enforce certain regulations which I think we are going to know something about before the Committee stage. I note that we are to get some Notes on Clauses from the Minister after the Second Reading. However, in an effort to help the Government—and we are alway anxious to do that, because they need help—we had better have look at it.
Looking at Part I, we note that:
" 'designating authority' means the Ministers or either of them".
Looking at the interpretation clause and schedules, it appears that this means the noble Lord and his Minister. There is a point later on in the Bill where it says. "Ministers may jointly". Does that mean that they have to agree, and what happens if they disagree? I have been in Parliament for the best part of 20 years, and official interpretations of things sometimes puzzle me even now.
Anyhow, what about the environment Ministers? This Bill is entitled the Food and Environment Protection Bill. Are the environment Ministers not to have any say in this? I thought that there were too many Ministers enjoying (if "enjoying" is the right word) some say in this Bill. If there is a crisis situation they may take a while to come to a decision, so we should know exactly what is the position there.
The power which this designating authority is given is to take emergency powers and ultimately to revoke these powers. Under subsection (8) of Clause 1, the revocation of these powers seems to be slightly complicated, and, again, parliamentary language and wording has rather bemused me here. It seems to me that if there were an occasion, which is mentioned in the Bill, where a crop might be affected by bad spraying, or one thing and another, under Part I, the area or the farm itself could be closed down. If this should happen and the period of 28 days starts at the beginning of a recess, does this mean that it might be anything up to a couple of months or so before that
704
farm could be cleared? Points like that are a little difficult to understand.
There is a rather amusing point—if I may say that about the Bill—in subsection (9) of Clause 1, which reads:
"An order under this section which—

(a) wholly or partly revokes an emergency order; and

(b) does nothing else".

That seems to be rather a peculiar way of putting it. If there is an emergency, can this be done as quickly or as efficiently—and the noble Lord mentioned today what has been done as regards Part I—as a local authority could do it? I very much doubt it. Why not give the enhanced powers, which this Bill is giving to the Ministers and designating authority, to the local authorities, who already do the job? Have they ever failed? I think the Minister admitted that they have never failed to carry out this job very well in any of the situations that have arisen. Perhaps I could mention my own town of Aberdeen where there was a very bad case of food poisoning caused by tinned meat. The poisoning spread all over the town. The local medical officer did his job so well that he was made not only Man of Year but was given an MBE, too.
We ought to look very carefully at whether all these powers should be given to the Ministers in question. Has there ever been an incident which warrants the draconian powers contained in the Bill? The Minister mentioned his fear that a ship which was carrying poison might go down. Do the Government fear that there may be a major disaster which would affect food and that therefore these regulations are required? That is quite apart from all the idiots who have recently been trying to poison Mars Bars. The Minister has a duty to answer the point about whether it is necessary for Ministers to have all these powers when local authorities have done the job satisfactorily until now.
Turning to Part II of the Bill, I believe that the Government undoubtedly have a part to play. Pollution of the sea is a world-wide problem. I have two points to make on this part of the Bill. Severe restrictions had to be placed upon the total allowable catch of fish in European waters. We know that these restrictions are necessary, largely because of the overfishing which has taken place in the past. There is no doubt however that pollution has also played a big part. I am sure that our fishermen will welcome greater control of pollution around our coasts. Regarding the poisoning of salmon in river mouths, may I ask the Minister whether this is dealt with in Part II or Part I of the Bill? Salmon poisoning is widespread. A great deal of marine fish farming takes place in the sea lochs. I should like to know whether Part I or Part II of the Bill deals with this problem.
I note that the Bill will repeal the Dumping at Sea Act 1974. However, the Bill states that the Government may—I repeat the word "may"—continue to make payments to international organisations. As I have already mentioned, pollution of the sea is a world-wide problem. I hope that the Government will not withdraw from their international obligations, however voluntary those obligations may be. I am not sure whether an obligation can be voluntary, but I trust that the noble Lord understands what I mean.

705
I turn now to Part III of the Bill. To judge from the amount of lobbying that I have had—already enough to fill a fairly big waste paper basket, though I am not suggesting for a moment that that is where the material should go—it is obvious that the general public are very interested in this matter, as well as the farmers, chemical companies, sprayer manufacturers and the environmental lobby, which the Minister emphasised. I began spraying in the summer of 1927. I applied bordeaux mixture—copper sulphate and lime—to prevent blight in potatoes. The sprayer was horse drawn. It consisted of just a barrel on two wheels. The barrel was filled by buckets. Such a sprayer was to be seen on very few farms in our area—in fact, in very few parts of the country at that time. Sprayers are now to be found upon nearly every farm in the country. Every crop is sprayed for one reason or another. Last year we sprayed one crop, for various reasons, five times. In 1948, 216 pesticide products were approved for efficacy. At 1982 values they were worth just over £70 million. By 1982—my figures are not up to date—these products had increased in number to 700 and contained 200 different chemicals which represented a value of £542 million, of which home sales were about £270 million. As I have already mentioned, I do not possess up to date figures, but they would show a considerable increase upon those that I have just quoted. I mention these figures in order to demonstrate the magnitude of the spraying programme and its obvious importance to agriculture. The Minister rightly emphasised this point.
Part III of the Bill sets out to
"provide general powers to control the supply and use of pesticides or"—
as is mentioned elsewhere—
"to ensure their safe and efficient use".
All this is to be carried out by regulation. Therefore, until we see the regulations I shall make no comment. All I would say is that naturally we support the general principle that spraying has to be controlled and must be looked at from every angle.
There are one or two points that I should like to make about spraying. The PSPS—the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme—which has been in operation for the past 27 years has been very successful. There have been very few spraying accidents. This does not mean that we should not try to prevent any accidents. The PSPS has been very successful. There is also an independent body, the Advisory Committee on Pesticides. One hopes that full use will be made of these bodies, with all the experience that they have accumulated over the years. I should like to make the same point about testing. Any company which produces a new or improved product tests it exhaustively. Surely an observer at these tests would avoid double testing, as is suggested in the Bill, and would therefore save a great deal of money. Spraying is an expensive operation. Therefore any saving is to be welcomed.
I note that the word "pesticide" is interpreted as covering all the sprays which are used, whatever they may be. The pesticide controls pests. Fungicides are used to control fungus diseases, and herbicides are used to kill weeds or, as the Bill says, "undesired plants". As my American friend said, there is no such thing as a weed; it is only a "plant in the wrong place".
706
I am glad that the Ministry appreciate that point. However, when one looks at paragraph (c) of subsection (7) of Clause 15 one has to ask what "harmful creatures" means. This phrase could cover a whole host of pests other than insects on our crops: rats, mice, squirrels, sparrows, wood pigeons. A much better definition is needed than simply "harmful pests". Is rat poison going to be included? One could go on. The definitions seem to me to leave much to be desired. There is much that one could say about the technicalities of spraying and the efficacy of sprays which could be affected by the regulations. There is the argument about hydraulic sprays versus controlled droplets and electrostatics. Until the regulations appear we can say little about the matter. Therefore we had better wait until they do appear.
I have not dealt with the environmental problem caused by spraying. I shall leave it to the good sense of those who are to speak about the environmental factors during our debate, and also to my very sensible colleague who is to wind up for the Opposition. However, I should like to mention two of the points which have been raised frequently in the lobbying: aerial spraying and spraying alongside public footpaths and public roads. There is a case (I say this advisedly) for saying that if a farmer wishes to spray from the air—whether by means of a fixed wing aircraft or a helicopter, although the helicopter is much more accurate than a fixed wing aircraft—he should have to justify it. However, aerial spraying should not be banned completely. Forestry requires aerial spraying. Bracken on the hillsides also requires aerial spraying. Therefore I could not suggest that aerial spraying should be banned. If however a farmer wishes to carry out aerial spraying of arable land, I believe that he should have to justify the need for it.
On the question of spraying alongside public roads and footpaths, this is a difficult subject. I have five bridlepaths or footpaths running through my farm of 430 arable acres. If I were banned from spraying either side of those paths, nearly half the farm could not be sprayed. Any regulation along those lines would put me out of business, nearly. So we look forward to a meaningful Committee stage of this Bill and to receiving some of the regulations and explanations for which I and other noble Lords have asked and will be asking. Meanwhile, we give this Bill our blessing as it is a necessary Bill, and we look forward to learning further particulars.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Walston: My Lords, at the outset I have two interests to declare. The first is as a farmer and a substantial user of sprays; the second is as a director of a company manufacturing such sprays for use throughout the United Kingdom. I hope that in spite of that your Lordships will acquit me of any undue bias in those things which I have to say.
First, we on these Benches support this Bill. I speak for the Alliance, and when my noble friend Lord Mackie of Benshie winds up I do not believe there will be much difference between us. So far as it goes, it is a good Bill. The general approach is correct. What it is attempting to do is correct. There are certain points in the Bill which we feel could be strengthened and improved, but perhaps we can pursue some of these in rather more detail at the Committee stage.

707
So far as Part II of the Bill is concerned, which deals with the dumping of toxic waste at sea, undoubtedly it is something to which we give our full support. It is absolutely right that it should be enacted, and I believe this Bill sets out to achieve what is necessary in a very reasonable and adequate way. There is one question I should like to put to the noble Lord on this matter. It is one thing to control the actual dumping of waste—and a most important one—but there is always the danger (and we have seen this recently in a much-publicised case) of an accident or a collision at sea where toxic products may be on board and they may be sunk together with the vessel, or pushed overboard in the event of a collision.
Provided those toxic substances are properly packaged in approved containers, little risk, if any, occurs. But if they are improperly packaged and the containers are unsubstantial, there can be considerable risk of pollution. Is it outside the scope of this Bill to include provisions, at least so far as toxic substances emanating from this country are concerned, to ensure that the packaging is adequate to resist any normal form of corrosion from sea water, immersion in sea water, or the impact of a collision? If it is possible, will Her Majesty's Government initiate action, at least among our Common Market partners, to ensure that they implement similar provisions in order to prevent any danger of this type arising?
I turn to Part III of the Bill, which, as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, rightly said, is the one which has caused the most interest and which is the most significant. I have a series of questions and comments on this part of the Bill. First, under the existing arrangements of the Pesticides Safety Precautions Scheme, the objectives of that scheme are very clearly stated. They are, as I am sure the noble Lord remembers,
"to safeguard human beings (whether as operators applying products, as food consumers or otherwise), livestock, domestic animals, beneficial insects, wildlife (i.e. non-target flora and fauna) and the environment generally (e.g. soil, air and water) against risks which could arise from the use of pesticide products".
That is fairly comprehensive and a pretty good statement of the objectives. Would it not be of value to include in this Bill some general objectives, either in the exact terms of the PSPS or possibly modified and amplified in some way to suit the modern conditions we are now experiencing?
Secondly, it would strengthen the Bill considerably if it incorporated a clause which made it illegal to give advice on the use of pesticides contrary to those conditions which have already been approved. There are a growing number of advisers who visit farmers. They are very valuable people, and, in the main, very knowledgeable. But it is essential that those people should give advice in conformity with the rules which the manufacturers and the Government have laid down, rather than say to the farmer, "You are supposed to do this, but I shouldn't bother about that because if you increase the volume a little or spray a little differently you will probably get better results". Would it not be a strengthening of the Bill to make any form of advice of that kind illegal?
Thirdly, such accidents as have occurred in the use of pesticides—and, fortunately, they have been very
708
rare over years gone by, and I hope and am sure will continue to be rare—have to a large extent occurred because farmers have decanted pesticides from the appropriate container bearing full instructions into an oil can, a Coca-Cola bottle, or something of that kind, and have then taken it home for use in their garden or for a friend or neighbour to use in their garden. It is then put in a garden shed and nobody knows what it is. This is an extremely dangerous practice, although, as I have said, it is rare for accidents to occur. Nevertheless, they can occur, and it would be a safeguard for human users at least if such practices were made illegal and the pesticide had to remain in its original container until it was all used.
Turning now to the spray equipment that is used to apply the spray solutions, we are now on the verge—and the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, has mentioned the electrostatic system of spraying—of a considerable breakthrough. It will be one of great advantage to farmers in that it will reduce the use of ingredients in a spray. This will have very great benefits for the environment, not only by reducing the use of sprays but by ensuring that a much higher proportion of the pesticide that passes through the sprayer finishes up where it is meant to be; in other words, on the plant, rather than evaporating into the atmosphere, being carried into the upper atmosphere at times, and certainly into neighbouring fields, hedges and gardens.
This development is something that must be encouraged. I should like the assurance of the Minister that there is nothing in the Bill which will in any way inhibit the use of new equipment of this kind. I suggest it might be valuable—not that it should be included in the Bill itself—that there should be very close contact indeed between those within the Ministry of Agriculture responsible for the use of pesticides and the manufacturers to ensure that the lines on which the manufacturers are working are approved and will be of benefit to the solution of the general problem of pesticides.
The Bill is to a very large extent, again as the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, pointed out, an enabling Bill. It is right that it should be. It is impossible to incorporate into the Bill all the regulations which are necessary at present and which will become necessary as time goes on. But the regulations which the Minister will in due course provide are the essence of the Bill as it affects pesticides. I hope the Minister will be able to let us know in draft form what is proposed in these regulations before the Bill actually becomes law. It would be far more valuable if we had the chance of discussing the proposed regulations as they are expected to be as soon as the Bill becomes law, rather than that we should wait to discuss them, probably far more briefly, at some later date.
As regards aerial spraying, here I would go somewhat further than the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. From the purely farming point of view I believe it is perfectly possible, with the advent of the modern type of sprayer—very large for the big farms and small for the smaller farms—to spray adequately without having recourse to aerial spraying of any kind. I am not discussing forestry, but am speaking solely from the agricultural point of view. We on this side would be very happy to consider very seriously,

