Sitting of 31 October 1984

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

    Inward Investment
    Mr. Hirstasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is the aggregate value of the inward investment attracted to Scotland up to the latest practicable date by Locate in Scotland; and if he will make a statement.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced on her visit to Scotland last month, the aggregate value of planned investment by overseas companies which we have helped to secure since we set up Locate in Scotland in 1981, now exceeds £1,000 million. This investment is expected to create or safeguard directly some 25,000 jobs and to provide many more opportunities in other enterprises throughout the United Kingdom.
    Mr. Hirst: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is it not a most impressive record on the part of Locate in Scotland in attracting inward investment? Will he pass on to the officials of LIS the congratulations of the House on their continued success and our hopes that they will do still better? How many of these companies have set up marketing and research and development functions in Scotland? Are not these functions fairly critical in guaranteeing a long-term future for the companies that LIS has attracted to Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: I am grateful for my hon. Friend's sentiments on LIS, which I am sure will be widely shared. Locate in Scotland is in the present year on target for investment. Since April some £500 million has gone into Scotland, which will involve new or safeguarded jobs for about 6,000. My hon. Friend makes an important point on research and development and marketing, which are critical functions. One of our great advantages in attracting such activities is the strength of our higher education system.
    Mr. Bruce: I echo my appreciation of the success of Locate in Scotland, but will the Minister acknowledge that, with the present review of assisted area status in Scotland about to be published, some non-assisted areas could lose out, especially under section 8 of the Industry Act, which could affect the future performance of LIS? Will the Scottish Office recognise the need to press for more approvals of section 8 applications in non-assisted areas?
    Mr. Stewart: I am happy to assure the hon. Gentleman that the White Paper explicitly recognises the importance of regional centres in enabling Scotland, and the United Kingdom as a whole, to complete effectively for internationally mobile projects.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will my hon. Friend confirm that the success of the Locate in Scotland unit is likely steadily to continue, and that there has been a lot of American investment recently, as was shown by W.L. Gore Associates?
    Mr. Stewart: I met Mr. Gore during my recent trip to America. I am convinced that the climate is now excellent for further inward investment in Scotland. We have established our reputation as silicon glen. Overseas businessmen have high confidence in the policies of the Government, and were particularly impressed by the decision of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor to reduce corporation tax.
    Mr. Dewar: Has the review by the Department of Trade and Industry into the future of LIS been completed? If so, will the Minister give us a full statement about the results and about LIS's continuing success? Is he aware that any reduction in the scope and independence of LIS will be unacceptable to the Opposition, however skillfully it may be disguised as integration and co-operation with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Invest in Britain bureau? It is particularly important to get this fact established because of the continuing rumours that at least one of the North American operations of Locate in Scotland is threatened with closure.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: I note with interest that the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar) has refrained from commenting favourably on the inward investment successes to which my hon. Friends have referred. The Government have been considering the future of inward investment promotion for the whole United Kingdom, as was announced a couple of years ago. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that our only concern is to increase the effectiveness of our efforts.

    Scottish Trades Union Council
    Mr. James Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will next meet the Scottish Trades Union Congress general council to discuss the economic and industrial situation in Scotland.
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. George Younger): I have no immediate plans to meet the general council of the STUC to discuss the economic and industrial situation in Scotland. I meet senior trade union representatives as often as possible. I shall be meeting them next month to discuss local authority expenditure.
    Mr. Hamilton: When the Secretary of State next meets the general council of the Scottish Trades Union Congress and tells it about the inward investment successes, will he also remind council members about the 370,000 unemployed? That is the true figure. Will he remind them that one in four in Strathclyde is still unemployed? Will he also tell them whether he agrees with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who has stated that the Government can do very little about the economy of the country? If the Secretary of State agrees with that view, will he resign and let someone else do the job?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman has given me a lot of instructions. I shall, of course, consider them all carefully. I do not consider that it will be necessary either for me to advise the STUC, or for it to advise me, about present unemployment levels in Scotland. We are only too well aware of them.
    What my right hon. Friend has been saying so tellingly in recent weeks is true. He says that those in work should think hard about excessive wage claims which may price others out of work.
    Mr. Bill Walker: When the STUC makes statements about unemployment, should it not bear in mind the impact of the present coal strike on places such as Ravenscraig? Is it not also true that people are often judged by the friends that they keep? When the STUC next meets the mineworkers' union, should it not remind the union that Colonel Gaddafi is not very well received in other parts of the country?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's final remark. Over recent months, unfortunately, certain sections of the trade union movement seem by their actions to have deliberately tried to ensure that people lose their jobs. I hope that common sense will prevail before too long and that those sections will appreciate the considerable success of the Government in bringing new jobs into Scotland.
    Mr. Wilson: I noted the Secretary of State's reluctance, in answering the first question, to give any information about the long-term future of Locate in Scotland. Will the Secretary of State come clean on another matter that is causing Scots, and the STUC in particular, much concern — the review of regional grants, and their future? Will the Secretary of State give a copper-bottomed guarantee that Scotland will not lose in any way under the current review?
    Mr. Younger: The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to anticipate the results of the review. I can only say that the Government believe very strongly in a strong regional policy, and that I believe that the final decisions will bear that out.

    Scottish Council (Development and Industry)
    Mr. Kirkwoodasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) to discuss the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has no specific plans to meet the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) in the near future, although my right hon. Friend and I meet the council from time to time to discuss a wide range of subjects.
    Mr. Kirkwood: Following the question asked by the hon. Member for Dundee, East (Mr. Wilson), will the Minister assure us that he will pay close attention to the Scottish Council's view of the current industrial review in relation to the rates applicable to the tiered structure and—most important of all — the automatic grant versus selectivity? Will the Minister also assure us that if he is subject to menacing threats from the Treasury he will consider the possibility of keeping the area cover wide, but going for selective rather than automatic grants?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry and I met the
    1282
    representatives of the Scottish Council on 26 June to discuss their response to the White Paper. The representatives made some of the points to which the hon. Gentleman has referred. We assured them that the points made in their written and oral submissions would be taken into account in deciding the outstanding issues of the review.
    Mr. Henderson: Has my hon. Friend observed that many sunrise industries prefer to develop in rural towns than in traditional industrialised areas? Will he ensure that such developments will not be prevented by regional policy?
    Mr. Stewart: I note my hon. Friend's point. Rural areas have proved attractive to some companies in the industries to which he referred.
    Mr. Ewing: What response has the Minister given to the Scottish Council (Development and Industry) about its view that assistance should not be based entirely on the number of jobs that would be created by investment? If the Government's approach, were the reverse, capital intensive industries such as the petro-chemical industry in my constituency, which needs to create new investment, reinvest and modernise plant, would be seriously at risk.
    Mr. Stewart: As I said to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I assured the Scottish Council that its views on that matter and others would be taken into account. As the hon. Gentleman knows, the object of the review is to make regional policy more cost-effective in terms of jobs.
    Mr. O'Neill: In regard to replacement investment, is the Minister aware that the Minister of State, Department of Trade and Industry said that exclusion of replacement investment would save £70 million and that exclusion of non-job-creating modernisation would save £100 million? Of that £170 million, about £50 million could legitimately be expected to come to Scotland. Did he say how much of that money will still come to Scotland after the review? Did he give the Scottish Council any assurances? If not, is it any wonder that the Scottish Council despairs of the Government's attitude to regional policy?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend and I assured the Scottish Council that its views would be considered fully. The exclusion of replacement investment is a requirement of membership of the Common Market and brings our system into line with every other European country.

    Unemployment
    Mr. Millanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about Scottish unemployment.
    Mr. Younger: There were 15,000 more jobs in Scotland in June 1984 than there were a year previously. I regard this as very encouraging.
    Mr. Millan: My question concerned unemployment in Scotland, which is at a record level. The Secretary of State has not bothered to answer it. Is the Secretary of State aware that a Bill that is now completing its stages will reduce regional aid in Scotland by about 30 per cent.? Is he aware that, in view of that, there is widespread opposition in Scotland from the CBI as well as the STUC