709
hearing arguments from both sides, the complete prohibition of aerial spraying of farms. It would have the very great advantage of enabling the spray to be concentrated on those areas where it is most needed. While I feel that some of the opponents of aerial spraying grossly exaggerate their case on the damage that is done, there is no doubt whatever that there is the grave danger of drift, not only to neighbouring crops (on the whole, other farmers can look after themselves) but to gardens and allotments, where damage can be caused.
Occasionally—very occasionally; far more rarely than some people assert—a human being has been sprayed by a pesticide. That danger would be obviated; and, possibly more important, and certainly of far more widespread significance to those concerned with the general flora and fauna, such a prohibition would prevent the indiscriminate spraying of hedgerows and footpaths mentioned by the noble Lord in his speech. It would prevent the destruction of flora and fauna; of the wild flowers, butterflies and beetles; and of the birds, too, who live their innocent lives in the shelter, as they think, of the hedgerows but who, when the aeroplane zooms overhead, become just as much of a target as the noxious weeds, aphids and the rest of it that the farmer quite reasonably wishes to dispose of.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, mentioned exports to third world countries. I am very glad that he did. We have a responsibility in this respect, but I do not think that we should put any firm prohibition on exports. We should insist that any pesticide which is exported from this country has a full description of what it is and what its contents are; and if it contravenes the regulations of the country for which it is destined the export should be prohibited. If the pesticide does not contravene the regulations, even though we may not like it in this country, the responsibility must be on the receiving country to ensure that the pesticide conforms to its own regulations. We do not want to inhibit or make it difficult for our own manufacturers to export, but we do not want to be party to the export of noxious substances, as to the effects of which the receiving country, particularly if it is in the third world, may be entirely ignorant.
When I say that there must be full notification of the contents of these pesticides, that does not mean that the precise patented formula should be made available. It is obviously necessary for the manufacturer to be safeguarded, though not against competitors within the Community because its patent laws apply equally whether it be France, Germany, Italy or the United Kingdom. But we know that there are certain manufacturers in some third world countries which do not subscribe to any of these international conventions who, if they were able to get hold of formulae, would undoubtedly make use of them without having to spend the very considerable sums of money which have to be spent in producing effective substances.
My last point is to ask the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, to affirm that under these regulations, or any regulations likely to be promulgated, farmers will still be free to import if they so wish from other countries, provided the substances that they import are clearly designated and have conformed already, or will conform, to any regulations which we lay down in this
710
country. There have been occasions in the past when, due to a whole variety of circumstances, very largely currency movements, it has been possible for farmers in England—I have myself benefited from it—to go to France or Belgium and buy identical pesticides at very much lower prices than can be obtained in this country. As members of the Community, farmers should still be free to do that without any hidden impediment or non-tariff barriers put in their way.
With those, I hope, not insignificant but relatively minor points, I repeat that we support the Bill, and we shall do our best to ensure its passage, perhaps with some improvements, through this House.
5.8 p.m.
Lord Stodart of Leaston: My Lords, my interest in this Bill is focused on Parts II and III. Therefore, if I may, I shall devote my few remarks to them. As regards Part II, I am bound to say that I view it (as I dare say noble Lords, and my noble friend, might appreciate) with somewhat mixed feelings because throughout 1973, 11 years ago, I was heavily involved with consultations at the Ministry of Agriculture and in answering questions in another place about the Dumping at Sea Bill. The number and range of questions with which I was confronted showed the very great interest taken in the forthcoming legislation.
That Bill was introduced into this House by my noble friend Lord Ferrers, and passed prior to the general election in February 1974. Like other measures, it fell with the ending of that Parliament. But in its case I think that the fall was really more of a stumble. Two months later it was introduced in its original form by the new Government. I remember one political correspondent of the day describing it as,
"the only measure which the new Government had yet seen fit to bring forward".
I then suffered what for me was some embarrassment. I had to lead the official Opposition to it. I think that I can say that there is not so much understanding in the other place of one's position as there would have been here.
But these nostalgic recollections are tinged with a certain amount of sadness at the short life which that parliamentary child has enjoyed. However, I am comforted when I see that on the Second Reading debate in another place in May 1974 I described the Bill as:
"a most significant and highly desirable awakening of interest in what is generally called the environment".
When I see that, it is all too obvious why a new Bill may now be needed. People are no longer waking up and showing an interest in the environment. They are wide awake and demanding action, and it is hard to believe that anyone can be blind to that.
As my noble friend said in his opening speech, the measures proposed in Part II of the Bill are stronger, and they are more comprehensive, than the Dumping at Sea Act. Minor examples are to be found in many of the clauses; but I suppose that the outstanding additions to the list of activities requiring licences are scuttling and incineration.
There is only one, I think quite notable, omission from the Dumping at Sea Act (which is being totally repealed), unless I have missed it or misunderstood

711
what is in Part II before us. Section 5 of the present Act is re-written into Clause 11 of the Bill. It deals with the powers of British officers to inspect any ships, aircraft or hovercraft within the United Kingdom or inside British fishery' limits; and they can inspect British ships anywhere. But the Dumping at Sea Act contained Section 6 which I thought, and still think, is equally important. It allowed British officers to inspect the ships of states which had signed the London or Oslo conventions outside United Kingdom waters if dumping was suspected. Officers of those states were allowed to reciprocate by inspecting British ships. That followed a practice which had been accepted for many years in the fishing world with regard to the inspection of gear and nets. I should like just to ask my noble friend whether that right of reciprocal inspection is no longer to hold good when vessels deposit things in the sea outside our waters.
As far as Part III of the Bill goes, I look at it from a farmer's angle, and with some considerable horror following the way in which I have allowed the pesticide wagon to turn into a virtual express train, despite the fairly old-fashioned rotation of grain and grass which I operate. I grow 300 acres of cereals. In 1974 I spent £2 an acre on sprays: in 1979 I spent £6 an acre; this last year—and this is where the horror comes—it was £24 an acre. I am led to believe that that is a small amount compared to what some big barley barons spend; and money costs can, of course, be misleading because of inflation. But I am in no doubt at all that, persuaded as I have been to insure against this or that disease, the pints, gallons or litres of pesticide poured into my fields have increased enormously in quantity.
Apart from anything else, with the squeeze which is quite certainly coming up on cereal growers' profits, a farmer's pesticide bill is most certainly one for pruning. But leaving aside the purely economic side of things, I am glad to see the National Farmers' Union supporting the Royal Commission's call for reduction in pesticide usage to a minimum consistent with efficient food production.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, told us of his first ventures with a sprayer. A little later I followed him, as most Scottish farmers indeed have always followed the Mackie family. In 1934 I used a horse to pull a sprayer. We put on 100 gallons of water to the acre, using a perfectly simple material called copper sulphate (bluestone). The corn was singed, the weeds were killed, and the gate was then shut until harvest time. That was what I call the simple life. We were killing weeds in those days. If the diseases with which we are plagued nowadays—the mildews, the septorias, the rhyncosporias—existed in those days, thank goodness we did not know about them. Certainly there was no spray drift onto neighbouring gardens. With 100 gallons an acre going very slowly behind an old horse, there was no spray then and no drift onto neighbouring gardens or onto adjoining fields, as happens nowadays. I think, if an aeroplane is used.
In two of the speeches already made there have been references to aerial spraying. I think that I am right in saying that the noble Lord. Lord Walston, said that he felt that there should be no spraying on farms at all. I think that I side with the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie. I see no need for spraying on some farms
712
(certainly arable farms) at all nowadays. We have shorter corn and sprayers with higher booms. I very much doubt whether the damage done by tractor wheels through any crop rivals that done by spray drifting onto something that it ought not to drift onto. I think that I would encourage my noble friend to say in his regulations that the only things that can be aerial sprayed in this country in future are bracken on the hills and forestry.
This point has been made already. Clause 15 is quite crucial. Indeed, the effectiveness of the Bill is bound to be uncertain until we see the regulations. I think that the latter must be effective, but at the same time they must be practicable. Laws or regulations are much better not made if they cannot easily be applied. If I may make suggestions to my noble friend about what might be a regulation. I think that one might well be that it should be an offence to apply more of a pesticide than is advised on the label of the container. It may seem strange, after what I have said about the cost of putting on these things, that one should want to put on more than is necessary. But, with a badly infected crop, or in a season when the alarm bells are ringing about possible disease, I have known people to say, "Oh, we had better put an extra pint or so into the sprayer." I believe that this should be made an offence.
If a regulation along those lines was made, what about enforcing it? I make no bones at all. I am afraid, about saying that I think that farmers should be able to produce records of their spraying programme. My experience is that the firm with which I deal—I am sure that this applies to many others—write down on a piece of paper, in pints per acre, the pesticides that are to be put on each field. I then convert those quantities into pints for each tankful when my foreman fills the sprayers. The sprayer, of course, does much more than one acre at a time. And, really, this is no trouble. It is an essential exercise, so sophisticated are the many and various blends used nowadays.
Another point that I should like to raise with my noble friend relates to Clause 17, under which the implementation of Part III is likely to require 16 staff from MAFF and 18 from the Health and Safety Executive. That seems to me rather a small number. They will have to keep an eye, I presume, on all farms where pesticides are used, together with any premises, vehicles, etc. where they are stored. Will these inspectors have the knowledge of what is surely an immensely sophisticated subject—one that I suspect will become increasingly sophisticated—to do their job effectively? I echo therefore the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, that use must surely be made of the substantial number of people who have already much knowledge of the whole subject.
Finally, it is not so long since we had a debate in this Chamber—this point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Walston—on the higher prices for cars in the United Kingdom than in some other countries of the Community. I would say merely that it is very important that farmers should not be put at a competitive disadvantage through identical pesticides being available in Europe but not allowed here, or, if allowed, being at a very much higher price. Imports of pesticides of which the Minister approves, I am sure, should not be discouraged. There would be very quick clearance, I hope, for a farmer who wished to import.

713
Having made those points, I would say that my noble friend can be sure that on the principle of the Bill he has my full support.
5.24 p.m.
Lord Stanley of Alderley: My Lords, I am never 100 per cent. sure of the purpose of a Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House. However, I shall use it today to inform my noble friend on the Front Bench that, perhaps not totally to his surprise, I shall try now and during the Committee stage to put the view of the farmer and the sprayer operator. I am a little worried by some of the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Stodart. I shall take a slightly different view; perhaps because I have too many expensive children and greedy landlords around me. This is not to say that my view is contrary to the production of wholesome food and the protection of the environment. Far from it! It is in all our interests to produce wholesome food and to do so in a pleasant environment, for we—farmer, farm worker and operator—have to eat this food and live in this environment. We create part of it. At the risk of having a thunderbolt land on my head, I would say that I do not think that we look too unfit or too miserable, though maybe a little overweight.
My concern therefore is to ensure that British agriculture is not unfairly prejudiced vis-à-vis my continental competitor, and indeed, my overseas competitor. They are competitors in the production of food. I can probably live with a world price if it is a true world price, but I certainly cannot exist if one or indeed both my hands are tied behind my back by restrictive national legislation.
As mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, this is an enabling Bill. I suppose that that is why my noble friend Lord Belstead called it a continual dialogue. I understand his point. But, being a farmer, I am suspicious of the unknown. The unknown in this case is what we do if we have an irresponsible Minister or indeed an irresponsible Permanent Secretary.
I shall therefore ask my noble friend, by means of amendments, to clarify what powers the Minister will have. For instance, what advice will the Minister seek, and from whom? I have heard my noble friend mention scientists so far as Part II of the Bill is concerned. What about Part III? Who will be permitted to enter and search? Who are my noble friend's investigating and enforcement officers? What can the Minister prohibit in the way of agricultural activities, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, under Part I of the Bill? What is, in my noble friend's words, "a most serious event"? I suspect that what he considers a serious event may be different from the view that I would take. I am sure, too, that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, would take a totally different view from mine on what constitutes a serious event. And, dare I mention it, now that the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, is laughing, is there any compensation if I am stopped from doing something?
These are important points. I would ask in company with other noble Lords who have spoken, that my noble friend produces without delay a draft of the regulations that he intends to issue. Your Lordships will remember that following pressure on your part the
714
Government acceded to such a request on the Telecommunications Bill and produced the licence. It took a lot of effort on your Lordships' part, but you achieved it. I believe that my noble friend should do the same on this Bill.
We are fortunate in living in the comfort of the 20th century; a comfort that, to a large degree, has been brought about by modern technology, modern medicine and modern chemicals—a point made by my noble friend in his remarks about one for the crow, and so on. So we should be careful to ensure that this progress continues and that we do not stifle it with regulations and unnecessary long-term testing of products and testing of new methods of application. I could perhaps say here that farmers are sometimes ahead of research in this matter, and controlled droplet application is a case in point. I think therefore that I cross swords with the noble Lord. Lord Walston, on application rates—certainly mineral application rates.
Because of this technology, we are better fed now than ever before. We live longer. How I wish that such knowledge could have been used in Ethiopia and that our knowledge and our technology on how to produce food, which this Bill seeks to control, probably correctly, could be copied by the starving third world. It is your Lordships' job during the next few weeks to ensure that this Bill achieves a correct balance of a safe, progressive food and environment technology.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Craigton: My Lords, I give a warm welcome to Parts I and II of the Bill. I have a few constructive Committee points to make, but they are Committee points and I will not mention them on Second Reading. I have one question on Part II, and if the Minister could answer it his reply might be helpful. The question is: is there any good reason why applications for dumping licences should not be treated in the same way as planning applications, which give opportunities for objections and amendments? I do not see why they should not be treated as planning applications.
Part III worries me. It worries me as the first conservationist to speak, and not as a farmer. I am grateful to my noble friend for giving me a document—I do not know whether other noble Lords have had it—which showed in more detail than there is in the Bill the subjects to which the regulations would apply. But I am worried about the whole attitude towards Part III. The Government's duty is to ensure that Ministers have all the powers necessary to protect the land and the people. Parliament has to authorise Ministers to put such powers in the regulations, and the purpose of the Bill and any Explanatory Memorandum is to provide for the inclusion of all these essential powers in the regulations.
Some of these essential powers are not—repeat not—in the regulations. Let me go through them. As I read the Bill and the memorandum I have now received, there are no powers to put into the regulations provisions for the control of delivery devices—that is, application techniques. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, expressed the view, rather as I feel, that there should be definite mention of these in