    1283
    to any further reduction in regional aid? If the rates of grant or the areas covered are reduced after the review — there is much speculation about that — the Government will receive the most hostile reception.
    Mr. Younger: I note that the right hon. Gentleman went out of his way not to welcome the fact that we have 15,000 more jobs. He might like to note, even if he will not welcome it, that we had 35,000 more service jobs in June 1984 than one year previously. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to suggest that decisions on regional policy have been finalised. He should know from the White Paper that the Government have clearly stated that they believe in strong and effective regional policy. It is against that background that the right hon. Gentleman should judge the effectiveness of the changes when they are announced.
    Mr. Corrie: Is there any likelihood of jobs being created in the west of Scotland thanks to oil exploration? Does my right hon. Friend agree that Ardrossan harbour is an ideal location for a base as there is serious unemployment in that area?
    Mr. Younger: I note my hon. Friend's excellent point about Ardrossan harbour, which might well be suitable. Exploration is being conducted in many coastal areas, including the west of Scotland, but so far no large exploitable finds of oil have been made.
    Mr. Steel: What percentage of people who left school in Scotland in June went straight into the dole queue, and how many more can be expected to join it after a temporary period on youth training schemes?
    Mr. Younger: I am glad to see the right hon. Gentleman here today after fulfilling a different role yesterday. I am sure that it was a happy occasion. As to youth unemployment, all those who leave school this year are guaranteed either a job or a place on the youth training scheme. A large proportion of people who have just completed their year on YTS are getting employment. We hope that that pattern will be repeated this year.
    Mr. Forth: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the level of unemployment in the west midlands of England is, regrettably, comparable to that of Scotland? Is he further aware of the resentment in the west midlands at the vast amounts of money given——
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must relate his question to Scotland.
    Mr. Forth: I am making a comparison between unemployment in Scotland and in the west midlands. I wish to draw a comparison between the effects of regional policy in Scotland and its effects in the west midlands. I then wish to ask my right hon. Friend to bear in mind the fact that the west midlands expects treatment equal to that afforded to Scotland regarding regional policy. Will he bear that in mind?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is precisely my point. The Secretary of State cannot answer that question.
    Mr. Younger: All Scottish hon. Members will appreciate the feelings of my hon. Friend. I assure him that regional policy has always been a Great Britain policy. It is in the interests of Great Britain as a whole that those areas which require help should receive it.
    Dr. Godman: I am sure that the Secretary of State will share my satisfaction at the continuing investment in IBM
    1284
    and National Semiconductor in my constituency. Is he aware that recently Greenock and Port Glasgow has shown the sharpest increase in unemployment of the whole Strathclyde region? Is not the present figure of male unemployment, which is in excess of 23 per cent., scandalously high?
    Mr. Younger: The position in Greenock and Port Glasgow has been causing deep anxiety for a long time. In recent years, the electronics industry has become a larger employer than the older industries that used to be the largest employers. The Government have been pouring money and effort into the area to build a new base for its economy, and have achieved a measure of success.
    Mr. Hirst: Does my right hon. Friend find it curious that the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) is so critical about the increase in unemployment when many of its causes derive from the Labour Government of which he was a prominent member? Does he agree that there is genuine anxiety among Conservative Members about unemployment? Will he consider reviewing the policy in the public sector of employing people beyond pensionable age?
    Mr. Younger: That point can certainly be considered in a longer term review about such policy. My hon. Friend is right to say that all hon. Members appreciate that, while unemployment is a major problem at present, we have the benefit of the Government's defeat of the main scourge of unemployment, which is, inflation. That is a great success and of permanent benefit to our economy.
    Mr. Kennedy: How long does the Secretary of State think it will take for Government policies to be sufficiently successful to replace the jobs lost in the Highlands of Scotland under this Administration through the closure of the Corpach pulpmill and the Invergordon smelter?
    Mr. Younger: It is the objective of all those ivolved with development in the Highlands, especially the Highlands and Islands Development Board, which has the largest budget ever, to reverse that trend. I was encouraged to read in the newspapers this morning that the president of the hon. Gentleman's party, Mrs. Shirley Williams, had been in Scotland yesterday and had said what a splendid example Scotland's economic progress was to the rest of Great Britain.
    Mr. O'Neill: Does the Secretary of State remember that on 29 November 1983 in the Scottish Grand Committee he said:
    "at long last Scotland is part of our economic recovery and is about to lead this country out of the recession that has caused so much damage."
    [Official Report, Scottish Grand Committee, 29 November 1983; c.783.
    Will he reflect on the fact that in September 326,300 people were out of work, which is 13,000 more than the figure for the previous September? While we recognise the achievement of the Locate in Scotland bureau in bringing work to Scotland, we need about 1,500 jobs a month to start to erode the unemployment level. At present the Government are not even keeping unemployment down. Is he not ashamed of the statement that he made to the Scottish Grand Committee?
    Mr. Younger: On the contrary, anyone considering the progress of the Scottish economy against the background of the recession through which we have been will see that notable advances have been made in Scotland. The hon.

    1285
    Gentleman referred to September, and he might wish to note that since 1 September no less than 5,087 new jobs have been announced for Scotland. He might also wish to record that the average number of people being placed in employment from jobcentres is between 15,000 and 20,000 every month.

    Urban Aid Programme
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the results of his talks with voluntary bodies and others on the urban aid programme.
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. John MacKay): On 24 August, my right hon. Friend announced that it would be possible to approve new projects to spend in 1985–86. A circular inviting applications, and conveying a statement of policy, will be sent to authorities very soon.
    Mr. Hamilton: Is it not the case that the increase proposed by the Government is £500,000, as compared with the current £29 million, without taking account of the inflation expected during that year? Will he confirm that councils will not receive the aid unless and until they provide evidence to the Department that they intend to cut staff numbers?
    Mr. MacKay: There should be some scope in 1985–86 for about £5 million of new capital expenditure and £5 million of new current expenditure. The provision of £29 million is at least as good as the outturn achieved last year.
    Mr. Craigen: As it created the crisis in confidence in the urban aid programme, by how much has the Scottish Office cleared the existing applications for urban aid in its in-trays? Is it leaving it to the local authorities to do the dirty work in prioritising the approval of applications? How much will the information that came to light in the previous census return influence the distribution of funds to deprived areas?
    Mr. MacKay: On the last point, my right hon. Friend's statement of his policy and priorities in this matter makes it clear that projects should be of direct and particular benefit to deprived urban areas. There is no scope to approve new projects for start in this financial year, although extensions to existing projects are being approved where appropriate. As I said, £29 million will be available in the next financial year for projects in this area.

    Labour Statistics
    Mr. Tom Clarkeasked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people were employed in Scotland in non-manual jobs in the public sector at the latest date for which figures are available; and how these figures compare with those for May 1979.
    Mr. Younger: There are no comprehensive estimates on this basis. The available estimates are complex and I will arrange for them to be published in the Official Report. They show a reduction of 6·6 per cent. in Civil Service non-industrial staff and increases of 2·5 per cent. in local authority non-manual staff and of 7·5 per cent. in National Health Service staff.
    Mr. Clarke: In view of the many jobs that were lost in the private sector because of the large number of
    1286
    bankruptcies, why do not the Government give the public sector the importance that it deserves? Why are they ashamed about building more homes, hospitals and schools? What happened to the Civil Service jobs that we were promised for Scotland in 1979?
    Mr. Younger: The Government have almost fulfilled their undertaking to bring 2,000 Civil Service jobs to the west of Scotland—I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that as warmly as I do—and the programme is on stream. As to the balance between public and private jobs, the hon. Gentleman must agree that the money to pay for public sector jobs comes from the private sector. If I tried to make up any losses in the private sector by increasing those in the public sector, I would simply put an even heavier burden on the remaining private sector jobs, which would have a disastrous effect on the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. Friend agree that those figures give the lie to the views expressed by Opposition Members that there have been cuts in local government and the National Health Service? Instead, there has been expansion, and the bankruptcies to which the hon. Gentleman referred have been caused by those excesses in the public sector.
    Mr. Younger: On this occasion I share my hon. Friend's astonishment. We are invited to believe by Opposition Members that virtually all local authority services have been slashed beyond recognition, yet the figures show that there has been an increase in staff of 2·5 per cent. We are also invited to believe that the Health Service has been practically destroyed by the Government, when it is clear from the figures that we are employing 7·5 per cent. more people to run it, most of whom are doctors and nurses.
    Mr. Maxton: When will the Secretary of State learn that thousand of jobs in the private sector depend on public sector expenditure?
    Mr. Younger: They depend on each other. But my point still stands. If I were to place extra taxation and burdens on the remaining private sector to increase public sector jobs still further, that would be just about the most disastrous thing that I could do to the Scottish economy, apart from the appointment of another Labour Government.
    Following is the information:

    Full-time Equivalent Employees in Scotland

    1979

    *1984

    Civil Service non-industrial staff at April

    52,127

    48,670

    Local Authority non-manual staff at June

    148,800

    152,500

    National Health Service: all staff at March

    114,473

    123,028

    * Provisional.