715
this Bill—nozzles, droplet sizes, the quantity, the direction of the spray. All these things are of vital importance, but the reference is always only to pesticides and methods and not to the devices themselves. Then you come to aerial spraying. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, would like to see it banned altogether. My noble friend Lord Stodart has a more restricted view. I believe that we should give powers in the Bill to include a complete prohibition of aerial spraying in specified areas. That will meet all points. I believe that this House and another place must put some control on aerial spraying.
Furthermore, I may be wrong, but I cannot find any assurance that records must be kept by manufacturers and users; or that equipment, as opposed to pesticides, must be tested and can be seized; or that operators should be trained. All these things should be in the Bill. The history of the last five months is an unhappy one. The outline proposals were issued on 22nd July. These virtually ignored all the points that I have mentioned and nearly all the very full recommendations in the Seventh Report of the Royal Commission. That circular caused such alarm and confusion that only 11 weeks later the Parliamentary Secretary to MAFF had to issue a second circular to clear up the "misunderstandings", as it was put. That second circular included the sentence:
"The Government is very conscious of the need to make allowances in the legislation"—
in the legislation, mark you; not in the regulations—
"for the development of new application techniques".
As I have said, I cannot find this in this Bill or in the recommendations.
In this case we should not accept verbal assurances about what the regulations will contain. I am grateful for the preview I was given. I hope, as my noble friend who has just spoken has said, that we shall have the draft regulations in our hands well before Committee. I believe that the Bill does not go far enough. There are, as I said, other essential provisions that must be in the Bill but are not yet in it. I shall table amendments accordingly.
5.35 p.m.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, I have to declare an interest as a farmer who uses pesticides—not for quite as long, I hasten to add, as my noble friend on the Front Bench, but nevertheless uses them. I want to concentrate my remarks on Part III of the Bill. I should like to mention just a little of the general background, which I do not think has been alluded to so far—first of all, the massive public concern there is about the use of pesticides in the countryside. That is something which I hope nobody in this House or indeed in another place will ignore. For example, a National Farmers' Union survey last year showed that there was greater public concern about pesticides used in the countryside than there was about the cutting down of trees, the removal of hedgerows and straw and stubble burning, put together. Those three items, put together, were of less concern to the general public than the use of pesticides.
Conservation interests are extremely concerned about the effect that the routine use of pesticides is
716
having. For example, the Game Conservancy have said that on current trends the English partridge will be extinct before the end of this century. A bird which is still considered common enough to be shot will be gone completely by 1997, on current trends. That is the Game Conservancy, which is a shooting organisation, talking, and not a conservation body. That is, at least in large part, due to the increasing use of chemicals on farmland and the lack of insect food that that leaves for partridge chicks.
Of course, there is a very considerable interest from farmers, farm workers—another group that I do not think have yet been mentioned particularly—and consumers that pesticides should be used economically, safely and effectively. It is quite clear from some recent work, which shows, for example, that up to 40 per cent. of some chemicals vaporise from the field into the atmosphere, with no effects on the target, that pesticides are not being used either economically or safely—certainly not as economically and as safely as they should be. There are indications that in some cases only 1 per cent. of insecticides reaches its target, the other 99 per cent. either vaporising, being left in the soil, or affecting other organisms.
There are a lot of mutual interests, it seems to me, in ensuring that we get this system working better. I really do have to say to the Minister, along with everyone else who has spoken in the debate (except the Minister) that it is simply not good enough to come to Parliament with very vague powers—just how vague was underlined by some of the things the Minister said; for example, what he said about aerial spraying—without giving Parliament any opportunity to debate and discuss and amend—in particular amend—the detail of what the Government are proposing.
I should like to give a couple of examples of things which I think are very unclear. First of all, there is efficacy testing. We have heard something about safety testing, but there are at the moment, as I understand it, about 600 or 700 products which have been cleared under the existing efficacy testing scheme; that is to say, they do the job they are advertised to do. This is important from the farmer's point of view. On the other hand, there are about 3,000 chemicals currently cleared under the PSPS. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm those two figures.
As I understood it, the original intention of the Government under these regulations was to give clearance to all those 3,000 PSPS products for efficacy as well as safety, without additional efficacy testing. That would be a massive reduction in controls. Two Ministry of Agriculture statements which I have seen in recent days seem to me to confuse this issue. One—the Notes on Clauses that the Minister circulated—makes clear that there will be efficacy testing on new products. The Minister, as I heard him in his opening remarks, simply talked about efficacy testing on products, without the qualification "new". It would be very helpful if the Minister could tell us exactly what is going to happen.
A number of noble Lord have spoken about aerial spraying. As far as I know, today for the first time the Minister said that the Bill will give the Government

717
powers to control aerial spraying. I am not aware of that point having been made before, though it may have been and I may have missed it. But that surely raises a whole host of issues. What type of controls will there be on aerial spraying? Who will impose them? Who will police them? Will it be the Civil Aviation Authority, the Department of Transport, or the Ministry of Agriculture? A whole range of questions is opened up by almost a chance remark from the Minister about aerial spraying and, as far as I know, no consultation has taken place with anybody involved in the farming industry—let alone conservation interests—on that point as yet.
It seems to me—and once again I underline it—of absolute necessity to have the details of the Government's proposals before Parliament if we are to have a sensible discussion on this Bill at all. I must say that as regards aerial spraying it seems to me that there is a widespread consensus in all parts of the House that there is very little, if any, justification for aerial spraying so far as arable farming is concerned; and that would be my view. It may well be that a licensing system would be needed for particular applications for forestry purposes or for bracken control. Those seem to me to be the only two examples, and they could be mentioned explicitly on the face of the Bill, so that we all knew where we stood, and aerial spraying could otherwise be banned. That could be of great advantage to the farming industry, because there is no doubt in my mind that the great majority of complaints about spraying originate from aerial spraying. I have certainly found from personal experience in using aerial spraying that it is quite impossible, even with the greatest care in the world, to prevent something that is being discharged from an aeroplane from going on places where it is not meant to go; for example, on hedgerows, public roads and other places.
It is not at all clear to me whether the powers in the Bill provide for a number of matters, some of which the noble Lord, Lord Craigton, has mentioned. For example, do they give the Minister power to publish information on safety testing? Information is now publicly available in the United States about chemicals that we use in this country, but it is a secret in this country. It is possible to get the information in America, but it is a secret here—nobody must be allowed to know it. There is a perfectly good system in the United States which protects the commercial interests of manufacturers—and I acknowledge that that is important—but which nevertheless gives the public access to the safety testing which has been done on chemicals. I see no reason why we should not have a similar system in this country.
I should like to know from the Minister whether there are sufficient powers in the Bill to ensure that there are records kept on both the sales of chemicals and the use of chemicals. Anybody farming nowadays should, if they are farming even half properly, keep a proper record of the chemicals which they are using on their crops. It does not seem to me any hardship on farmers; indeed, it is of great advantage that all farmers should do it. It should be a statutory obligation, again on the face of the Bill.
It is important that there should be a licensing system for both operators and pesticide application systems. Again, there is an operator licensing system
718
working well in the United States. It was recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution, and I was interested to see that the Agricultural Engineers' Association favour some such procedure. Again, something as major as that surely should be provided for on the face of the Bill, so that we know where we stand.
There is a need for pesticide application systems to be licensed, because there is very little point in having a tremendous amount of work going on to test the safety and efficacy of chemicals, and in laying down strict conditions as to their use, if nobody is checking to see that the machinery actually applying those chemicals is working properly. Clearly it is in the interests of the farmers as well as everyone else that the machinery should work effectively, and I see no reason why it should not be tested and licensed to ensure that that happens. It seems to me that if that were on the face of the Bill, with the objectives of such a licensing system spelt out, some of the justified concerns about controlled droplet application—something again very welcome to conservationists and farmers—would be dispelled because we would know what the Government's intentions were towards pesticide application systems.
It still seems to me that there is a major concern, so far as CDA spraying is concerned, about the testing of chemicals. Farmers Weekly made the point—and I should like the Minister to comment on this—that it will still be very difficult and costly for people who want to make their chemicals available for CDA spraying to go through the necessary testing procedures. I hope that we can have some assurance that not only the systems of application will be cleared readily, but chemicals for CDA application as well.
One of the farming papers last week suggested that if one took a cynical view of the Government's intentions, they have drafted this Bill and introduced it in this way to short-circuit parliamentary procedure. I must say that I share that cynical view. It seems to me quite wrong for the Government to have attempted on a matter as important as this to the general public, to consumers of food, to the agricultural industry and to conservationists, to come before Parliament with a Bill which tells us so little about what is actually going to happen.
The regulations which the Government intend to circulate for comment must be in existence. I cannot believe that other Government departments—the Treasury and others—would have agreed to let this Bill come before Parliament if they did not have a pretty clear idea of what the Ministry of Agriculture intended to put in those regulations. It therefore seems to me quite inexcusable for the Government not to have responded to the already widespread requests that have been made to see those draft regulations. This would not preclude further consultation with other interests, but it would allow those of us in Parliament, on many different sides, who are interested in this matter to see what the Government really intended to do.
I do not think that short-circuiting parliamentary procedure will be possible, because unless we have some detailed information from the Government about what they intend to do, the only way in which those of us with an interest in Parliament can extract

719
that information is by putting down as amendments all those things that we think ought to be in the regulations, and then all the things that we think should not be in the regulations, just to make sure that they are not there. In my view that is guaranteeing us a very long and tedious Committee stage, and I hope that the Minister will avoid that for all our sakes.
5.46 p.m.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, like the noble Lord who has just sat down, I wish to refer in the main to Part III of the Bill—that which relates to pesticides—and like the noble Lord, I am bound to declare an interest as a farmer. I felt a minor twinge of sorrow when I saw that the Dumping at Sea Act 1974 was going to be repealed. My memory would have to be stretched a good deal more than is good for it—and evidently a good deal more in this case than that of the noble Lord, Lord Stodart—to remember exactly what it included. However, I remember, as the noble Lord said, that I was responsible for its passage in this House and I always marvelled slightly at the delightfully colloquial title which it possessed.
However, it is pesticides in which I am interested this evening. I have re-adjusted what I had anticipated saying, for reasons which may become clear. The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said that there is public anxiety, and justified anxiety, about the effect of chemicals which are always being altered or where new ones are developed and used on the land. People wonder what we are doing to our food and to our land, and indeed to our bodies, by the application of chemicals. They fear the advance of science. There is nothing new in that. I think that we all fear it. Every generation has feared the advances of science, because people fear the unknown just because it is unknown.
But, equally, there is nothing new about chemicals in agriculture. They have been there since time immemorial. The human body is nothing if it is not a massive chemical factory—and a highly complex one. Raw material is ingested in it and attacked by a whole series of different chemicals which the body manufactures. The constituent parts of the raw materials are broken down by chemical action and reaction and the body uses the chemicals which are released for its energy and its growth. It is just the same with the animal body, and it is just the same with plant life.
So the whole of plant, animal and human life is a diverse series of chemical reactions and constant chemical change. Scientists, agriculturists and doctors have for centuries tried to research these chemical reactions—sometimes to limit them, sometimes to increase them, and sometimes to alter them for the benefit of mankind. We have much to be grateful to them for in that regard. Even those who fulminate about the advantages of natural muck in their gardens or fields are in fact fulminating only about the effects of the addition of certain chemicals—organic ones—to the soil. So there is nothing new or novel about chemicals in agriculture. There is nothing wrong with chemicals in agriculture. There is nothing wrong in adding or altering the chemicals in agriculture for the benefit of mankind, provided that there is adequate protection and safety to prevent the harmful effects
720
which can undoubtedly occur from the addition of chemicals, in just the same way as harmful effects can occur from natural chemicals in the body or in the land if they are sometimes left unbridled.
As pesticides have grown in use there has been a constant and vigilant guard over their use; namely, the Pesticides Safety Precaution Scheme. It is true that it was a voluntary scheme, but because it was voluntary, it does not mean that it was either casual or irresponsible. Quite the reverse is true. I pay tribute to the Government and to the agricultural chemical industry who have participated in this scheme for, as we have heard, some 25 years and who have permitted the advances of knowledge to be used while protecting the countryside and the consumer. It has not always been 100 per cent. successful—nothing ever is. The advent of legislation will not make it 100 per cent. successful. New knowledge sometimes replaces and contradicts existing knowledge, and that will continue, and legislation will not stop that.
I am bound to say that I am sorry to see the voluntary scheme go, but I am glad that my noble friend explained why it has to go. It is obviously unacceptable for imported products to be used without going through a safety protection system.
From time to time, and for a whole variety of reasons which are not always good, there is pressure for the Minister to act and to ban a certain product. People hear stories about it which may not always be true; attributions are made which may not always be accurate; facts get disseminated and a bandwagon of fear—and understandable fear—builds up and the Minister of the day often finds himself subjected to very considerable pressure to ban the product.
I can understand people having those fears and not wishing to use those products. It is rather like asking a child: "Do you mind sleeping in a particular bedroom? Some people say it is haunted". Of course the child will not wish to go anywhere near that bedroom. But for a Minister to ban a product because of public or political pressure would, in my view, be quite wrong, and it would be a very slippery slope. Who knows what kind of pressure might be built up to get some other product withdrawn once it is known that a Minister, with no specialist knowledge, will submit to that kind of pressure? He must rely on the advice of his experts who are there to advise him in the light of an examination of all the known scientific facts. I hope that my right honourable friend will always rely on the Advisory Committee on the Safety of Pesticides.
In looking through this part of the Bill I wondered how it was going to be policed. My noble friend says that it will be policed by the Health and Safety Executive; but, as my noble friend Lord Stodart, said, it does not seem as though that will be very many people. I cannot see how we will effectively be able to police what 300,000 farmers are doing on their different fields with their different sprays without a very considerable increase either in manpower or in bureaucracy, and obviously both would be undesirable. But I assume from what my noble friend has said that I would be right in believing that neither the police nor the local authorities will have anything to do with these measures, but that this will be left to the Health and Safety Executive.