    Commercial and Industrial Investment
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about commercial and industrial investment in Scotland since June.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: In the period 1 June to 30 September 1984, 92 offers of selective financial assistance were made under the Industrial Development Act 1982, with a value of £14·3 million. Total project investment associated with these offers was £197 million. Since June

    1287
    a number of North sea oil-related contracts have been announced, and over the past year Scotland has been particularly successful in attracting electronics industry investment.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. Friend aware that the figures will be encouraging? Will he say something more about his impressions of, and the possible benefits which may flow from, his visit to the United States during the recess? What steps have been taken to encourage existing Scottish firms to supply goods and services, particularly components, to the companies which are now settling in Scotland from elsewhere?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend is right. Inward investment means opportunities for equipment suppliers from domestic industry. Building up the whole electronic sector is an essential part of our strategy and of the SDA's detailed work on the Scottish economy.
    I assure my hon. Friend that my trip to the United States proved encouraging in relation to prospects for further inward investment. As he knows, I am fairly cautious by nature in making forecasts, but I certainly hope that as a result of the detailed talks that I had with a number of companies, projects involving 1,000 new jobs will be announced in the next two or three months.
    Mr. Buchan: Will the Minister explain why, each time he makes an optimistic forecast about industrial or commercial prospects for Scotland, the unemployment figures increase?
    Mr. Stewart: My forecasts are always cautious and I am not aware of having made any forecast that was not subsequently fulfilled. As the hon. Gentleman is very well aware, and as my right hon. Friend has told the House, the total number of jobs in Scotland is increasing.
    Mr. Home Robertson: Has the Minister noted that most Scottish health boards do not want private commercial investment in their catering and cleaning services within the integrated NHS? Will he now accept that the intrusion of "fast-food, fast-buck" merchants into the NHS is entirely undesirable, and will he therefore tear up the Scottish Office circular on this subject?
    Mr. Stewart: I am not clear about the precise relevance of the hon. Gentleman's point in relation to investment, but as my hon. Friends will be aware, he is talking rubbish.
    Mr. Bill Walker: Does my hon. Friend agree that the disappearance of jobs has been historically due to the problems of the past and that the jobs that are now coming in are jobs for the future? Tomorrow in Aberdeen there will be an announcement about some jobs that are coming from inward investment. In fact, a Scot is organising it.
    Mr. Stewart: The House will be delighted to hear what my hon. Friend has said. It is essential for the Scottish economy to be competitive and to develop the industries that will compete, prosper and expand in the future. That is what our economic strategy is all about.

    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
    Mr. Craigenasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will be meeting representatives of the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss housing and rating matters in Scotland.
    Mr. Younger: My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment in Scotland met representatives of the convention on 8 and 29 October to discuss these matters and further meetings will be held at the beginning of December.
    Mr. Craigen: I understand that the provisional revaluation assessments was one of the matters discussed with COSLA. Will the Secretary of State assure Scotland's ratepayers that there is no way in which the Government will approve a shift of 16 per cent. in the burden of rates towards domestic ratepayers without in any way compensating householders through additional domestic relief which is not at the expense of either the needs or the resources elements of the rate support grant?
    Mr. Younger: That matter was raised at the most recent meeting that my hon. Friend has with COSLA. As the hon. Gentleman will know, that is part of the normal procedure for a revaluation. We have not yet had the final figures from the assessors as to what is likely to happen. When I have those figures I shall consider carefully whether there are any inequalities that need to be put right, and, if so, to what extent I can do anything about them.
    Mr. Wilson: Is not the Secretary of State disguising a fact that is already known, that on current trends there is likely to be the swing that has been mentioned? Does he regret that in the past four or five years he did not bring in the programme of rates reform which he urged in the 1979 Conservative manifesto?
    Mr. Younger: If the hon. Gentleman means that the present rating system should be altered in some way I have no doubt that he will have ways to put that. This is only concerned with the ways in which the current revaluation system works and there is nothing new or unusual about that. When one sees the spendthrift actions of some councils it makes one think how happy we would we all be if there were some other form of taxation for them to pile on to us at this time.
    Mr. Michael Forsyth: Does my right hon. Friend accept that there will be some disappointment that there is not a willingness to discuss an alternative to the rating system? Will he take the opportunity of the meeting to discuss whether it might be possible to amend the guidelines in such a way that they do not offer an advantage to the high spenders at the expense of the low-spending, often Conservative-controlled authorities in Scotland?
    Mr. Younger: I appreciate my hon. Friend's last point. As he will know, the new system for splitting up the general abatement is now much fairer—in fact, almost completely fair—to authorities. That goes a long way to meet the point that my hon. Friend made.
    Mr. Lambie: Why is the right hon. Gentleman going ahead with another revaluation in Scotland when the previous revaluation in England and Wales took place in 1973 and when the Government have postponed any further revaluation there? In view of the rumours, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Craigen) said, of increases of about 16 per cent. facing Scottish domestic ratepayers as a result of the next revaluation, is it not about time that the Government considered postponing the 1985 revaluation and bringing us into line with England and Wales?
    Mr. Younger: The objective of a revaluation is a narrow one, and that is to re-establish the relative positions of various properties and types of property within the rating system to try to ensure that, as near as possible, they are assessed fairly in relation to each other. To that extent, to put off the revaluation would be to perpetuate the unfairnesses to some Scottish ratepayers in some categories. That is why it is much fairer to all concerned to go ahead with the new valuation.

    Coal Industry Dispute
    Mr. Douglasasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the coal industry dispute on the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: This tragic and unnecessary dispute has had no general effect on Scottish manufacturing industry, where a recovery in output is well under way. I understand that some difficulties have been caused for firms which are specialist suppliers to the mining industry. However, the greatest damage has been the extreme hardship caused to families of striking miners.
    Mr. Douglas: Will the Minister prevail on his right hon. Friend, in developing the forensic skills that he has as a member of the Star Chamber, to give us an assurance that nowhere in the Coal Board is there a document relating to Scotland similar to that circulating in relation to the north-east of England, which decimates the coal industry there? Can we have an assurance that we shall have a continuance of high capacity and a high number of pits in operation in Scotland? Given the hon. Gentleman's economic knowledge, would he not say that the vacillations and incompetence of Mr. MacGregor must have an impact on the morale of Scottish management? No manager worth his salt in Scotland could say that he could do a worse job that this incompetent geriatric, who should be repatriated.
    Mr. Stewart: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well in his heart of hearts, there is not a shred of industrial justification for the strike. As he also knows, there is a perfectly reasonable basis for a settlement, and that is the agreement reached with NACODS. The hon. Gentleman should be using his influence in the Labour movement to ensure that the NUM faces reality.
    Mr. Andy Stewart: Is my hon. Friend aware that more Scottish miners are working in Nottinghamshire than in the whole of the Scottish coalfields? Is it not the case that they are working as a result of a ballot?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend, and fellow clansman, is absolutely right. If the Scottish miners had held a ballot they, too, would be working. They have been picketed out. Opposition Members know that it is only violence and intimidation that is preventing many more Scottish miners from working.
    Mr. Eadie: Surely on this day of all days we are entitled to hear fewer echoes of Government propaganda and more of the language of conciliation rather than confrontation. Is the Minister aware that there has been an impact on Scottish industry, with not one new pit being sunk in Scotland since the Government took office? Is he further aware that 81 per cent. of investment in the coal industry goes to Yorkshire, the Midlands and Nottinghamshire, leaving only 19 per cent. for South
    1290
    Wales, Durham and Cumberland? Can the hon. Gentleman justify that as a fair share of investment for the coal industry in Scotland?
    Mr. Stewart: The Government have an outstanding record of investment in the coal industry, standing at more than £2 million a day. The hon. Gentleman is widely respected and he should use his considerable influence to get the NUM to face reality.
    Mr. Corrie: Will my hon. Friend join me in congratulating those at the Hunterston nuclear power station on having produced power at record levels to maintain industry in Scotland during the past eight months of dispute?
    Mr. Stewart: My hon. Friend makes a sensible point. The Scottish electricity boards have a wide range of fuel sources, such as nuclear, coal, oil, gas and water. I can assure the House that there is no threat to electricity supplies in Scotland.
    Mr. Ron Brown: Does not the Minister realise that the NUM will not be smashed, unlike 1926? In recognising that fact, is it not important for the Government to empower Ian MacGregor to negotiate a just settlement of the long-running dispute?
    Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman is well acquainted with the regime that has been involved recently in our mining industry. It is astonishing that Opposition Members are still not prepared to say that there should have been a ballot of miners in both Scotland and elsewhere. The hon. Gentleman knows that violence and intimidation are preventing many more Scottish miners from joining those already working, whose number increases every day.
    Mr. Henderson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the mining dispute has done grievous damage to the Scottish economy, which is all the more galling because these are self-inflicted wounds? Has not the dispute done damage also to Scotland's reputation in industrial relations, which is so important for inward investment? Has not an unfair view been taken abroad of Scottish industrial relations, which the dispute now underpins? Has he seen the catalogue of violence during the dispute in which more than 250 miners and almost 800 police officers have been injured on picket lines?
    Mr. Stewart: Indeed. I think that everyone is familiar with the catalogue of violence, which should be deplored by Members of all political persuasions. It is to their credit that one or two Labour Members have been firm in their attacks on such violence. As for inward investment and industrial relations, I believe that those abroad see the miners' dispute as an isolated matter. The representatives of the American companies with whom I have spoken are high in their praise of their Scottish work forces' productivity and flexibility and the Scottish work ethic.
    Mr. McKelvey: Before the Minister announces his resignation, which is long overdue, will he confirm or deny that the Killoch and Barony coalfields in Ayrshire were on the hit list and due to close within five years? It could not be simpler than that.
    Mr. Stewart: I shall not comment on matters that are for the management of the National Coal Board. The hon. Gentleman must know of the damage that is being caused by the strike to his constituents. He should be using his

    1291
    influence to try to persuade them to get the National Union of Mineworkers to face reality and accept the reasonable settlement to which NACODS is already a party.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Minister accept that another barrier to the settlement that we all want of the miners' strike is the distrust that has understandably arisen from the National Coal Board's handling of the dispute? May I bring the Minister back to the supplementary question that was asked originally? He will be aware that a document has been made public which shows that the NCB has plans within the next two or three years to close six or seven pits in the nort-east of England, which will reduce the number of pits in that area to a mere handful by the middle of the 1990s. Will he tell us whether there is a similar document in existence that applies to Scotland? If he does not know, will he make immediate inquiries with the NCB to establish exactly what is going on and make the earliest possible statement to the House on the information that he finds?
    Mr. Stewart: I have already said that I cannot comment on matters that are the responsibility of the NCB management in Scotland. The hon. Gentleman should be asking for a ballot from the Opposition Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer".] He should be using his influence with the NUM to try to get a settlement.

    Capital Investment
    Mr. Bruceasked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received on the level of capital investment by the public sector in Scotland.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: My right hon. Friend has received a number of representations from hon. Members and from other individuals and organisations about the level of public sector capital investment, which has borne up well despite the overriding need to restrain public expenditure.
    Mr. Bruce: Will the Minister acknowledge, as the CBI in Scotland has done, that public expenditure and public investment are the quickest and most effective ways of dealing with unemployment? There are 75,000 unemployed construction workers in Scotland and an increase in public investment in Scotland would be the most important act that the Government could take to reduce dole queues.
    Mr. Stewart: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that capital spending in Scotland is at a high level. It is running at about £1,500 million in the current year. However, we need to restrain the total of public expenditure. Increased spending means increased borrowing, higher inflation and higher levels of unemployment in the long run.

    Mingary-Tobermory Ferry
    Mr. Johnstonasked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement about the operation of the Mingary-Tobermory ferry.
    Mr. John MacKay: Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. operates this service as an approved service for which my right hon. Friend pays revenue subsidy. The company has recently sought his agreement to its initiating procedures to withdraw the service. He is considering the matter.
    Mr. Johnston: Is the Minister aware that that is a highly unsatisfactory answer? Does he agree that the
    1292
    relatively isolated community in western Ardnamurchan is highly dependent on the service and has had, from the vessel provided by Caledonian MacBrayne Ltd. an unsatisfactory and probably unsafe service for some time? Will he take these matters very much into consideration?
    Mr. MacKay: As the hon. Gentleman knows, if the proposal for withdrawal is to be taken further, there will be a full opportunity for the communities concerned to present their case to the Scottish transport users' consultative committee. I am sure that all those points will be raised at that committee meeting, if the matter goes to that stage.

    Maritime Industries
    Dr. Godmanasked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the employment prospects for Scotland's maritime industries, following the Government's recent announcement on the future of British Shipbuilders.
    Mr. Allan Stewart: Prospects in Scotland are good provided the yards achieve levels of performance and efficiency which enable them to compete successfully in domestic and international markets.
    Dr. Godman: Leaving aside for the moment the inexplicable—some would say absurd—decision of the MOD to award the contracts to refit HMS Otter to a yard that has little or no experience of refitting, what is the likelihood in the near future of an order being placed with a Scottish yard for a fisheries protection vessel?
    Mr. Stewart: The contract for that refit was awarded on a strictly commercial basis and in line with the Government's well-publicised intention to bring competition into warship refitting. There will be a full opportunity for the yards about which the hon. Gentleman is specially concerned to tender and compete for any new orders.

    Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
    Mr. Steelasked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities to discuss expenditure guidelines and future local authority spending.
    Mr. Younger: I shall meet the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 7 December for one of my regular meetings with it to discuss local authority expenditure.
    Mr. Steel: Before the meeting, when the representatives of the convention complain to the Secretary of State about the effect that public guidelines are having on the future of Scottish education, will he accept the need for an independent review of the teaching profession, in view of the way in which it has fallen far behind in the national wages structure?
    Mr. Younger: I have now had meetings with the teachers' representatives and the employers' representatives, and I am considering what they said to me at those meetings.

  SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Industrial Disputes (Breaches of the Peace)
    Lord James Douglas-Hamiltonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many prosecutions

    1293
    have been made in the current year arising out of assaults or breaches of the peace committed during the course of industrial disputes.
    Mr. Hirstasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland how many people have now been reported to procurators fiscal in connection with incidents arising from the miners' strike; how many have been charged with an offence; how many of those cases have been decided by the courts and how many remain to be so decided; and how many of those reported to procurators fiscal have a permanent address outside Scotland.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamiltonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland what is the latest figure for the number arrested as a result of the miners' strike; how many have been charged; how many have been tried and convicted; and how many currently await trial.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): As of 26 October 1984, 1,320 persons have been arrested and charged with offences arising out of the miners' strike. To date, procurators fiscal have taken proceedings against 816 persons of whom 160 have been convicted and 48 acquitted by the courts. In 608 cases the accused has either pleaded not guilty and a trial diet has been fixed or the accused has still to appear in court to answer to a citation. I intend to publish more detailed information in the Official Report giving details of the nature of the charges and the domicile of the accused.
    Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Is it not a fact that the vast majority of convictions have been for specific offences under the laws of Scotland, which have been in existence for a great many years?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The more detailed information, which I have said that I shall publish in the Official Report, shows that the vast majority of charges were for breaches of the peace or arose in relation to obstruction of the police under section 41 of the Police (Scotland) Act 1967.
    Mr. Hirst: I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply. Will he confirm that a not insignificant number of people who have been charged with offences arising out of violence on the picket line have permanent addresses outside Scotland? Does my hon. and learned Friend agree with me that that type of behaviour has no place in industrial relations in Scotland? Will he say that it is deplorable that the NUM has had to ship in to Scotland marauding thugs to sustain its strike in the Scottish coalfields?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The best figures that I can give to my hon. Friend are that of the 1,300 people who have been charged, 72 have domiciles of citation out of Scotland. Those are definite figures, but my information is that the number may be higher. I do not anticipate that it would be much more. That is, nevertheless, a significant number of those who have been charged and are to be brought before the courts.
    Mr. Willie W. Hamilton: Since this strike is likely to continue for some time, what provision is the Scottish Office making to bring more expeditiously to court the people who have been charged and are awaiting trial? How many of those charged were miners before the strike and how many were not?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I do not have a precise answer on the hon. Gentleman's last point, but I know that a number of the people charged were certainly not employed as miners before the strike began. If the hon. Gentleman wishes me to obtain the information, I shall do what I can. Although we are doing what we can to ensure that these cases are brought to court as quickly as possible, in a number of cases people have not been brought to court because of reasons advanced by the defence. Unfortunately, there has been some delay to accommodate those people and to ensure that opportunities for fair trial are given. Those of us involved in prosecutions certainly do not want a delay.
    Mr. Dewar: Will the Solicitor-General confirm that he accepts that offences that arise from the picket line should be dealt with on conviction on the basis of the seriousness of the offence and the personal circumstances of the accused? I raise that matter because there have been occasions when speeches, particularly by the Home Secretary, have suggested that he sees the courts in some way an extension of the Government's political campaign against the miners. Will the Solicitor-General study the administration of legal aid, because evidence is coming from solicitors that there are wide differences of approach within sheriffdoms in Scotland on the granting of legal aid for picket line offences? Does he accept that if that is proved it would be alarming? Does he accept that the legal aid system should be impartial and operate in exactly the same way in all sheriffdoms and in all parts of the country?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I would have to accept that there are discrepancies in the way that legal aid is granted in the sheriff courts. It is something that I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is studying at the moment. I would not accept that those discrepancies arise out of a view that the courts take about the miners' strike. Discrepancies exist, but they are on a more general basis. I can only repeat that where people have been charged in Scotland with offences arising out of the miners' strike, the vast majority of the offences are for breaches of the peace and obstructing the police. In those circumstances, I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the sherriffs of Scotland will deal with them on the basis of the cases that come before them, the evidence, the severity of the charge and the circumstances of those individuals accused who are eventually convicted.
    Following is the information:

    Picket arrests: 14 March–26 October 1984

    Numbers

    Persons charged with offences and reported to the procurator fiscal

    *1,228

    Persons against whom proceedings taken

    †816

    Persons convicted

    160

    Persons acquitted

    ‡48

    Persons against whom proceedings outstanding

    ║608

    Accused with a domicile of citation outwith Scotland

    ¶72

    Offences with which offenders charged:

    Breach of the Peace

    727

    Vandalism

    25

    Assault

    6

    Theft

    1

    Wilful Fireraising

    2

    Reckless Conduct

    1

    Contravention of:

    S.41, Police (Scotland) Act 1967

    600

    Numbers

    S.3, Bail etc. (Scotland) Act 1980

    37

    S.1, Prevention of Crime Act 1953

    10

    S.24(1), Roads (Scotland) Act 1970

    11

    S.7, Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act 1875

    110

    * This figure is less than the total provided by chief constables for the number of persons arrested during the present dispute. Not all of those arrested will have been reported to procurators fiscal. In addition, a person arrested by the police on more than one occasion will appear more than once in the chief constable's total.

    † Including both solemn and summary proceedings. In a number of other cases (109) a decision has still to be taken on whether proceedings should be instituted.

    ‡ This figure encompasses cases where the accused was acquitted after trial and those cases where the prosecution accepted a plea of not guilty after proceedings had been commenced or deserted the proceedings.