721
I should like to ask my noble friend: what will happen about what is known as BASIS? That is another of these nasty names made out of letters, but I think it stands for the British Agrochemical Supply Industry Scheme? This is also a voluntary scheme which merchants and companies operate. Is it intended that this scheme should continue to operate? If so, will it be voluntary, and if it is voluntary and if every other control is statutory, will it not lessen the importance of that particular scheme in the eyes of the retailers, and may they not discontinue their participation in it?
Over all this highly complicated field one must remember that man is human and knowledge is not finite. Errors and mistakes can and will occur. Knowledge can and does alter. Products have been produced which were thought at the time, with all the best knowledge that was available, to be safe, but which were subsequently found to be unsafe. That happens in medicine, too. That does not mean to say that the original permission for use, in the light of the knowledge which was then available, was wrong. If we were to take that view, no new product would ever be allowed to be used for fear that some future research might show it to be unsuitable. Like that, we would deny to ourselves and others the benefit of knowledge. Of course there is a risk: there always will be. But we must perpetually seek to challenge and to check on safety.
I say this with particular reference to one event with which I have recently come into contact. I know of someone whose wife felt ill and had a blood test which was found to contain nothing disturbing. It was later found that she had a tumour in the kidney. It was malignant. It was removed, mercifully in time before it had affected other parts of the body. As they were leaving the hospital the surgeon said, "Has your husband anything to do with agriculture?" She said, "Yes; he is a farmer". The surgeon said, "That's a funny thing. I have done operations on about 10 people engaged in agriculture, and they were all kidney tumours".
The lady subsequently went to a hospital in London which specialises in these things and had a blood sample taken which was sent to America, where they have a very sophisticated and infinitely more precise method of testing. Her blood was shown to contain a very high content of both DDT and Dieldrin, both of which are of course now banned from being used in agriculture in the United Kingdom.
As one who has had the privilege of responsibilities in the Ministry of Agriculture, and for pesticides in particular, and as one who found the emotional pressure group bandwagon counter-productive, I found my senses alerted by this case and I have done a little research, which I feel bound to impart to your Lordships. I should explain that my researches are minimal. They are not exhaustive; nor are they professional. But I hope that, such as they are, they are factual. As I understand it, there are pesticides now commonly found in people's blood. Babies are even born with pesticides in their blood. The body can tolerate a certain amount. The toxic effect is when the pesticides cause actual damage to the tissues; but they can also have an effect on the body's immunological system—its ability to reject the invasion of unwanted substances.
722
In the normal course of events the body can reject what it does not want by discharging it through the kidneys. When something else goes wrong with the body its ability to discharge the toxic substances is curtailed, and they rest in the kidneys, where they fester and create the damage. Some work is being done on this in London. There is an allergy department in the Nightingale BUPA Hospital where an interest is taken in pesticides in human beings. As its name implies, this is a BUPA hospital which is funded by the Nuffield Trust. When blood samples relating to pesticides are taken there, they have to be sent (of all places) to Dallas in the United States, where there is an environmental care unit which has produced impeccable results and which has the equipment to measure, very finely, volatile organic compounds and pesticides in the blood—not just pesticides, but all volatile compounds, even petrol fumes. When measuring very small quantities, it is necessary to be accurate. I understand that we do not have the equipment in this country. Each of these blood tests costs about £70.
In Dallas they have a substantial data bank of facts about pesticides in the blood, not only from some 3,000 patients who have been there but from people in different parts of the country. So it is possible to find out what is the norm of pesticides to be found in the blood, and to place the norm against that found in patients. They also have a large documentation of population studies.
There they have a unit which they can get almost completely sterilised by carefully filtering the air and by using instruments which do not release compounds into the air. You thereby produce an almost sterile environment. People enter this unit and, as it were, are dried out of pesticides. I think the correct medical term is that they undergo detoxification. It has been found that after about three weeks the level of pesticides in the bodies of people who have been so detoxified has dropped.
Pesticides are in fact fat soluble. They can be held in the fat of the body. I did not realise that much of the brain, oddly enough, contains fat—and mine obviously has more fat than those of most other people, so I accept that. But a report was published by this environmental care unit at Dallas last year which showed the results of an experiment where some 200 people had been detoxified of pesticides and their IQ had risen by up to 20 points. It would appear that in their cases pesticides had affected the brain.
Blood samples are the method by which pesticide toxicity in the body is measured, but the brain holds three to 10 times the concentration of pesticides shown in the blood sample. The liver holds 20 times, and body fat holds 300 times the level of concentration in the blood. In this hospital in London I was shown how some blood samples contained a normal level of pesticides, which is about one part per billion. To the layman that does not sound overtly high. But I also saw others where the concentration was high, and as high as four parts per billion, which is four times the normal. There was one blood sample which contained a high level of Dieldrin, BHC, DDT, and DDE (which is a metabolite of DDT), and of hexachlorobenzine.
There was also a patient who had been treated there for asthma, migraine and rhinitis, from which she

723
recovered. She was so glad that she had recovered that she went to work, and with the money she earned she bought some new carpets for her house. She ended up in hospital again for six weeks, and it was discovered that the carpets were covered in Dieldrin. That is a product which has been banned in agriculture for some years, but apparently it has not been banned for industrial use.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Earl mentioned DDT and DDE. I asked a question of the Ministry of Agriculture some time ago and was told that a considerable quantity of both chemicals were in fact still in use in specialised agricultural, fruit growing, or vegetable growing areas, so they have not gone out of use completely in this country.
Earl Ferrers: My Lords, I certainly accept the noble Lord's correction if that is the fact, which I am sure it is. I do not wish to be in any way alarmist about this matter at all. Each noble Lord will come to his own conclusion. Mine is that we should not rush into any panic to try to ban chemical sprays. I speak as one who is a farmer and who has had some responsibility in this direction, but equally I speak as one who has been pretty surprised by what he has learned.
All advances in knowledge have their disadvantages as well as their advantages, and our job is to see that the balance of advantage exceeds that of disadvantage. Pesticides and sprays despite their drawbacks have brought immense value to mankind in their ability to enable the people of the world to be better fed. I doubt, as my noble friend Lord Stanley said, whether there are many people in Ethiopia who would decry pesticides just now. Had it not been for pesticides there would be many others in the world suffering from the misery and indignity which these unfortunate people have been obliged to suffer, and which are the cause of such international distress.
I believe that the problem is one of knowledge and research. It is as unrealistic to think that we can live without the advantages and the disadvantages of pesticides as it is to think that we can live without the advantages and the disadvantages of the motor car or the computer. They are part of our civilisation, whether we like it or not. What we have to do is to determine what is acceptable, and to curb the excesses.
More research has to be done, and more ought to be done in this country. It so happens that the hospital to which I referred is opening its own environmental care unit some time next spring, so work is going on but I think not fast enough. In the debate yesterday we heard about the endless monetary requirements to finance essential research. The demands are huge and endless, and I would not wish to say which should have priority. But I think that we should do more in this field.
In welcoming this Bill I would, if I might, say to my noble friend with the greatest of respect and humility, "Don't be satisfied with our present knowledge. Try to get more research done on these products, and don't be swayed by anything other than facts".
6.6 p.m.
Lord Monk Bretton: My Lords, I want to speak on Part III of the Bill and also from an interest in farming,
724
so I shall endeavour to be brief. I trust that your Lordships will see that, like most good farmers should, I identify myself very much with the interests of my customer, the consumer. I also have an interest, which is typical among farmers, in field sports. I welcome this Bill in principle. How near the frontiers of knowledge we are with this subject has been clearly stated by my noble friend Lord Ferrers. It is because of this that it is important to emphasise that the state has an important role to play in this area because of the need for disinterested advice. This is so for anyone however strongly they believe in restricting the activities of the state.
The Bill is of course a control mechanism. What is important and what will make it work is the research behind it all, which dictates what is eventually done and is of greater importance. There is no use in a control apparatus without the research. A typical farmers' point of view on all this is first that his motivation is certainly not to maximise the sales of agrochemicals in this country. He is extremely interested in the price of those chemicals. In passing, in that regard, might I say that aerial spraying is probably one of the most expensive ways of application, and to that extent I believe controls the situation pretty much.
The farmer has a strong desire that innovative application techniques should not be stifled. He has a conviction borne of wresting a living from the environmental balance as it exists, that minimal interference with the balance is the wisest course for fear of side effects. Leading from all this he has a strong desire for impartial research information.
The Bill inevitably is not explicit about the last of these matters. I wonder whether an expansion in the research input in this area is envisaged. I wonder how satisfied my noble friend is with the present position, and whether he feels that the funding of research into pesticides is as well-organised and as well-balanced as it should be. I have certain doubts. I may say that some of those doubts come from my interest in the Game Conservancy. I find it pretty remarkable that the sporting interests seem to have been left virtually alone to two areas of research that have been carried out by the Game Conservancy—the Partridge Survival Project and the Cereals and Game Bird Research Project. Both of these have wider implications than might appear. They involve studies into insect life, the effects of sprays thereon, on residues, and so forth. Therefore, even on the interests of the consumer.
I understand that there is no Government funding of this aspect. I suspect also that it may be the only true independent ecological research into sprays on farmland in the United Kingdom, and of course 80 per cent. of our island is farmland. I understand the Natural Environment Research Council do not work on farmland, merely on natural habitats. I cannot help feeling that more work may well be needed into the balance between farming and wildlife and can only be done in a true farming situation.
Meanwhile, the consumer, for instance, wants his vegetables and he wants them perfect. How many times may it be necessary to spray with insecticides in order to achieve this and in order to satisfy the pressures from the supermarkets? This is a matter which puts the farmer in a position of some difficulty,

725
in a dilemma, and it is the reason why he is anxious for guidance which is as clear as he can get. I hope that my noble friend will be able to comment on this matter.
May I finally just say a word about the charging clause, which is Clause 16. The Bill does not specify who precisely will pay what, but I feel that there is an inference that the cost of much of this will be put on the product, and of course when one has heard what my noble friend Lord Ferrers has said, there could be a massive research expense which would have the most devastating effect upon prices of the product if it was entirely to be financed from there.
I hope very much that my noble friend the Minister will remember that the primary producer who buys the product with this price addition cannot easily pass on such costs to the consumer; and the reason that he cannot do that is simply endemic in the nature of agricultural marketing. It is because of this that he fears he will be competing first against other countries who do less, or nothing about these issues or else countries where something is done, but it is done by the taxpayer and not put onto the price of the product. It is quite likely that a number of countries may take this view, and I am anxious that the British producer should not be put at a disadvantage, certainly within the European Community. I believe he has proved responsible within the limits he has been set, that he would prefer more help and definitely has a feeling of continuing concern.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Auckland: My Lords, I must be one of the very few Members of your Lordships' House taking part in this debate who is not a farmer. My only experience of farming was during the school holidays during the war, when, at my grandparents' and mother's home in Perthshire, I helped with the harvest. But I speak first with a completely non-financial interest: as an honorary vice-president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents, and also as a member of the All-Party Parliamentary Chemical Industries Group, though I am not a chemist by profession. I happen to work in the insurance industry, which is not exactly uninterested in certain aspects of this Bill, particularly from the point of view of product liability.
Before turning to Part III I should like to say a few words about Part II, and particularly about Clause 6. The idea of having licences for incineration on vessels at sea is certainly a very novel and original one, and a very welcome one. Anybody who has had experience of living on the coast—and my wife comes from a coastal town in East Sussex—knows what pollution on the beaches can mean as a result of ships, very often large ships, discharging their oil, or whatever it may be, at sea. What I am not sure about is what is meant by "incineration" in this respect, and whether in fact what is incinerated is then going to be discharged; because if this is so, the pollution could be diabolical. Again, in the case of any Bill of this kind there are the problems of enforcement, of whether one has enough people of experience to enforce it; because it is surely the case that enforcing something at sea is often very much more difficult than enforcing it on land.
Turning very briefly to Part III of the Bill, I think it is now accepted by almost everyone that the days of the environmental lobby versus the scientific
726
lobby—because this is all part of the development of science—must surely be numbered. We are, as has been said before, all lovers of our environment, and in this country, with tourism on the increase, the need to preserve our environment is extremely necessary. On the other hand, we must grow more of our own food, and with the development of science and scientific products it is surely the case that the wise use of pesticides and other chemical products does ensure that our crops, our food and our vegetables last longer. With the ever-increasing amount of deep freezing and other ways of preserving food, it is surely sense that we should use these sprays and other scientific measures sensibly.
Obviously one of the most important aspects of the Bill will be enforcement, particularly of safety standards. As has been mentioned, there has been a veto for some years on the use of substances such as Aldrin and Dieldrin. That surely is to everyone's advantage.
I should like to ask my noble friend the Minister a question about these sprays. How much importation is there of them? Mention has been made of third world countries, but we have a certain amount of trade with East European countries. Are the Government satisfied that sprays and other chemicals which are imported from these countries and are relevant to this Bill meet the regulations on safety standards and labelling? I believe this is important. I am sure my noble friend the Minister would be doing your Lordships a service if he could give some information—I have not given him notice of this question and obviously cannot expect an answer now—on how much importation there is into this country of these sprays and other chemicals from countries which tend to dump, particularly East European countries.
Under what criteria are imports to be prohibited? Who will be doing the testing of these substances? Under Clauses 15 and 17 a great deal of work will devolve on the inspectors who are to test the products, as I read the Bill. Any legislation of this kind is bound to have its difficulties. One of the main difficulties is enforcement. Incidentally, there is no schedule of substances which will be tested and possibly banned as a result of the Bill. This is surely unusual. I know that in previous legislation there have been schedules of substances concerned, and I should have thought that in a Bill of this kind the relevant substances should be named.
Having said that, I think the Bill recognises the need for these substances. It is ludicrous to suggest that there can be a complete ban on chemical sprays or other substances for agriculture or for any other purpose. In Committee it will be necessary to consider carefully who will operate the Bill to give it the effectiveness which is sought.
6.23 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, in coming to the end of this debate it is remarkable that all round the House there is a great deal of agreement that the Bill is very necessary, and there is even agreement between the arch-conservationists and the arch-farmers on certain points, which is useful. I mention