    ║ Including outstanding trial diets and those cases where the accused has still to appear in court to answer a citation.

    ¶ This figure is incomplete as figures were not available for all districts.

    Travelling People
    Mr. Hendersonasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if prosecution practice in relation to travelling people is the same as for any other citizens, where there have been breaches of criminal law, local byelaws or planning matters.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The toleration policy relates only to unauthorised encampments as such. It does not relate to other breaches of the law. Where there are such complaints these will be dealt with by the police and procurators fiscal in the normal way.
    Mr. Henderson: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that some people in my constituency will find that answer difficult to believe because they perceive that travelling people are allowed, apparently, to do things which no other people would be allowed to do, sometimes on encampments and sometimes not. Will my hon. and learned Friend agree to discuss with his right hon. Friend what action would be appropriate between the Crown Office and the Scottish Office to resolve some of the difficulties with whch we are faced in north-east Fife, particularly Cupar?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: If I may disabuse my hon. Friend's constituents of their misapprehension, no toleration policy extends to the travelling people other
    1296
    than in relation to unauthorised encampments. I have to say to his constituents and the travelling people that if they think that they would enjoy greater leeway in the commission of offences unrelated to encampments they should carefully consider the position, otherwise they will find themselves prosecuted in court.
    Mr. McKelveyasked the Solicitor-General for Scotland if he will make a further statement on the policy of non-harassment of travelling people.
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: The Scottish Home and Health Department will shortly be circulating revised guidelines to local authorities following the policy initiative announced by my hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for home affairs and the environment at the Scottish Office. Under the revised policy, non-harassment will be directly linked to progress in the provision of pitches for travelling people with targets fixed at district levels. In future where these are met, my noble and learned Friend the Lord Advocate agrees that the policy of toleration should no longer apply. I should also make it clear that the policy of non-harassment does not apply to larger random encampments such as those experienced at Kilmarnock and elsewhere this summer. Encampments of large groups of caravans moving outwith established travellers' patterns will not be tolerated, whether or not pitch targets have been met.
    Mr. McKelvey: What a splendid answer. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would consider and perhaps clarify matters. If, for instance, Kilmarnock and Loudoun district identify a proper site which exceeds the criteria laid down by the Scottish Office and apply for a grant, at the moment of application will it be free from the obligation to operate a policy of non-harassment?
    The Solicitor-General for Scotland: I am grateful but surprised by the hon. Gentleman's approval of the answer that I gave. I believe that the steps that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland is taking will be warmly welcomed by district authorities throughout Scotland. I confirm that once the pitch targets have been announced and are known, and once those targets have been met in districts and areas, the toleration policy in relation to unlawful encampment will no longer continue. I believe, and I think that the hon. Gentleman will agree, that that will go a long way to alleviate local anxiety about this difficult and ong standing problem.

Mrs. Indira Gandhi
3.30 pm
The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): As the House will be aware, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated in Delhi today. I am sure that right hon. and hon. Members in all parts of the House will be equally appalled at that tragic news. I am sure, too, that the whole House will wish to join in expressing to Mrs. Gandhi's family, and to the Government and people of India, our profound grief and sympathy.
This despicable act has robbed India of a great and courageous leader. Daughter of Pandit Nehru, one of the pioneers of India's independence, she led her country for a total of 16 years as Prime Minister, a period which saw India's emergence as an industrial power as well as a major influence in world affairs. Her death has also robbed the Commonwealth of a statesman of outstanding stature and experience.
Mrs. Gandhi chaired the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting, in November last year, with dignity, authority and charm. We shall all feel the loss of her wise counsel and her deep humanity, the more so because we knew her not only as a statesman but as a friend of this country.
I understand, although it is not yet confirmed officially, that Mrs. Gandhi's son, Rajiv Gandhi, whom we know well and for whom we have both affection and respect, has been sworn in as the new Indian Prime Minister. We wish him well at this difficult hour in his country's history.
Only a few days ago, Mrs. Gandhi sent me a message in which she said:
"All terrorism and violence are condemnable and contemptible".
The murder of a democratic leader is an attack on democracy itself. We utterly condemn this savage and treacherous crime. Let there be no doubt that acts of terrorism will only strenghten the resolve of free peoples that those who resort to violence shall not prevail.
Mr. Neil Kinnock: May I first associate all of us on this side of the House with the expressions of sympathy offered by the Prime Minister to the family of Mrs. Gandhi, and offer good wishes to the new Prime Minister of India.
We mourn with the people of India the tragic and violent death of Mrs. Indira Gandhi. She was a woman of immense stature whose life was full of turmoil, challenge and great achievement. From the age of 12, when she joined the non-co-operation movement, her whole life was given to securing the emancipation of her country, first in the struggle for independence and then in the even more monumental task of economic and political development.
Mrs. Gandhi knew, in the words of her friend, Aneurin Bevan, that political liberty is the by-product of economic sufficiency. In that knowledge she fought a lifelong contest against poverty and against war, the bringer of poverty.
For nearly 20 years, for half the life of independent India, Indira Gandhi was the most important figure in that country. Throughout that time the principles that guided her were devotion to the maintenance of parliamentary democracy and determination to produce tolerance and common purpose out of the diversity and distinctiveness of the peoples of India.
1298
India and Britain are linked by centuries of history, by family, by community and by the ties of the Commonwealth, in which Indira Ghandi was an inspiring leader. We cherish all those relationships, and because of that we grieve today for the death of a fellow democrat, and we grieve for the death of a friend.
Mrs. Gandhi was a woman of greatness and vitality. Her attention to the dominant issues of our time went far beyond the boundaries of her beloved India. She was a cofounder of the Movement of Non-Aligned Countries and a wise and courageous advocate of political dialogue between North and South, East and West. She played a vital role in resisting the proliferation of nuclear weapon states. She was tireless in her argument for reform of the world's financial and trading systems. She was a fierce opponent of racism and sectarianism of every sort and a resilient promoter of racial harmony in every country, including our own.
In all nations and in every age, there is a chasm between the ideals of peace and harmony and the fulfilment of those ideals. Indira Gandhi spent her years trying to bridge that chasm with a determination that was at times almost superhuman. She brought intellect and imagination to bear on every task, and in defeat or victory, failure or triumph, she had a compelling dignity that must be a model for all who would seek to lead.
There will be many tributes to Indira Gandhi in great Parliaments like this and in other places throughout the world wherever freedom from want and freedom from oppression are valued. But we can best mark her memory by seeing that in our time her campaigns to achieve those objectives of freedom are fulfilled.
Today, another democrat was brutally murdered. That shall not wound democracy. Its strength overwhelms violence; its appeal ignores boundaries on maps or in the minds of people around the world. With Mahatma Gandhi we say:
"I do not want to shut my home to be walled in on all sides, nor my windows to be shut. I want the culture of all lands to blow about my house as freely as possible, but I refuse to be blown off my feet by any of them."
Nothing shall blow democracy off its feet.
Mr. David Steel (Tweedale, Ettrick and Lauderdale): My hon. Friends and I wish to be associated with the expressions of sympathy to Mrs. Gandhi's family, the Government and people of India. Does the Prime Minister agree that the terrible murder of Mrs. Gandhi illustrates again how violence breeds violence and that the greatest challenge facing leaders in our democratic societies is how to encourage their peoples to reconcile conflicts within those countries by peaceful means? Does the right hon. Lady recognise that we wish to pay tribute to Mrs. Gandhi's remarkable leadership, inside and outside the Commonwealth, of the developing countries in their efforts to secure a more just share of world resources, which was appreciated round the world?
Mr. Mark Carlisle: As treasurer of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, the chairman of which is Dr. Jakhar, Speaker of the Lok Sabha of India, and on behalf of Members of Parliament of all creeds, races and political parties throughout the Commonwealth, I should like to express what I believe would be their feelings of shock and horror at this outrage, their distress at the enormous loss that it has meant to the Commonwealth as a whole, and their sympathy to the members of Mrs. Gandhi's family.
Dr. David Owen: We, like all others, grieve for India and for the family of Indira Gandhi. We should remember that she probably lost her life in defending the unity of her country, that most precious asset, with its democracy. We should also remember that perhaps her greatest legacy is that she hands to her son a united and democratic country. A country that was able to sustain within months of independence the tragic loss of Mahatma Gandhi is strong enough to sustain even this loss.
Mr. James Molyneaux: I wish to associate with what has been said the people of Northern Ireland, who themselves have experienced terrorism, as indeed has the Prime Minister. We share the Prime Minister's determination that violence must never be permitted to attain its objectives.
Sir Dudley Smith: As Member of Parliament for a constituency with one of the largest Sikh populations in the country, although many of them disagree with some of the policies of the Indian Government, I am sure that they condemn what has happened today. Does my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister agree that violence of this kind must always be rejected wherever it occurs, whether in New Delhi or in Brighton, because in the end, whatever our colour, it diminishes us all?
Mr. Laurie Pavitt: As a former secretary and president of the Endo-British Group, you, Mr. Speaker, will be aware of the deep concern and continuous interest and affection in which Back Benchers of both Houses of Parliament hold the great continent of India.
I thank the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary for their speedy visit to India House this morning. I know that the high commissioner greatly appreciated it.
As the House is to be prorogued today, Back Benchers will have little time to sign the book that is now open. With permission, therefore, the letter being sent by the officers of the Indo-British Group is available in both Whips' Offices for signature by Members of all parties so that the prorogation difficulty can be overcome.
Those of us who had the privilege of meeting and listening to the late Indira Gandhi were well aware that so often the great people of India, despite their great responsibilities, have an inner calm and peace. It is thus excessively sad that such a person should be mown down in violence.
Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: Order. I am sure that the whole House, including many hon. Members—I am one—who have sizeable Asian communities in their constituencies, wish to echo the tributes, but because it would be difficult to call all those wishing to speak I think that we should now move on.