727
briefly the first two parts of the Bill which, although not exciting, are of great interest. The third part is extremely important. The first part of the Bill is a necessary measure to deal with disaster. But I hope that prevention is being considered at the same time. My noble friend said in his speech that containers at sea should be of a standard which can withstand disaster. Many things need considering in connection with prevention of disaster. For example, if these containers which came off the French ship had been bugged with some electronic device they would have been much more easily found. I believe that prevention goes along with the first part of the Bill.
Concerning the second part, the sea has been used as a dump for so long that only now are we beginning to realise that its resources as a dump are finite and that something more needs to be done. The main interest has been in the pesticide section. We all know that it covers herbicides, fungicides and all the other uses to which chemicals are put in agriculture. The concern expressed by the conservationists is right and proper because I know it is felt by farmers as well. As the noble Lord, Lord Stodart of Leaston, said, it is not only the money that worries us, it is the fact that we intend to get on the back of the tiger. One needs to put more and more chemicals on to better and more sophisticated crops to ensure that the yields keep rising and that the diseases, which seem to proliferate along with the chemicals, are kept down. I must say that I think the Friends of the Earth is a lovely name but it tends to place the farmers in the category of the enemies of the earth which is entirely and completely untrue. We need to look at what has happened, to consider the experience that we have gained and to build on that. There is no doubt that we have gained a tremendous amount of experience since the early days of the really effective sprays.
The question of training has been mentioned—incidentally, there are some pests and activities which make it difficult to speak. However, we cannot spray and I shall do my best to continue. Training in the early stages was extremely elementary. I remember when I was pestering my grieve about one of our operators he said to me, "I have told him"—I will not put it into Scots, but keep it in English for the benefit of your Lordships—"that when clearing a nozzle he should not suck, he should blow". This was the level of understanding and it resulted at that time in several deaths. In our own area a good man, a sprayer operator for a contractor, drank water out of his storage tank and died as a result. But there has not been a fatal accident to an operator for over 10 years and that shows that we are beginning to appreciate what goes on.
The Government should encourage and order as soon as practical that operators should attend training courses and receive a certificate. That is not possible to achieve quickly, but practices on our farms (certainly this is the case on mine) are not always what they should be. I find that it is extraordinarily difficult to get men to wear the protective clothing which I find lying about in strange places. Perhaps that is because I personally do not pay enough attention to it.
Records are very important. If we are putting anything on a field, it is for our own benefit as farmers
728
to build up a picture over the years of what has gone on there. I daresay that in future years we shall be able to store the knowledge very cheaply on a computer and it will be available at any time if it is needed in case of disaster or simply as a means of using the knowledge to improve the spraying and effectiveness of the sprayers. I must say that I think that the Bill could follow the Royal Commission on the Environment very much more closely than it has. I have looked at their recommendations and they appear to me to be very sensible, and as we go on I daresay that a great many of them will appear in this House in the form of amendments. It is also very necessary that we get some form of evenness in EEC legislation. Obviously, material imported into this country must be subject to the same tests as anything made in this country; but surely an even standard in the EEC would be very important.
It was very interesting that, on aerial spraying (which without doubt is one of the great causes of annoyance to the non-farming population) the view is nearly unanimous in this House despite the expense and the difficulty. People who live next to fields are most unreasonable about having their gardens sprayed and their children covered, and they object strongly. Operators are afraid of being sued so that it can be very difficult to find an aerial contractor to spray. I can think of few cases. Maybe if we had an incredibly wet period and the land was completely waterlogged it might be useful: but I think that that is unlikely.
The other section of this problem which is not mentioned much in the Bill as we have it concerns the third world. I know that it may be for the benefit of the inhabitants of a third-world country to use a spray which is banned in this country—banned here because we are rich enough to ban it. But I understand, for example, that DDT is only one-sixth of the price of the more sophisticated and less harmful sprays. It might well be that some third-world country would think that the saving of a crop from a tropical pest was worth the risk. That is up to them. But we should label properly everything that goes out of this country in the language of the country to which it is going. Some of the big firms such as Shell and ICI are doing a lot of work in training in third-world countries. They are producing very interesting labels which show clearly to people who cannot read what is dangerous and what is not. This is something to be greatly encouraged.
However, we really cannot export dangerous chemicals to third-world countries which people do not know how to use and excuse that by saying that others will do so if we do not. It is rather like the old argument in the cartoon—which I always admired—of the two executioners, torturers, with their black masks, their execution axes, and so on, talking to each other at an idle moment. One of them is saying to the other. "The way I see it, if we don't do it, someone else will!" I do not think that that is a good policy for a highly moral government trying to help the third world.
Everyone I think has welcomed the Bill. In this House I have frequently spoken of the necessity for statutory regulation of chemicals. The voluntary scheme has worked extremely well but there comes a time when you must have statutory schemes. One of the reasons for that is that the scheme is breaking

729
down over the imports of very curious chemicals from Ireland, from the continent and elsewhere. I think that I would echo the criticism of the Bill (which is very much an enabling Bill) that we have not enough information of how the Government intend to proceed. I understand that it is marvellous for the civil servants of any department to put through an order; because if you put something good in it, you can slip into it also something distasteful, and the House would not turn it down because by doing so it would turn down the whole order. This is a very convenient method but it is not quite good enough. I would not dream of accusing the Minister (of whose uprightness and integrity we all know) of resorting to such a device. However, there is a danger that some less scrupulous noble Lord, who may be a Minister, might descend to that sort of regulation.
I do not want to detain the House. We are anxious to hear what the Minister has to say. But I want to echo the comment made by my noble friend Lord Walston that the object of the Bill, especially an enabling Bill, should be clearly stated in the Preamble to the Bill. That would certainly give guidance in the future and could be of great help to people both in and out of the Ministry and in and out of Parliament. This Bill could do a great deal of good but I think that, if it is going to do good, we shall need more information and the Government certainly will have to look to accepting a number of amendments put from all sides of the House.
6.37 p.m.
Baroness Nicol: My Lords, I join with almost everyone who has spoken so far in welcoming the Bill; but it must be a qualified welcome because, as again almost everyone has said, we have not seen the regulations and have no idea at all of what is going to be in them. I shall return to that in a moment. First, I want to deal with one important omission from the Bill. That refers to the public right of access to information. This was touched on briefly, I think, by my noble friend Lord Melchett, but not in great detail by anyone else. The Royal Commission on Environmental Protection, in its Seventh Report in 1979, recommended a review of confidentiality arrangements, and said:
"we have received evidence that those concerned with studying the effects of pesticides on a variety of living organisms may be hindered in their scientific work by this confidentiality being carried to unnecessary lengths".
In the Tenth Report, which came out this year, they said:
"unnecessary secrecy hindered independent evaluation of data which could be of benefit to the environment in bringing to light risks which had previously been undervalued or even overlooked. Knowledge that its activities may come under scrutiny acts as a vital discipline for the pollution control authority;
"it will also profit technically and scientifically from an open, informed peer-review of its work and will command much greater public confidence".
I commend both those comments in the reports to the Minister, and I hope that the Government will take them up. If information is available for responsible research, records of sales volumes and active ingredients would help studies of effects of pesticides on wild life. There is no apparent reason why information about toxicity of wastes dumped at sea should not be
730
available for public scrutiny. Will the register described in Schedule 4 contain this information? Will the reasons for revoking or refusing a licence be made available? What are the guidelines for issuing a licence? All these things, my Lords, are very important information if we are to assess the effect of what the Government are trying to do. If there are no guidelines for issuing a licence, does the Minister not think that this is a very unwise power for him to have? We are lagging behind other countries, notably the US, in clinging to unnecessary secrecy; and in many cases, my noble friend Lord Melchett said, the information that we are guarding can be obtained from overseas sources by a simple telephone call.
So, my Lords, we come to Part II, dealing with dumping at sea. Apart from a small operation by the Republic of Ireland, the United Kingdom is the only Oslo Convention state which now dumps sewage sludge at sea. It is also the second largest source of industrial waste liquids and sludges, dumping some 300,000 tonnes per year. The quantity of metals dumped in the North Sea via the United Kingdom's industrial wastes and sewage sludge is by far the highest of any North Sea state. The trends in dumping statistics show that the amount of sewage sludge deposited in the sea by the United Kingdom has been increasing steadily since the early 1970s, though the quantities of other wastes have declined.
With several of the North Sea states, notably West Germany and the Netherlands, set to reduce and possibly even to eliminate their existing dumping operations by the end of the 1980s, the United Kingdom will be still more exposed than it is at present to criticism that it is using the North Sea as a dustbin when other states have been prepared to make the necessary investments in research and technology, enabling them to phase out sea-dumping altogether. So legislation is welcome, if it is a milestone on this particular path.
I have one detailed question, and I apologise for this but I think it might be worth asking it now in order perhaps to save parliamentary time later. Clause 5 appears to exclude pollutant discharges from shore activities where the pollution is a by-product. Clause 5(a)(iii) refers to,
"from a structure on land constructed or adapted wholly or mainly for the purpose of depositing solids in the sea".
Does this mean that if the solids are a by-product, there will be no need for a licence? I think the House would wish to be satisfied that that will be covered; or is the Minister satisfied that existing legislation already covers that point?
I now turn to Part III, which is the one that has attracted most attention this evening. Wider powers to control the use and import of pesticides are, of course, welcome, but we have a duty, as several noble Lords have said, to control exports. The Minister mentioned this very briefly at the beginning, and I was not clear from his remarks whether or not he was saying that there would be some responsibility taken in regard to exports. Perhaps he will clarify that when he speaks again. It may be argued—and has been, I think, by one noble Lord—that it is the duty of the importing government to take care; but in many countries in the third world the necessary expertise is not available, and we should take the responsibility. Evidence exists

731
of deaths caused in under-developed countries by the availability of pesticides no longer considered safe for use here. It is our duty to protect these possible victims by at least adopting the OECD guiding principles on prior information to importing countries.
There is widespread concern about the excessive use of pesticides in the United Kingdom, and I stress "excessive use" because I think it has been notable this evening that not a single speaker has said that we should cease the use of pesticides altogether. We all recognise the valuable role that they play in farming, and I think it would be most unwise, and impossible, to try now to do without them. But we want to avoid waste, because it is the waste product of insecticides which is causing the difficulty.
I return once more to the Royal Commission's Seventh Report. They recommended that further research on the underlying factors in the incidence of pests and diseases should be carried out and that there should be a commitment to the concept of integrated control. We have heard no more about this from the Government, as I understand it. We are concerned with further research not simply into types of pesticide, but also into the underlying causes and into biological control of some of the pests and diseases which are now being covered simply by pesticides.
The need for careful control of all spraying methods to avoid wastage has been mentioned again and again this evening. The careful and intelligent farmers, of whom I am sure there are many in this House, can be relied upon probably to maximise the efficiency of their applications but, because of the less careful, there should be mandatory control of the type of equipment used, constant Ministerial encouragement for the production of better methods and machinery, and the imposition of time limits on the use of obsolete equipment. This is not a new concept: it has been used in other aspects of farming where the use of certain machinery was thought to be inadvisable and a time limit was set on its use. There is no reason why this could not be done with obsolete spraying methods as well.
We welcome the forward-looking submission from the NFU. It is quite unusual for the NFU to be quoted from these Benches, and it gives me great pleasure to quote from their submission as follows:
"The NFU supports the Government's declared intention of ensuring the safe and efficient use of pesticides as these chemicals are essential to the efficiency of the agricultural and horticultural industry. Nonetheless we would concur with the objective recommended by the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution of reducing pesticide usage to a minimum consistent with efficient food production".
They go on to say:
"We … believe it would assist all concerned for the Government to publish a draft of the regulations they are contemplating making under the Bill as soon as possible so as to facilitate the debate on the primary legislation itself".
They reiterate this point at the end of their submission, and, like my noble friend Lord Melchett, I cannot stress too strongly that the production of the draft regulations at this stage might well save a lot of unnecessary amendments and argument during the later stages of the Bill. So we heartily support the NFU's request and we hope that the Minister in his reply will be able to promise us that something will be
732
forthcoming. As my noble friend Lord Melchett said, the department must by now have some ideas of the content of the regulations; otherwise this Bill would probably not have arrived at this time.
We are concerned that despite the environmental impact of the subjects covered by this Bill, there is no requirement for the involvement of the Department of the Environment at any stage. My noble friend Lord John-Mackie mentioned this. On these Benches we have recognised the indivisible nature of the subject and the need for the involvement of the two departments by the presence on the Front Bench of both my noble friend and myself. We urge the Government to see the logic of this approach and to arrange close liaison between departments on all the matters covered by this Bill. We have given an indication of what we see are shortcomings and we hope that some, at least, will be met before the next stage. But having said that, we welcome the new controls and hope that they will be fully used.
6.47 p.m.
Lord Belstead: My Lords. I have listened with great interest to what has been said today on this Bill, and not least to the speech of the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, at the end of the debate which, if I may say so, I think made a most interesting balance and mixture from the Oppostion Front Bench in the comments made on the Bill today. I do assure your Lordships that the Government will reflect very carefully on all that has been said before we reach the next stage.
If I may make a comment which applies to all three parts of the Bill, the Government most certainly believe setting as high a standard of environmental protection as can be achieved. The right approach, in our view, is to try to identify the major issues of concern, assess the priorities and then introduce legislation to deal with those priorities. I think that my noble friend Lord Ferrers was absolutely right when in his speech he said in essence that we have to decide where the balance of advantage lies in taking action, particularly on pesticides.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, suggested, in talking about Part I of the Bill, that local authorities really ought to be given the powers which are being taken in that Part. I think the difficulty is that, while local authorities do indeed have wide powers concerning the safety of food, they are not emergency procedures. Indeed, they could not be brought into operation nearly as rapidly as would be possible under this Bill. It is really on that point that the decision was taken that it would not be so suitable to go for local authority powers.
I wonder whether I might go on and just illustrate very briefly how the powers in Part I might actually operate so far as England is concerned. I say that only because that is the area of responsibility of the department in which I work. As soon as the Ministry of Agriculture were to hear of a serious incident which could have contaminated food, we would despatch investigation officers to the scene.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked me what would be the jobs of the investigating officers and enforcement officers. The investigating officers would go off to