Secretary of State for Energy
3.42 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Have you had any indication from the Secretary of State for Energy regarding last night's important announcement that a hit list is available? You will have heard several Ministers, including the Prime Minister, telling the House that no such list exists. We now know that it does. I therefore ask whether, even at this late stage, you feel it necessary to call on the Ministers responsible to explain why throughout the entire miners' dispute they have insisted that there is no such list when at the time of the ACAS talks we know that such a list exists for the north-east of England and for Scotland. I believe that it is incumbent upon you to see that one of those Ministers comes to the Dispatch Box to explain why they have been telling untruths to the nation.
Mr. Speaker: I have had no such request, and I am not responsible for statements that may be made.

Students Charter
3.43 pm
Mrs. Edwina Currie: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make membership of and subscription to the National Union of Students voluntary for all students in places of further and higher education; and for connected purposes.
First, I should explain the relationship between student unions in this country and the National Union of Students. In the United Kingdom today there are 44 universities, 31 polytechnics and 576 colleges of further education. In each university and polytechnic and in most colleges of further education there is a students' union of which membership is compulsory for any student intended to study at that institution. That is laid down by law in the statutes or Orders in Council establishing those institutions. Student union membership is thus a closed shop, outdated and iniquitous. Students who do not wish to join their union or the National Union of Students and who do not wish to pay the union fee can be expelled from their college and their course terminated.
Until 1980, student unions were financed by students paying approximately £40 a year to the student union from their grants. As membership was compulsory, a Department of Education and Science circular instructed local authorities to pay the fee directly to the institution, which would then pass the money to the student union. Therefore, the money never touched the students' bank accounts, and this is one reason why the system has endured for so long. The amount of money that is involved is substantial. Student unions receive well over £20 million of public money over the year.
A change in the system was introduced by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Warrington, South (Mr. Carlisle). In February 1980, it was announced that the money for the student unions was to come out of the institution's recurring funds. In other words, the money now comes from the University Grants Committee and not from the local authorities. This means that student unions have to negotiate their money directly from the university or college authorities, in competition with academic departments, libraries, swimming pools and the like. At least now the university authorities have a direct interest in the amount of money that the union claims, and it is said that sometimes they hang on to it instead of handing it over.
For the individual student, all this makes no difference, as he still has no say in whether he joins the student union or not, and he has no control over the money being spent on his behalf by the UGC. Many student unions do an excellent job, and much of the work of the NUS is commendable.
Students should join their union and take part in its activities. If the moderates do not like the leadership or the policies of their union, they have only themselves to blame. If they fail to take part, they cannot expect to like the results. However, they cannot vote with their feet.
The NUS has two groups of membership. There is individual membership, or the much more common block membership of all the members of an individual student union to the NUS. Therefore, if the student union decides to affiliate with the NUS, all members of the student union become members of the NUS. That is how the NUS achieves its claim of representing 1·2 million students.
1302
Some 40 universities and 31 polytechnics and a large number of colleges have unions that belong to the NUS, but the universities of St. Andrews, Glasgow, Edinburgh, Heriot-Watt and Dundee, and King's college, London, and Imperial college, London, have all, at one time or another, decided to disaffiliate from the NUS, as a protest at what they regarded as its extreme nature. However, one of the major factors causing disaffiliation from the NUS is the cost of membership, which comes out of the public purse to a total of over £1 million a year. Thus, not only are students compulsory members of their university or college student union but, by virtue of the fact that most unions belong to the NUS, they are also compulsory members of the NUS.
I make no comment about what the NUS and some of the student unions get up to. They have been challenged in the courts and by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his capacity as overseer of charitable trusts, and that is the way that some of the more dubious activities of these organisations can be tackled. My concern is to end the closed shop and thus to re-establish the principle that a student may join a union if he wishes to, but if he does not choose to be does not have to.
There has been much discussion about the method by which voluntary membership can be achieved. In Australia, major legislation was passed in 1978 and 1981, but it is all too easy to create complex legislation and then to find, as the Australians did, that one does not achieve one's objective. The most simple way, and the purpose of the Bill, would be to require the students' written consent for money paid over on his behalf by a college or university to a student union and thence to the NUS. That consent should be administered by the college or university; it must be renewed every year, and thus the student union membership and membership of the NUS would become voluntary.
This system could apply to all students, including those not on a grant, to full-time, part-time and sandwich course students and could be extended to all payments to a student union for whatever purpose. If the student did not wish to belong to the student union, he would not have to, and if he did not want to belong to the NUS, even if his student union wished to, he would not have to belong. I commend this system to the House as simple, workable and equitable.
We are talking about both principle and practice. In principle, it is wrong that anyone should be made to join a students' union or the NUS. In a free society, that should be a matter of choice. In practice, unions which do not have a closed shop enforceable by law will have to go out and recruit members. They will have to persuade people to join. Such unions are much more likely to be responsive to what the students want, and accountability to those students will become a reality. If the students want politics, so be it. I think that they are more likely to want a service for the students, leaving politics to individual choice and action. Anyone who wishes to maintain the present system needs to prove why it is both necessary and desirable for the iniquitous practice of public funds financing compulsory membership of the NUS to continue. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mrs. Edwina Currie, Mr. Michael Knowles, Mr. Peter Bruinvels, Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo, Mr. Alistair Burt, Mr. David

1303
Evennett, Mr. Jeremy Hanley, Mr. Sydney Chapman, Mr. David Amess, Mr. Ken Hargreaves and Mr. Robert B. Jones.
Mr. Speaker: Second Reading what day?
Mrs. Currie: Tomorrow.
Mr. Speaker: That would be a bit difficult. Today?
Mr. Jack Straw: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you have just said, it would be difficult to have the Second Reading tomorrow. In case members of the public may be misled by this mischievous publicity stunt—which, like all the hon. Lady's other stunts, has backfired—would you confirm that, if the Bill were to progress, it would have to go through Second Reading, Committee stage, Report stage, Third Reading and all the procedures in the other place in five hours, and that in practice the Bill stands no chance of reaching the statute book?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman's point of order gives me an opportunity to correct something which I inadvertently found myself saying. Of course, the hon. Lady was correct in saying that she wished the Second Reading to be tomorrow.
As to what the hon. Gentleman has said, I believe that it is fairly common knowledge.

Students Charter
  STUDENTS CHARTER
  Mrs. Edwina Currie accordingly presented a Bill to make membership of and subscription to the National Union of Students voluntary for all students in places of further and higher education; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tommorrow and to be printed. [Bill 235.]

  Statutory Instruments, &c.
  Mr. Speaker: With the leave of the House, I propose to put together the Questions on the two motions to approve statutory instruments.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 79(5) (Standing Committees on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  Statutory Instruments, &c.

    INCOME TAX
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (China) Order 1984 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd October.
    That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Kuwait) Order 1984 be made in the form of the draft laid before this House on 22nd October.—[Mr. Lang.]
    Question agreed to
    Addresses to be presented to Her Majesty by such Members of this House as are of Her Majesty's Most Honourable Privy Council or of Her Majesty's Household.

Northern Ireland (General Consumer Council)
3.53 pm
The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Dr. Rhodes Boyson): I beg to move,
That the draft General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.
It seems to be customary for me to rise just before the House begins any form of recess. I remember that just before the House rose for the summer recess I was kept here by a Scottish hon. Member. I promised to do what I could for him but, having returned to the House in another capacity, I have passed that responsibility on. The House begins another temporary recess tomorrow, and I have come to the Dispatch Box for the first time with my new responsibilities.
The order is the outcome of long and sometimes difficult consultations and deliberations. It is based on the recommendations of an independent advisory group of experts on consumer protection which have received widespread support from the Northern Ireland Assembly and from consumer interests in the Province. My predecessor also consulted representatives and Northern Ireland hon. Members before the order was drawn up.
The order has a long history. A proposal for a draft general consumer council order was first published on 27 September 1982 and was referred to the Northern Ireland Assembly and to local consumer interests, but misgivings were expressed in three main areas. The first was that electricity consumers would in future have a less effective watchdog, particularly in dealing with individual complaints. The second was that the suggested budget of about £118,000 then available to the existing bodies, which it was proposed to amalgamate, would be insufficient for the new body to carry out its functions properly and amounted to less favourable financial treatment for Northern Ireland than the comparable provision in Great Britain. The third was that any consumer council must have clear power to deal with individual consumer complaints.
At the end of the Assembly debate on 14 December 1982, Members refused to take note. Neither the then Minister of State nor the Secretary of State wished to press ahead with the proposal in the face of such substantial reservations. The proposal was therefore withdrawn and the Secretary of State asked the Minister of State to consider how best the matter might be taken forward. His view was that there should be an objective and expert examination of existing arrangements by a small advisory group. This view was generally acceptable and an independent advisory group under the chairmanship of Professor Colin Campbell, professor of jurisprudence, Queen's University, Belfast with Mrs. Joan Macintosh, vice-chairman of the National Consumer Council and Mr. David Tench, legal adviser to the Consumers' Association, was established. The group's terms of reference were:
"to review the arrangements for consumer protection in Northern Ireland currently provided by the Northern Ireland Consumer Council, the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers Council, and the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee, having regard to:—

1305

(a) the principle that overall, consumers in Northern Ireland should enjoy no less a standard of consumer protection than consumers in other parts of the United Kingdom;

(b) the special interest of consumers of the services provided by monopoly public utilities (but not the Post Office); and

(c) the desirability of devising a system which, having regard to the scale of Northern Ireland, will fill any gaps in the existing arrangements and provide a consumer protection service which is cost-effective, economical, comprehensive and well co-ordinated, and to make recommendations."

The report of that group and a discussion paper by the Department of Economic Development were published on 19 October 1983. The report and discussion paper were made available to this House and have been the subject of further consultation with local consumer interests and with the Northern Ireland Assembly.
The Assembly's report on the advisory group's report was placed in the Library of the House on 16 January 1984 and the Government's response was placed in the Library on 9 April 1984. These documents set out the issues involved. Hon. Members will appreciate that I have gone over this ground with the intention of demonstrating just how much deliberation has gone into the provisions which I am about to describe.
This order is not lengthy. It contains only eight articles and three schedules, but it is important to Northern Ireland and its people who are all, of course, consumers of varied goods and services. It proposes to establish a single new statutory body, the General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers in Northern Ireland. It abolishes existing consumer protection bodies and subsumes their powers and duties into the new council. The wording of the order has been made deliberately wide to enable it to consider all aspects of consumer affairs.
It is proposed to bring the order into operation in two stages to enable the council to be appointed 14 days after the order is made and to put in train practical matters such as appointing staff and acquiring premises so that business can start on 1 April 1985 when it is hoped that the order will become fully operative.
Articles 3 and 4 provide for the establishment of a general consumer council for Northern Ireland and set out its functions. Article 4 makes it clear that the council will have the power to deal with individual complaints should it appear that that would be appropriate. This provision reflects the views which have been expressed that while the council should have the power to receive and handle individual complaints, that should not become its main activity. I expect that the council will become directly involved in individual complaints only where existing channels for complaints are inadequate or where no adequate alternative channel exists.
No matters have been specifically excluded from the remit of the council. However, in the various documents and debates which preceded the order there has been reference to postal services in particular. Postal and telecommunications services are, as we know, reserved matters, and although it is considered that the interests of consumers on such matters can best be safeguarded by the existing consumer bodies, the council will be expected to
1306
ensure an input to consumer protection bodies in the reserved area should it appear appropriate in any particular circumstances.
Article 5 requires the council to consider and, where it appears to it to be desirable, to make recommendations on any matter affecting road or railway passenger transport services and facilities in Northern Ireland, and services and facilities provided for passengers travelling to and from Northern Ireland. The council will be competent to consider and, if appropriate, to make recommendations about sea and air services and facilities provided for passengers travelling to and from Northern Ireland.
Right hon. and hon. Members will know that there is a non-statutory body—the Air Transport Users Committee—appointed by the Civil Aviation Authority which is charged, inter alia, with the investigation of complaints against the suppliers of air transport services. Bearing in mind what I have just said in relation to article 4 about how I expect the council to interpret its brief, where there are existing routes to deal with complaints, I do not consider that there will be any conflict or overlap.
Article 5 also abolishes the Transport Users' Consultative Committee, empowers the new council to exercise its functions, and provides for consequential amendments to the Transport Act (Northern Ireland) 1967.
Article 6 requires the council to consider and, where it appears to it to be desirable, to make recommendations about any matter affecting the generation, distribution and supply of electricity including the variations of tariffs and the provision of new and improved services and facilities. It abolishes the Electricity Consumers' Council, empowers the new council to exercise its functions, and provides for consequential amendments to the Electricity Supply (Northern Ireland) Order 1972.
The provision to be made for electricity consumers and the proposed abolition of the Electricity Consumers' Council were probably the matters which provoked most comment because it was first proposed to form a single consumer protection body. I shall refer to this shortly.
When the then Minister commended the draft Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982 to the House on 16 July 1982, the Minister said that part II of that order made no provision for a consumer committee to report on the effects of any scheme on consumer interests. He pointed out that it was intended that that role would be undertaken by an amalgamated consumer protection body looking after a wide range of consumer interests in Northern Ireland. Therefore, article 7 now requires the council to consider and report to the head of the Department of Agriculture on any complaints made to it as to the effect on consumers of any agricultural marketing scheme in force under part II of the Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982. Article 7 also requires the council, where it appears to it to be desirable, to report to the head of the Department of Agriculture on the effects on consumers of any such scheme.
Provision is made for the council to be brought into consultation by the Milk Marketing Board for Northern Ireland in relation to a scheme administered by the board and to the manner in which the board is required to give written notice to the council of its plans to exercise certain powers conferred upon it by a scheme under part II of the order. The board is also required to consider any representations which the council may make in relation to the exercise of those powers. It is made clear in the order that the council will be concerned only with the effect of

1307
agricultural marketing schemes on, or complaints in relation to such schemes by, domestic consumers as opposed to industrial or trade consumers. Article 7 also provides for consequential amendments to the Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1982.
Article 8 enables the repeal, in schedule 3, of relevant parts of legislation replaced by the order.
Schedule 1 sets out the arrangements for the status of the council, the appointment of its officers and members, the ordering of its business, the employment of its staff, and the acquisition of premises, funding and accountability. It will have no more than 16 members, although the Department may by order, subject to negative resolution, vary that number. Funds will cover an initial salaried staff of nine—a part-time chairman and deputy chairman, a director, deputy director, research officer, administrative officer and ancillary staff. That compares with three part-time chairmen, and four and a half full-time salaried staff serving with existing bodies.
As the financing of the proposed council in the previous proposal for a draft order was the subject of some criticism, I should here say that I have set aside a sum not exceeding £200,000 for the financing of the new council. That is a major improvement on the £118,000 in the original proposal and is rather in excess of proportional funding for the Great Britain consumer bodies. I am, however, satisfied that this is perfectly justified because the nationalised industries consumer councils do not operate in Northern Ireland, and Northern Ireland interests in that area will be the responsibility of the new council.
The council will be required to establish four mandatory groups—for transport, food, electricity and energy other than electricity. There will be cross-membership between the electricity and energy groups. The council is also empowered to establish such other non-mandatory groups as it considers necessary and may co-opt to all groups persons with relevant experience. Such persons will not have voting powers, nor will they exceed the number of council members in any group, thus ensuring that control of its affairs remains with the council.
When dealing with article 6, I referred to the strong views held and expressed about the provisions to be made in relation to electricity. We inclined originally to the view that a single energy group, which would be capable of making comparisons on prices and services in relation to all forms of energy resources, would be the best way to provide for consumer protection—a view shared by a number of consumer bodies which is made clear in the evidence. Against this, I have balanced other views and so the order provides for separate mandatory energy and electricity groups with two council members common to both groups. I have however taken power to make subordinate legislation after consultations with the council and, subject to negative resolution, to reduce the number of mandatory groups which the council is required to have. I expect that this power will be excercised only where, in the first instance, the council indicates that it considers that it would be advantageous to reduce the number of mandatory groups.
I expect the initiative to come not from the Government, but from the consumer council, if, after experience, it finds that that is a better way of organisation.
The draft order represents a major step forward in consumer legislation in Northern Ireland. It is the product
1308
of extensive consultation and has sought to reconcile as far as possible, conflicting views. I believe that it will provide for arrangements for consumer protection which will be both simple and effective, and which will admirably suit Northern Ireland's needs.
I commend it to the House.
4.8 pm
Mr. Clive Soley: I welcome the Minister to his new post and tell him that if he continues to bring such orders before the House at this time of day, he will earn not only my gratitude but the gratitude of all hon. Members. When such orders usually come before the House in the early hours of the morning, most intelligent people are fast asleep in bed. It must be said that, sadly, in the normal run of events. the eyes of the nation would not be focussed on the General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order. I welcome him and this practice, although I doubt whether he will be able to deliver the goods in this way in future.
I should emphasise that the function of the council is to promote and safeguard the interests of consumers. Those aims do not usually get the support from the Government that they deserve, and such councils are either starved of adequate resources to make them effective pressure groups or they are given insufficient powers or leaway. From my reading of the order, and my understanding of the views pressed upon the Minister by various people, I believe that it has emerged much better than might have been expected in the early days. Therefore, I welcome it on behalf of the Opposition.
The new council will excercise the functions previously performed by the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee and the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council, both of which have been abolished. It also creates a single statutory non-departmental body—the Northern Ireland General Consumers Council—to replace the Northern Ireland Consumers' Council, the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Council and the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council. The order provides, first, separate mandatory energy and electricity groups; secondly, two council members common to both groups; and, thirdly, departmental powers to amalgamate groups where appropriate.
I do not wish to take the time of the House, although I suspect that we might hear more from the Ulster Unionist Members. However, I should say that the report of the independent advisory group concluded that consumer protection in Northern Ireland has been accorded a low priority by the Departments responsible, and that there has been a relative lack of attention to education and training about consumer affairs. As the Minister said, Northern Ireland lags behind the rest of Britain in the attention given to consumer affairs and the resources provided.
The position is especially unfortunate given the problems faced by Northern Ireland consumers. I draw the Minister's attention to a fact about which I have addressed the house on several occasions and which, should I be in a position to do so, I shall bring to the Minister's attention in future. It is that the people in Northern Ireland face a relatively high cost of living, high unemployment, restricted energy sources and, therefore, high energy costs, and high rents for those who live in Government-financed or local authority housing. The people of Northern Ireland are being squeezed at both ends, from the point of view of income and the basic expenditure that any