733
find out what was the trouble. They would be specialists from the Ministry's regional organisation and from its Food Science Division. They would take samples from affected crops or foods and, if they judged that it was necessary, they would advise that an emergency order ought to be made. My right honourable friend would then take action selecting appropriate prohibitions from Schedule I. The order would come into effect immediately and the enforcement officers would then have the powers to enforce the prohibitions and directions introduced.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, was concerned about the possible duration of an emergency and he gave as an example what might happen during the long Summer Recess period. As time went on it might be possible to lift the restrictions imposed at the start of the emergency by using the power in Clause 2(1), which allows Ministers to consent to anything prohibited in an emergency order. But it might be more appropriate to amend or revoke the order eventually. That immediate statutory procedure would replace arrangements which are, at the moment, only voluntary' and I really think that they would be a valuable step in protecting the community.
The noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, asked me how the different Ministers would act under Part I. It is true that more than one Minister could make an order, but we would expect that it would be signed by the Minister in whose territory the area to be designated lay. If the area included parts of two of the constituent countries of Great Britain, or if it was an area of sea, we expect that the order would be made by the Minister within whose territory the incident occurred or whose department first learned of it. For constitutional reasons, separate orders would be made for Northern Ireland by the Department of Agriculture, and there would certainly be administrative arrangements drawn up to ensure that there was full consultation between departments with responsibility for the safety of food.
My noble friend Lord Stanley asked: why is there no provision for compensation in Part I? The Bill does not make this provision for a very simple reason. This Part is designed to protect the public from the polluter. The polluter pays and, if necessary, could be taken to law. In Part I, the Government are simply seeking power to carry out the protective measures that, in all probability, all responsible members of the public would agree ought to be carried out voluntarily. I say this bearing in mind that the emergencies in Part I can be designated only if they are creating a hazard to health and to food and are occurring because of a release of substances. I hope that I made it clear in my opening speech that we trust that these occasions would be very rare indeed.
If I may move to Part II, this improves our protection of the seas around our shores by extending the areas controlled in the present legislation and by taking a number of new powers. For instance, it is important to have full powers to control marine incineration since, although the United Kingdom is not heavily dependent on this practice, we must certainly not lag behind the rest of Europe in imposing controls. Also, Clause 8 give us discretion to examine applications for licences from all possible angles, in order to reach a comprehensive judgment in each case.
734
It is really quite an important tightening up of the powers to make sure that dumping takes place only when dumping ought to take place.
If I may try to answer some of your Lordships' questions on this part, the noble Lord, Lord Walston, asked whether Part II could be used to regulate the packaging of toxic substances. I am advised that that would not be possible as the Bill is drawn for the first time, because Part II deals with deliberate deposit only in the sea. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, was, it is fair to say—if I may take just a general point which she made—critical of the United Kingdom's dumping. But the noble Baroness will forgive me if I say that I do not think she took enough account of the very small percentage of pollution which is created by dumping, compared to inputs from rivers and indeed from discharges from land, although in saying that I am in no way complacent about what we have to do over dumping. It is precisely for that reason that the Government are introducing Part II of the Bill.
My noble friend Lord Craigton asked whether we could treat applications for dumping licences like town and country planning applications and give an opportunity for objections. The fact of the matter is that this Bill does not change the position in the Dumping at Sea Act. That Act does not require that applications be published, nor does it prevent it. But the criterion is that licences should be granted only when it is safe to do so. That is an answer that I must give to the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, who asked: what is the guideline? The guideline is safety when looking at a dumping application. It is not entirely clear to me what advantage would be gained by making dumping applications akin to town and country planning applications.
My noble friend Lord Stodart asked whether the provisions in the Dumping at Sea Act on foreign enforcement officers have been deleted. The answer to my noble friend is yes, they have. The powers in Section 6 of the 1974 Act for authorisation of foreign enforcement officers were never actually used. It therefore seemed prudent not to re-enact them, but we have tried to bring in new powers when necessary. I would just draw my noble friend's attention to the remedial action in Clause 10, which also enables us to recover the costs of an action against a person convicted of an offence under this clause, which I believe will give us the sort of powers that my noble friend believed were right.
My noble friend Lord Auckland asked me about the nature of incineration. This is an operation which takes place on specially constructed or adapted incineration vessels, of which there are only a handful in the whole world. Those in Europe operate from the Netherlands and all incineration takes place at a single internationally agreed site in the middle of the North Sea within the Dutch zone. The control of incineration is particularly strict and enforcement is facilitated by the use of automatic data recorders, black-box recorders, which record all the operational details. Like my noble friend, I asked only a little while ago what incineration is all about and the answer is that it is to dispose of wastes which are in liquid form. The most obvious ones are organo-chlorines, and apparently they can be incinerated very much more safely at sea than on land. The noble Baroness, Lady

735
Nicol, asked me about the discharge of waste solids. Basically, of course, this Bill deals with deposits from ships and pipeline discharges are dealt with under the Control of Pollution Act 1974.
If I may finally come to Part III, that seeks to regulate the supply and use of all pesticides which, if I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord John-Mackie, includes rat poison, because Clause 15(7) and (8) make that clear; and not only rat poison, but also agricultural chemicals and those employed in public hygiene, food storage and wood preservation. Under the voluntary scheme, the PSPS, the safety picture has been a steadily improving one, despite an increase in the use of pesticides. For instance, both accidents and residue levels have been decreasing. None the less, the measures in Part III constitute an important step forward in environmental control. Although I know that different points of view have been put forward in the debate, as I knew there would be, the one thing on which I think we are all agreed is that it is necessary all the time in this area of agriculture to try to keep pushing forward and reduce the level of danger to people, to animals and to wildlife generally.
In this Bill we would have for the first time statutory power to screen all pesticides for safety and efficacy before they are marketed or used in the United Kingdom. For the first time we would have statutory control over the supply and use of pesticides. The important point that the noble Lord, Lord Walston, raised about preventing people from decanting pesticides from their proper containers could be dealt with under those controls.
This is enabling legislation. Perhaps your Lordships will forgive me if I say that I do not think it is very unusual—in fact, it is perfectly usual—to say that the regulations have to follow. The reason is that in this case there is a great difference between the enabling legislation and the regulations. In Part III of the Bill we are looking at it from a long-term point of view. We are trying to provide in principle for all future eventualities.
Secondly, the wording of the regulations will need to strike a fine balance in certain areas between freedom and an element of compulsion. Therefore, the Government must consult in detail again on the regulations, because they have already consulted with the industry—and widely- upon the bringing in of the Bill. In order to do so, first we have to have decisions from your Lordships' House and from another place on the principles from which the regulations are to be derived. However, I recognise the force of your Lordships' arguments today about the interest of the House in the second stage, and I give an undertaking in this debate that I shall do everything I can to put forward point by point the Government's view of the nature of the intended regulations as our debate on the Bill proceeds.
The noble Lord, Lord Melchett, was very critical of this particular matter. I would just say to him that in essence the intention of the Government in bringing in regulations under Clause 15 is that what is at present voluntary in regulating the supply and use of pesticides should become statutory, with two important additions. Efficacy testing will be required and use will
736
be controlled. The safety tests required under the PSPS, the need to satisfy the Advisory Committee on Pesticides, the conditions of storage, the training of advisers under BASIS and the methods of application on the label are all familiar and are generally complied with, but in future there will be stronger rules to ensure that those conditions are in fact complied with.
Lord Melchett: My Lords, the noble Lord mentioned efficacy testing but did not reply to my specific question about whether he could reconcile the two statements issued by his ministry: first, that efficacy testing would be applied to all products, and, secondly, that efficacy testing would be applied to all new products.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, patience! I am coming to that point. If the noble Lord will forgive me, the answer to that question is embedded beneath one or two pieces of paper. To deal first with another point, concern has been expressed in agricultural quarters that the regulations might impede low-priced imports from the continent. This point was raised by the noble Lord. Lord Walston, my noble friend Lord Stodart of Leaston, and by other noble Lords. It is very important that I should place on record that we would not wish to deny access to cheap, safe and efficient pesticides. Nor, indeed, would the European Commission allow us to do so. As an earnest of our good intentions we propose to introduce administratively on 1st January of next year a rapid clearance system free of any fees for imported pesticides provided that they are identical to products already cleared for use here. I am confident that a system introduced under regulations could, because of its simplicity, be charged at a very low level in the future.
My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley asked me about advice given to the Government. I can confirm that we shall continue to rely on the expert advice of the independent Advisory Committee on Pesticides. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers who said that this is absolutely right. However, we recognise that the work of the ACP has not in the past been so well publicised as it deserved. We plan to remedy that. We have already asked the ACP to publish an annual report of its activities, as the Royal Commission recommended, and the first annual report will cover the ACP's work in 1984.
It is fair to say that the Government have two main objectives in this part of the Bill. The first is to ensure safety of pesticides and control of their use. I want to emphasise again that the powers under the Bill would enable the Government to control fully such matters as aerial spraying, labelling, containers, storage, disposal and the reconsideration of existing clearances, and so on. But there is a second objective: to maintain efficiency and to avoid stifling new developments. I would give to those noble Lords who raised this point—those noble Lords included the noble Lord. Lord Walston and the noble Lord. Lord Craigton, among others—the assurance that we shall ensure that, subject to the agreement of both Houses, novel application techniques, such as controlled droplet application, can be used where appropriate and that minor crop growers continue to have access to the products they need. We are absolutely determined to stand by this statement of principle.

737
Let me say a word about confidentiality, which is a point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Nicol. There is legitimate concern at the use which government make of the information which is submitted to them by particular manufacturers. Of course I understand that concern. By laying conditions in the regulations we can be more responsive to changing standards in this area, and we shall certainly bear in mind the presumption in favour of openness in environmental matters. In the Government's view, a distinction needs to be made between the release of data for the purpose of hazard assessment by the general public—a perfectly understandable wish—and the release of test results in such a manner that a rival manufacturer can use them to obtain approval for an identical product. In the latter case we have to recognise the very substantial investment and testing needed to obtain approval for a new product.
To answer one or two other specific questions on Part III of the Bill, a whole array of questions asked, in essence, whether or not a series of operations would be allowed under the regulations. If for the sake of time I may pick out only the question upon which the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, pressed me particularly a few moments ago—namely, efficacy testing of all products or only of new products—our intention is to cover all products. However, it is not practicable to cover immediately all existing cleared pesticides. There will have to be a transitional period. Therefore, all new applications will be screened for efficacy but all existing products will be screened as their clearances are reviewed.
My noble friend Lord Craigton and other noble Lords made the point that it is important to keep records. Powers contained in the Bill would enable Ministers to require that by regulation details of records shall be kept. This is one of the many matters which will need to be discussed with the industry. However, I foresee that it will certainly be discussed in your Lordships' House before we get that far.
My noble friend Lord Monk Bretton made a particular point about the application of pesticides to vegetables. I would say to my noble friend that product labels already tell users how often and how close to harvesting they may apply a pesticide. ADAS advisers assist farmers, within the safety limits set out on labels, to apply the pesticide at the time it will be most effective. This is the way in which we would wish to proceed.
I was asked by several noble Lords about how this is going to be policed and generally organised. I would make the point that when I said at the beginning of the debate that there would be 18 on the Health and Safety Executive staff I meant that they would be in addition to the scientists and agricultural inspectors who are already on the HSE staff. The 16 in the ministry whom I also mentioned in my speech will be additional to the scientists who already operate the PSPS, the ACAS and the wildlife incident investigation scheme.
My noble friend Lord Ferrers asked me about the future of the BASIS scheme. Standards of safety in the storage and distribution of pesticides will certainly not be lower under this Bill than they are now. All this is thanks to the work done by the BASIS organisation, as my noble friend is very well aware. I am firmly of the view that it will be in the interests of the trade and of
738
the public if BASIS continues to exist in the maintenance of standards set out in the legislation.
If my noble friend will forgive me, I will not follow him down the interesting and very serious road he explored in his speech so far as levels of pesticides in people's bodies are concerned, except to say that over the past 20 years or so there has been a very marked drop so far as DDT and Dieldrin are concerned. Indeed, DDT and Endrin were withdrawn from 1st October of this year. I hesitate even to have said that, because it makes it sound as though I am satisfied with that situation. I take my noble friend's point that we should never be satisfied. I am very glad that he made the speech that he did this evening.
I have two more points, if there is time. The noble Baroness, Lady Nicol, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie of Benshie, talked about the need to be careful with our exports to other countries. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, also mentioned this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Mackie, asked what I meant when I referred to exports at the beginning of this debate. Decisions on what pesticides are needed and under what conditions they should be used must rest, and rightly do rest, with national governments. Nor can we always judge what is appropriate under tropical and sub-tropical conditions. It should be remembered that lack of a pesticide in such areas might mean not reduced productivity but, as the noble Lord said, the loss of an entire crop or a disease epidemic.
Nevertheless, the British Government wholeheartedly support international initiatives such as by FAO and UNO on improved information exchange. Hence the provision that is in the Bill at the moment. The need to insist on a government response to information that we send relating to a proposed system would be very difficult. It would be likely to result in unacceptable delays to shipments which were genuinely needed. At the moment, I am saying that our support for international initiatives on information exchange is absolute, but I feel that I cannot go further than that this evening.
Finally, several noble Lords, and among them my noble friends Lord Ferrers and Lord Monk Bretton, spoke about the Ministry of Agriculture's research programme and expressed concern that it should keep up so far as pesticides are concerned. It is fair to say that ADAS is giving priority to the development of integrated pest control systems for outdoor crops, to improvements in application methods, to the introduction of pest and disease-resistant varieties, and to making forecasting techniques for pest and disease incidence more effective. All of this is designed to contribute to reducing pesticide use to the minimum level consistent with efficient food production, as recommended by the Royal Commission in their seventh report.
Those are all the questions we have time for this evening, and I hope that this debate has been of benefit to those of your Lordships who have taken part in it. It has certainly been of benefit to the Government. I believe that this Bill will mark a significant step forward in food safety, marine pollution and pesticides, and so will make a practical contribution to improving the environment for everyone.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Highland Regional Council (Uig Pier, Skye) Order Confirmation Bill
Brought from the Commons, read a first time, and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936), deemed to have been read a second time and reported from the Committee.

Firth of Clyde Piers: Maintenance
7.15 p.m.
Lord Banks Lord Banks rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what steps they propose to take to ensure that non-vehicular piers on the Firth of Clyde currently in use are not allowed to fall into disrepair and disuse with consequent loss to the tourist industry.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. The Question asks what steps the Government propose to take to ensure that non-vehicular piers on the Firth of Clyde currently in use are not allowed to fall into disrepair and disuse with consequent loss to the tourist industry. I await with interest to hear in due course the reply which will be made by the noble Lord the Minister, and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove, for interesting himself in this Question.
As railways spread throughout Britain, steamer services developed on the Firth. Operating from railheads, they were in fact the railways of the Firth, maintaining communication between the towns and villages around its shores. They provided also in the summer cruises for visitors amid the very attractive scenery of the Firth. If one were to return to the year 1900, one would find that there were then about 60 piers in use with about 40 steamers serving them at the height of the season.
The development of road traffic followed by the increasing number of cars in use, and eventually the considerable improvement to roads, altered that pattern. Since 1900 there has been a gradual decline in both the number of piers in use and the number of steamers involved in serving them. There has been a concentration, too, in the ownership of the vessels. There has also been the replacement of the passenger steamer by the dual-purpose car ferry. Nowadays, the services are concentrated on a few very busy and important car ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne and Western Ferries—such as the Gourock-Dunoon ferry, the Wemyss Bay-Rothesay ferry, and the Ardrossan-Brodick ferry. Cruising has been abandoned by Caledonian MacBrayne.
The last of the familiar Clyde passenger steamers was the "Waverley". This was a paddle steamer built in 1947 for the London North-Eastern Railway Company. By 1974, the Scottish Transport Group, who by that time were her owners, had no more use for her. They sold her to the Paddle Steamer Preservation Society for £1. That was a very generous gesture but I imagine that there was a certain amount of cynicism generally as to the extent of the use to which the preservation society would be able to put her.
The society resolved to sail the "Waverley" again on the Clyde. Here I must declare an interest, although
740
not a financial one. I am a member of the Paddle Steamer Preservation Society and of the Clyde River Steamer Club. In September this year, the "Waverley" completed her tenth season operated by a non-profit making company under the auspices of the society. That is a remarkable achievement. During the six months of her season, the "Waverley" sails around Britain, offering cruises around the West Highlands, on the East Coast of Scotland, in the Bristol Channel, in the Solent, and on the Thames. But early and late in every season, and during the height of the season, in July and August, the "Waverley" is based in her home waters on the Clyde, where she offers a variety of cruises and where she provides also a means of communication between one point and another.
The "Waverley" is a considerable tourist attraction for Glasgow and the Clyde coast. In July and August of this year, the "Waverley" carried no fewer than 109,000 passengers on the Clyde; that is quite apart from the passengers she carried in other parts of the country. That is 3,000 more than she carried in the same time and in the same area in 1983; 109,000 passengers carried in the Clyde in July and August, 42,000 of whom were taken—and this is quite significant—to ports on the North or Highland side of the Clyde to Argyllshire ports, Dunoon, Tighnabruaich, Tarbert and Campbeltown.
The "Waverley" also provides business for the places that are at the end of her cruises; at destination points where people have time ashore. Indeed, they have time ashore at the places at which she calls on the way. That means a considerable amount of business for local shopkeepers, cafe proprietors, and so on. The "Waverley" calls at piers like Dunoon, Rothesay and Brodick which are also used for car ferry services. Because they are also used for car ferry services, we can be fairly certain that they will be maintained and that they will be available for the "Waverley" in future years. The "Waverley" also calls at non-vehicular piers; that is, piers which are not used by the car ferries. The "Waverley" management is concerned about the future of these piers, some of which are in a bad state of repair.
The piers about which there is particular concern are Millport, Helensburgh, Tighnabruaich and Largs. On Millport pier, on the Great Cumbrae, repairs are needed which would cost about £90,000. It seems that repairs have been allowed to accumulate. I believe that Strathclyde Regional Council has refused to foot the bill, arguing that as it is used for leisure and recreation it is the responsibility of the district council for whom, of course, £90,000 is a very large sum. Millport pier is also used in summer by a small passenger vessel, the "Keppel", which provides a direct link for passengers with Largs and Rothesay. It is operated by Caledonian MacBrayne, and there is a question mark over the future of that service. Millport does not want to lose either the "Waverley" service or the "Keppel" service and has formed an action committee to fight for the continuation of Millport pier.
As regards Largs, there is the fear that if Millport were closed then Largs might be closed as well. It is owned by Caledonian MacBrayne. It is not necessary for the car ferry service to the Cumbrae. Passengers using this service travel by bus to Millport once they are landed on the Cumbrae because they are landed at

741
some distance from the town. I understand that the carryings for the "Keppel" last summer direct from Millport pier to Largs and to Rothesay were well up and that the car ferry service could not have coped with all the foot passenger traffic that wanted to travel. It is important to emphasise that Largs is a very important picking-up point as far as the "Waverley" is concerned, being a prosperous holiday resort, a residential area and having a railway terminus. The same comment applies to Helensburgh further up the Clyde, on the other side.
Helensburgh pier is falling into a very bad state of repair and there seems to be very little sign that even basic maintenance is being carried out. Mr. David Duncanson, the general manager of Waverley Excursions Limited, is reported as saying in the Glasgow Evening Times of 19th October:
"Both myself and the captain of the ship, Captain David Neil, consider that it"—
that is, Helensburgh pier—
"is getting to a dangerous condition".
Tighnabruaich pier is also in need of repair; and a spokesman for Strathclyde Regional Council has admitted that both Helensburgh and Tighnabruaich pier are urgently in need of repair. Tighnabruaich is situated in the Kyles of Bute in a very beautiful part of the country and is an ideal destination for a cruise. Also of course the large numbers of cruise passengers who are taken there by the "Waverley" in the summer bring a lot of business locally. There have also been rumours—I do not know whether there is anything in them—that somebody might be willing at some point in the comparatively near future to introduce in summer a feeder service between Tighnabruaich and Rothesay. If Tighnabruaich pier were to close then all those advantages would go.
In the same report to which I have referred Mr. Duncanson said that if Millport, Helensburgh, Largs and Tighnabruaich piers were closed it would kill off cruising on the Clyde. He said:
"We could not stand losing these three important picking up points as well as Millport."
If that should happen, Glasgow and the Clyde coast would lose a remarkable and valuable tourist attraction. A means of ordinary communication between places on the Clyde in the summer season would go and local businesses would stand to lose a considerable amount, not only in those four places but in other places such as Dunoon, Rothesay, Campbeltown, Tarbert and Ayr. If the Clyde cruising ended then it is possible that the whole "Waverley" enterprise might end. I am sure the Government do not want that to happen.
I hope that the Government will give an assurance that they will not stand idly by and allow that to happen. Perhaps the recent experience regarding Tobermory pier, further north outside the Firth of Clyde and the Island of Mull, offers hope. Caledonian MacBrayne (who own that pier) closed it to vessels of over 70 feet in length because of the structural condition of the pier. That meant that it was not able to be used by the Caledonian MacBrayne ferry from Oban. There was much local criticism of that, and the Secretary of State eventually made an offer of financial assistance. That was originally just to allow smaller
742
vessels to call; but later full restoration of services was provided for so that larger Caledonian MacBrayne ferries will be able to call there in the future and also the "Waverley" during her short stay each year in that part of the country.
In conclusion, I emphasise that I am not asking for help for something which is fading away. On the contrary—and I repeat this—the "Waverley" carried 109,000 passengers on the Clyde in July and August this year. The "Waverley" enterprise is a wonderful success story, based on voluntary support and enthusiasm and bringing many advantages to the community. I hope that it will be made clear that the Government are determined to maintain the conditions under which that voluntary, non-profit making enterprise can continue its success.
7.28 p.m.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, I apologise for not having put down my name to speak; but, frankly, I had not expected to be in London today otherwise I would have done so. Owing to my advancing years, my memories go back to the days when the Clyde was covered by a network of steamer routes. There were the Caledonian Railway steamers with their yellow funnels, MacBrayne's Queens of the Coast, the "Iona" and the "Columba", the North British Railway, the Glasgow and South-Western Railway and their steamers trading to and fro between the piers, most of which the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has mentioned. Your Lordships will forgive me if I remind the House that it was possible to buy a ticket at the Broomielaw to Fort William and sail by, say, the "Columba" to Ardrishhaig on the funny little steamer, the "Linnet", which went up the Crinan Canal, to the "Chevalier" which ran from Crinan round to Oban. At Oban we changed to the "Mountaineer", or the like, and up to Fort William. That was a great development.
I am so glad that the noble Lord mentioned the steamer that is maintaining the reputation of comfort and enjoyment on one of the most beautiful coasts in the world. I hope that his words and mine will help to encourage the Government to do everything that they can to help with the maintenance of those piers.
At one time I was a bit of a yachtsman. The noble Lord did not mention yachtsmen at all. I should like to ask the Minister whether in considering the problem he has been in touch with the Clyde Cruising Club, which publishes a splendid book of sailing instructions for the whole coast, right the way up to Ullapool.
One is tempted at my age to reminisce. I think your Lordships will be interested to know that I remember a steamer of MacBrayne's. She was called the "Glen Coe", and sailed from Mallaig to Broadford. I was an orphan boy, and I remember one winter during the first war when I was going up to stay with an uncle in Skye. It was a horrible, black day. I went on board, and I asked one of the sailors what sort of crossing we were going to have. He said, "I wouldn't be knowing, but I can tell you this—that Captain MacDonald has on his carpet slippers. It's when he has on his sea boots that you have to look out". That is an illustration of when the steamer had a single cylinder beam engine. If she stuck at a dead end, the stokers had to come up, and bar the paddles over so that she was able to go backwards or forwards.

743
To return to the question of yachtsmen, yachting is one of the greatest leisure opportunities in the world; and there is nowhere in the world to compare with the west coast of Scotland, in my view. I know nearly all the ports. Access for yachts depends a great deal on the availability of existing piers and maintaining them in proper order. In that respect I feel that we can support 100 per cent. what the noble Lord said. I am sure that the money put in is an investment. It is good stuff. Experience with the steamer that goes from Ardrossan to Brodick, the "Waverly" indicates the opportunities there are there for relaxation, travel and good health.
My mind again goes back to the time when I was a little boy and we travelled on these steamers. Does anyone remember the German bands? There was always a band on board, with Germans with their peaked caps, their trombones, clarinets and trumpets. "Going doon the water" as they called it, was a tremendous exercise for the people of Glasgow. At that time Glasgow was terribly foggy and smoky.
I hope that your Lordships will give a good hearing to the case of the noble Lord, Lord Banks. I should like to add my words to what he has said. I again ask the Minister who is to reply whether he has been in touch with the Clyde Cruising Club to see to what extent assistance can be given to yachtsmen so that people can drive to, say, Tarbert-Lock Fyne-and join a yacht there. I think that the Tarbert pier is all right, but it may not go on being like that unless we pay attention to what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said.
7.43 p.m.
Baroness Elliot of Harwood: My Lords, I should very much like to support the noble Lord, Lord Banks, in this matter. Like everyone else in your Lordships' House at this moment, I have done an enormous amount of sailing on the Clyde, off the west Highlands and on the west coast. It is one of the most enjoyable things that one can do. It is one of the best entertainments for those who go there and love sailing. It would be nothing short of a tragedy if this facility were to disappear just when we are trying to encourage more and more people to go to Scotland and to the west. As we all know, there is a great depression in shipbuilding and all those things. Proposals such as we are discussing can help to counter that kind of situation.
I hope very much that what the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has said—every word of which I agree with—will receive the agreement of the noble Lord, Lord Gray. This is something that we should invest in. It is not expenditure, it is investment; and it will bring a return.
7.36 p.m.
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I think that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for having raised the subject and put down the Question today. It is important to realise how great an expert he is on the subject of Clyde steamers. I was also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, and interested in his remarks on the nostalgia of the Clyde, which is a very important part of the west of Scotland culture. I hope to make a brief reference to what the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, said in her few remarks.
744
It is important to realise the vital part played by the Clyde and the Clyde steamers in the history of Glasgow, the west of Scotland and really the industrial heartlands of Britain at various periods. I say that without wishing to be too chauvinistic. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, pointed out, there were scores of piers serviced by dozens of ships. Many, but not all, of those ships were paddle steamers. For some reason or other the paddle steamers were always the most fascinating, especially if one went down to see the engines. When I went down to see the engines it was actually to see the engines, but that was what the Clyde engineers used to tell their wives when they were going down to the bar! Those wonderful, big engines were beautifully kept and beautiful to look at.
I perhaps do not go back quite as far as many other noble Lords, but I remember being told of Tighnabruaich, for instance, where there would be 10 boats before 10 o'clock in the morning at the height of the season. I believe that there was a certain amount of competition for the Royal Mail. That is what I was always told. If a company could manage to establish a good record of reliability and speed, it would get the mail for the next year or six months.
It is also interesting to realise that much of the system was based on very cheap labour and extremely cheap fuel in the west of Scotland. Sometimes the conditions for the crews were not that great. I am not saying that to introduce a sour note, but merely to illustrate the fact that what was possible in those days may not be possible now. The steamers were also the only means of transport to many parts of the Clyde. Our roads are now much better, but the old roads were little more than drovers' tracks. Even in my day, for instance, to go to Loch Goil other than by steamer was very difficult.
Perhaps it is being over-romantic, but I often think that the Clyde coast and Venice have something in common. Venice has the boats because of the lagoon, and that makes it different from any other city in the world. The Clyde, because of its ships, was able to sustain little villages and small towns which could not have been sustained otherwise.
Now, of course, we have the growth of road transport. In the various responsibilities that I have had in political life the subject has continually come up: the desire of people to use motorcars and the problems that this means for other forms of transport. The diesel and petrol engine, together with much better roads, has brought about a gradual transfer of passengers. As a result, the Clyde fleet has become smaller and smaller. There was less of a margin to be achieved in visiting the smaller populated areas, and therefore the service began to reduce. I remember well sailing down the Clyde from Glasgow, from Broomielaw, and we actually stopped at Govan and, I think, also at Renfrew. This would be inconceivable now. It is a seven-minute run by bus. However, that is how important the steamer was. It has become one of the casualties of the technological age.
There were also the marvellous evening sails from Largs, Millport and Rothesay, which, for some reason, have disappeared. It is a wonderful river. I still love to sail down it. It is one of my favourite trips, to take foreigners from south of the Border across to

745
Dunoon—although, again, by car. That is the problem: I go by car. I sail across and take them up round Dunoon, over the Rest and be Thankful, and sometimes even into Callander. However, the ship now constitutes only part of the journey instead of the whole journey. This is perhaps because people are not willing to spend the entire day travelling.
Although still a wonderful river it is a different river from the one that I knew as a kid, mainly in Millport and Largs, when, though not perhaps with the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, I could identify ships on seeing whether the front portholes were square or round. I am afraid I did not maintain that interest, but at one time it was a matter of great importance to me. My daughter, however, is still very much involved in the Clyde. To her, it is a different river. She sees the Clyde from a yacht, a sailing boat or from the shore. Nevertheless, she uses the Clyde and she loves it.
I was pleased to hear the figures from the noble Lord, Lord Banks, about the "Waverley", which berths in my old constituency. It is still a magnificent sight. To stand at the head of the Kyles of Bute on a clear day and to see the "Waverley" steaming up is really a most exciting sight. I have every hope that anything I say will be taken as encouragement rather than anything else. The position, I understand, is that Strathclyde inherited about 50 piers, ranging from very small jetties to Rothesay Harbour, on the reorganisation of local government. There was then the Stodart report. I am sorry that the noble Lord has left because his name is beginning to flit through Scottish legislation in this generation almost in the way that the name Goschen did in another generation. That was a splendid and full report.
The noble Lord suggested that leisure and recreational piers should be the responsibility of the district councils. I recognise that there are always difficulties in trying to divide and compartmentalise these things. It was, however, a reasonable argument to say that if it was a leisure or recreational pier or jetty, the district councils should be responsible for it, whereas if it was the continuation of the highway it should be a regional council responsibility.
I understand that Millport is now losing traffic to the Cumbrae slip. I remember when there were hardly any cars, if any cars at all, in Millport. It was therefore great as a youngster to be able to ride a bicycle without any great fear. To most of those who are only going to Millport for the odd day—there are perhaps not as many of them as we would like to see—and who wish to take their cars, the slipway is a reasonable alternative. It is roughly a mile from the town. It does diminish Millport, because the pierhead was the centre. It was the place where things happened, where the shops were located and where you got the latest news.
I have been making inquiries. I understand that the figure for repair, although I stand to be corrected, is around £70,000. The noble Lord, Lord Banks, suggested a figure of about £90,000. Whatever it is, I accept that to a district council it is a very high figure. The difficulty is that, in present circumstances, it also represents quite a big figure for Strathclyde. I can assure your Lordships that in the area that I
746
represented, while there would be great sympathy and hopes that the money could be found somewhere, the urgency for money in the inner city areas is at least as strong. The sum of £70,000 or £90,000 would mean a great deal at a time of cuts in so many services.
It is a sad fact of life that although it may be impossible, or difficult, for a district council to raise the money, because it would represent one of its major items of capital expenditure, the allocation of £90,000 by a regional council, with all the pressures upon it, would also represent a great problem.
I do not feel, however, that there is any lack of goodwill on the part of the people of Strathclyde Regional Council towards the desires of the noble Lord, Lord Banks, other noble Lords and the noble Baroness. Lady Elliot, who have spoken in the debate. I understand that a decision is likely to be made very soon—possibly next week, or the week after that—as to what is to happen to Millport. I have been trying, at a fairly late date, to gather some information. I hope however, that the Government will look at the matter with great sympathy.
The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot, mentioned unemployment in the engineering industry. I support fully what she said. I would emphasise that there is unemployment not just in the engineering undustry, but particularly in the civil engineering industry. I believe that the Federation of Civil Engineering Contractors have joined, on more than one occasion, with local authorities, construction companies and consultants in urging the Government to try to provide them with some work. There is a tremendous shortage of work and a great deal of unemployment in every branch of civil engineering and marine engineering.
What is required for repairs to piers such as Millport and many of the others that we have been discussing is labour, steel, cement, stone and perhaps a little heavy timber. Of all these principal items, there is only one that involves imports—the last, the heavy timber.
This request to the Government for help seems reasonable, in view of the state of the industry. As I say, this is not a party point, because the people who have approached us are certainly hardly likely to be canvassing for my party at the next election. They are really desperate. They do not suck in imports, as many other capital works may do. The only import that is likely to be necessary is some of the heavy, water-resistant timbers.
I hope that the Minister will look at the matter from that point of view. Instead of asking Strathclyde to provide something like £70,000 or £90,000, or asking the district council if they will do it or if private enterprise will do it, the Govenment should find a way to use the available resources. It would be a very marginal addition to what is already being paid out in many other forms of help to these people and to these industries to give a little more to allow repairs like this to go ahead and preserve for many years to come an asset which I think has proved itself very much over the past 50, 60 or 100 years to the people of the West of Scotland.
7.51 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I should like to begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Banks,

747
for initiating this short debate this evening. I almost feel an intruder when I listen to the wealth of knowledge of the Clyde which has come from the noble Lord himself and from the three other noble Lords and the noble Baroness who have taken part. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has a particular—indeed, expert—interest in the general history of sea transport services. Many years ago he published a book on the history and development of the famous Clyde steamers.
I can recall myself, as a boy, sailing down the Clyde on the lovely old "Duchess of Montrose", which will be well known to all those who have taken part in this debate; and therefore I share in the affection which those who have participated this evening have for the Clyde and for the Clyde piers. I am sure that many of your Lordships have very fond memories of those majestic vessels—majestic in both name and in bearing—which plied the Firth of Clyde for the greater part of a century. Reference has been made to them this evening.
However, we have to face up to the fact that resources are not unlimited and that priorities have to be drawn. There are many piers on the Clyde which are not required for the provision of any essential transport services. We have to ask—or rather, those directly responsible have to ask—how much it can be justified to spend on them to maintain them for what is a relatively limited tourist use. I shall return to this point. I shall also deal with the points that have been raised about Millport Pier, because I readily appreciate that it is probably Millport Pier which is of the greatest concern to the noble Lord, Lord Banks, and to others at this point in time. I shall also deal with some of the points which were raised in regard to financing of such repairs. Let me say straight away that these are the responsibilities principally of the Strathclyde Regional Council. I shall deal with that in a little more detail in a moment.
Perhaps first of all I can answer the question put to me by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who asked me if we had consulted with the Clyde Cruising Club. We have not consulted specifically with the cruising club on this issue for the simple reason that the Government's responsibility is to provide essential transport infrastructure, and noble Lords will appreciate that yachting is a leisure pursuit. That is why we have not particularly consulted the Clyde Cruising Club on this occasion.
I should like to say a word about Millport Pier. May I say from the outset that I fully acknowledge the strength of local feeling provoked by the prospect of closure of Millport Pier. As the noble Lord, Lord Banks, has already said, the Millport Pier Action Group have been particularly zealous in their defence of the pier, including the compilation of an impressive amount of background material to highlight the economic and social basis of life on a small island like Great Cumbrae. Indeed, the Secretary of State has been inundated with postcards about the fate of the pier. Officials in my department have been in touch with the action group, and earlier this year attended a meeting in Millport to hear the group's views on a wide range of transport issues. In that and other contexts we have therefore made clear the Secretary of State's
748
position in this affair; but your Lordships will wish me to set on record now the formal statutory background.
The Secretary of State can make available Exchequer assistance for capital works at piers and harbours under various statutory powers. However, his powers are defined in terms of financial aid to assist the provision or improvement of piers and harbours. That is the basic criterion of eligibility. Only capital works which represent a visible degree of betterment to sea transport facilities are eligible for consideration for Exchequer assistance. The obverse of this is that Exchequer assistance is not available for works which have become necessary because routine maintenance has not been carried out. Over the years my department have reminded all local authorities which are harbour authorities, and all statutory harbour authorities and trusts, that it is their duty to make adequate provision for proper maintenance of the piers and harbours in their charge. It has been stressed to them that the Secretary of State cannot use funds provided for improvement of facilities to assist works made necessary by neglect of maintenance. Your Lordships may consider that this sounds a rather harsh distinction but I think you will agree that the Secretary of State can operate only within the bounds of the statutory' powers available to him.
I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael, was very realistic in his remarks when he pointed out that he realised, from his experience in transport matters, that there was only a limited amount of money—there was not a great honeypot into which we could dip—and that priorities had to be made. However, in regard to the specific case of Millport Pier, I understand that Strathclyde Regional Council, as owners of the pier, have indicated, as the noble Lord mentioned, that they are not disposed to undertake at present certain maintenance and repair works, estimated to cost around £100.000, necessary to render the structure safe, and that the absence of such work may require them to close the pier in the near future. I understand also that the regional council are of the view that Millport Pier serves no necessary transport function and is therefore to be regarded as predominantly a facility for leisure and recreation purposes.
The regional council have stated that it is for Cunninghame District Council, as the tier of local government responsible for leisure and recreation matters, to find the necessary expenditure for the pier works if it is intended to keep the facility in use for cruising vessels such as the "Waverley". Your Lordships will understand my reluctance to comment on that difference of view between the local authorities. I do not think that it would be appropriate or indeed helpful for me to become embroiled in that dispute. I would only add for avoidance of doubt that the Secretary of State does not have the powers or resources to compel local authorities to undertake maintenance and repair work. I would have hoped that sensible discussion between the two councils would have been possible.
I recognise that none of this offers much comfort for those who are concerned—if I may put it this way—to preserve Millport pier for its own sake. I understand their views. The pier has played an important role in the history of the community and has provided it with

749
a focal point. In its day, it also provided an important contribution to the local economy. There was a time around the turn of the century when three separate steamers, I understand in competition with each other, were wholly devoted to travelling between Millport pier and the mainland.
But times change, and the west coast of Scotland is littered with piers that now perform no transport function. In the Clyde itself I need only mention such places as Ardentinny, Strachur, Straoan——
Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove: My Lords, I am afraid that the Minister has been given the wrong information. Ardentinny has never had a pier. People were taken by a small boat from the mainland to Ardentinny. The nearest pier was at Blairmore.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, my position as an outsider is wholly confirmed; I stand corrected. I would never dream of arguing on such a point with one as knowledgeable about the Clyde as the noble Lord, Lord Carmichael of Kelvingrove. Perhaps I had better not mention any more places in case I raise some more which do not have piers. However, I can assure your Lordships that there are many more.
It cannot be right that large sums of money should be spent from transport budgets to keep these piers in operation, when they have no continuing transport use. Where however they are deemed to be important for tourism or other purposes, the powers are available for the district councils to take them over. Once again, of course, resources for expenditure on leisure and recreation are scarce and hard decisions have to be taken on priorities.
A particular problem in the Millport case is that no one is anxious to take over an immediate liability to incur expenditure. I do not know whether Cunning-name District Council might be amenable to taking over responsibility after repairs had been done, or possibly to some cost-sharing. These are decisions for the local authority but might provide a way forward in cases where there is a generally agreed desire to retain the facility for tourist purposes. I would not wish your Lordships' House for one moment to think that the Government are not interested or have not been playing their part fully so far as ferry services are concerned.
I would like to turn briefly to the wider question of Government support for the ferry services operated by Caledonian MacBrayne on the West Coast. I think it is important to get on record once again the extent and scale of this Government's support for the important ferry services in this area. Since 1979 subsidy for the approved ferry services operated by CalMac has risen from £3·7 million to £7 million in 1984. This represents an increase of 90 per cent. during that four year period; the increase is far above the rate of inflation for that period and we have therefore increased revenue support in real terms for the services.
We find ourselves at the moment in a period of major investment both in ships and in associated ferry
750
terminal improvements, including a number of pier projects on the Firth of Clyde. This year we have grant-aided capital work by CalMac on consolidation of their roll-on/roll-off terminal at Gourock pier at a total cost of some £350,000. Approval in principle has also been given to urgent remedial work at Rothesay pier at an estimated cost of £50,000. CalMac have submitted a five-year programme of capital improvements at a number of piers involving work at Wemyss Bay pier, further improvements at Brodick pier on Arran, together with further phases of work at Gourock. This proposed programme is currently being assessed. When completed it will represent a major overhaul of the Clyde piers, and will ensure the maintenance of the existing transport links which are essential to the existence of the Clyde tourist industry. Strathclyde Regional Council will in the future be looking to undertake further improvements at Rothesay. I think that this illustrates the scale of the commitment which the Secretary of State is being asked to give in supporting not only pier improvements on the Clyde, but throughout Scotland's ferry network.
More generally, your Lordships may wish to know that total financial provisions made available to harbour authorities over the past four years for capital improvements has averaged around £750,000 per annum; we have made provision moreover for a substantial increase over the next three years to take account of the very important conversion to roll-on /roll-off facilities which will be undertaken on what is known as the Uig triangle service between Skye and the Western Isles—a little removed from the Clyde, I admit, but I thought that your Lordships would be interested to know that. I think that your Lordships will agree on the basis of this information that all concerned, harbour authorities and the Government, are well aware of the need to devise and implement a rolling programme of improvements to the sea transport facilities.
I would like to think that sufficient money was available to do all that the noble Lord, Lord Banks, would like to see done to those piers, but I am afraid that priorities have got to be made. Nevertheless, let me thank the noble Lord again for giving us this excellent opportunity to discuss a subject which is so dear to the hearts of many of us.
Lord Ferrier: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I have your Lordships' permission to urge him to pursue my suggestion about the Clyde Sailing Club? Yachting may be a leisure pursuit, but it is an absolute money spinner in terms of the cost of boats and the cost of sailing equipment and the engines which now drive the motor cruisers which have to be maintained up and down the coast. In terms of piers, will the noble Lord apply himself to the problem that recently arose as regards Tobermory, where it was found that he had to finance the improvement of the pier?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for that intervention. I must say to him that I would not wish to be drawn into argument or

751
discussion about the difference between the situation and circumstances at Millport compared to Tobermory, because that is going rather wide of the subject tonight.
Perhaps I may return to the question of the Clyde Sailing Club. While I fully appreciate the excellent reputation which it enjoys and the very great pleasure which it gives both to its members and to its visitors, yachting is, of course, a leisure recreation, and therefore it is not part of what we are talking about this evening. As I explained to my noble friend, that was why we did not have direct contact with the club.

London Docklands Railway (No. 2) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and referred to the Examiners.
House adjourned at nine minutes past eight o'clock.

  BBC: PROGRAMME BALANCE
  BBC: PROGRAMME BALANCE
  LIFE PRISONER: RECALL FROM LICENCE
  LIFE PRISONER: RECALL FROM LICENCE
  YOUTH TRAINING AND ETHNIC MINORITIES
  YOUTH TRAINING AND ETHNIC MINORITIES
  SCHOOLS AND ETHNIC MINORITIES
  SCHOOLS AND ETHNIC MINORITIES
  NATO POLICY
  NATO POLICY
  AIRLAND BATTLE DOCTRINE
  AIRLAND BATTLE DOCTRINE
  AIRLAND BATTLE TRAINING
  AIRLAND BATTLE TRAINING
  NHS NURSES, MIDWIVES, AND HEALTH VISITORS
  NHS NURSES, MIDWIVES, AND HEALTH VISITORS