1309
family must incur. Therefore, it is especially important that the new consumers council should be free to operate effectively, that it is innovative and has the resources to do the job.
I recognise that there is general approval for the order. There is some opposition to it, but I suspect that it is less than some people would have us believe. My main regret is that it has taken two years or more to get the order before the House. The delay has disadvantaged the people of Northern Ireland, perhaps not for the first time.
4.12 pm
Mr. Clifford Forsythe: I extend my good wishes to the Minister on assuming his new position. I wish him well, although I cannot promise that I and my party will agree with him at all times.
I and my party oppose the order for several reasons, but all those reasons could be covered by one phrase—a phrase that has been used in the House many times—which is that we in Northern Ireland wish to be treated in the same manner as is the rest of the United Kingdom. Not only does the order fail to do that, it leaves us in a much weaker position than heretofore, despite the fact that the right hon. Member for Waveney (Mr. Prior), when he was Secretary of State, said in a letter to the Northern Ireland Assembly on 2 February 1983:
"The objective of any further proposals would be to guarantee parity of consumer protection with Great Britain."
We also object to the methods by which such orders are passed, without hon. Members being able to change a full stop or a comma. It was pointless for the former Minister of State, the right hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Butler), to propose in a letter of 6 April 1984 to
"lay this Order in Draft dispensing with the consultative stage in view of the very extensive consultations which have already taken place."
The Minister repeated that today. The truth is that the General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1984 has only recently been available, and its contents have not been discussed until now.
Another reason for my opposition to the order is the cavalier treatment of the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council. That body has the support of almost everyone in Northern Ireland, and 25 of the 26 district councils supported its retention as a separate body. From beginnings similar to those of the Northern Ireland Consumers' Council and the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Council, the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council has left those bodies far behind, especially the transport users' body, in expertise and in concern for those whom it serves.
Even those who support the abolition of the electricity council praise its achievements, and I wish to put on record the admiration of the Official Unionist party for the excellent work carried out by the council, its chairman and its permanent staff. Some of those who supported the order, and who do not appear to wish Northern Ireland consumers to have parity with consumers in Great Britain, say that the Northern Ireland Electricity' Service is not a nationalised industry. Although one could concede that there is a difference between, for example, the National Coal Board and the Northern Ireland Electricity Service—leaving aside the different fuels—those of us who
1310
fight daily against the unsympathetic Northern Ireland Electricity Service have no doubt that we are dealing with a Government monopoly or a nationalised industry.
The House need not take my word for that. I draw hon. Members' attention to Hansard of 19 December 1983. The hon. Member for Stirling (Mr. Forsyth) asked the former Minister of State for Northern Ireland for which nationalised industries he was responsible in Northern Ireland, and his plans for their future privatisation. The reply was:
"There are no formal nationalised industries in Northern Ireland. However, the Northern Ireland Electricity Service, the Belfast Harbour Authority and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company with its four subsidiaries (Ulsterbus, Citybus, Northern Ireland Railways and Northern Ireland Airports Limited) are regarded as broadly analogous to nationalised industries. I have at present no plans for their privatisation, but the prospects for these and other publicly owned industries in Northern Ireland are kept continually under review."—[Official Report, 19 December 1983; Vol. 51, c. 86.]
Having established that the Government, and more especially the former Minister, concede that the Northern Ireland Electricity Service is broadly the same as a nationalised industry, may we now consider what the real experts in this area said about the relationship between nationalised industries and nationalised industry consumer councils. What better can we do than to consult the Department of Trade and Industry's review of nationalised industries' consumer councils, entitled "Strategy for Reform December 1982." The foreword to the review contains a comment by the then Minister for Consumer Affairs:
"I am convinced that the nationalised industries' consumer councils are needed now more than ever."
Paragraph 7 on page 2 states:
"The nationalised industry consumer councils have an essential role in this monitoring process in relation to standards of service"
and so on. Paragraph 8 on page 2 states:
"The nationalised industry consumer councils should be a mouthpiece for the ordinary consumer; so it is essential for the channels upward from the local level, to the national level, in the nationalised industry consumer council structure, to work efficiently".
The review also called for an increase in statutory bodies in paragraph 26 on page 7. Since then the National Electricity Consumer Council for England and Wales has indeed been given statutory status from 1 September 1983.
Having illustrated the relationship between the Northern Ireland Electricity Service and the Great Britain nationalised industries, and emphasised how essential these nationalised industry consumer councils are, I shall now point to the difference between Northern Ireland's treatment, which under the order will have an amalgamation of bodies, and the review's conclusions for Great Britain.
Paragraph 29 of the departmental review, on page 8, clearly states:
"One suggestion in the consultative document was to amalgamate the nationalised industry consumer councils into three broad sectoral organisations dealing respectively with energy/utilities, transport and communications. It was suggested that this might create a more streamlined and authoritative structure than at present. Opinion in the consultations however was decisively against it. The Government have accepted that its disadvantages—in terms of the risk of increased remoteness of the nationalised industry consumer structure both from consumers and from industry management—would outweigh the possible advantages. The Government intend therefore to retain the essentials of the present 'one to one' nationalised industry consumer council/industry structure".

1311
What the order proposes for Northern Ireland is quite different. The consumer councils will indeed be amalgamated, even though that is contrary to what was said in the experts' paper.
Let us further compare like with like between Great Britain and Northern Ireland in the light of the former Secretary of State's letter stating that there should be parity between the two. I have with me the structure of consumer protection in the United Kingdom. In Great Britain there is the Electricity Consumers' council with 14 regional committees, whereas in Northern Ireland there is the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumer Council. In Great Britain there is the Post Office Users' National Council, with two regional councils for Scotland and Wales, whereas in the Province there is the Post Office Users' Council for Northern Ireland. In Great Britain there is the Gas Consumers' Council with 12 regional committees, but there is no comparable body in Northern Ireland. That is understandable. Great Britain has the Domestic Coal Consumers' Council, and again there is no comparable body in Northern Ireland.
In Great Britain there is the Central Transport Consultative Committee with 11 regional committees, and in the Province there is the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee. Great Britain has the National Consumer Council (General Matters) and Northern Ireland has the Northern Ireland Consumer Council. There is the National Water Council in Great Britain and the Northern Ireland Water Council in the Province.
This system exists at present, but when the order is approved—and it appears that it will be—all those structures will exist in Great Britain, but Northern Ireland will have the Post Office Users' Council for Northern Ireland. the Northern Ireland Water Council and a General Consumer Council. If that is like with like, my opinion differs greatly from that contained in the letters of the former Secretary of State, from the present Minister and those who support the order.
The position that I have just stated is totally opposed by the "Strategy for Reform". It may be argued that Northern Ireland does not have enough consumers to be given a Northern Ireland electricity consumers' council. The nearest comparable figures that I have been able to obtain shows that south Wales has an electricity consumers' council with four local committees catering for 0·85 million consumers. The north of Scotland has its electricity consumers' council with five local committees serving 0·55 million consumers. Northern Ireland, with 0·53 million consumers, has its one Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council, and that will be abolished. It is obvious that Northern Ireland is not as well served at present, but at least it has its own electricity consumers' council.
I have quoted from the detailed and well-researched "Strategy for Reform" paper which, incidentally, is also quoted extensively in the Electricity Consumer Council's 1984 annual report. It can therefore be seen that the "Strategy for Reform" is of some significance in consumer affairs.
One could be forgiven for expecting that this important review would play some part in the examination of the whole subject in Northern Ireland. However, lo and behold, following the rejection of the similar draft General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1983, the independent advisory group set up by the Minister of State responsible for the Department of Economic Development
1312
under the chairmanship of Professor Campbell, arrived at almost the same conclusions as the Minister and, more importantly, the Department of Economic Development. That group was appointed by the Minister and given its guidelines by him. Its conclusions had been rejected previously. I shall not comment on the about face in the Northern Ireland Assembly when it overturned the previous decision on the almost identical 1983 order, except to say that that original decision was fully supported by my Assembly party colleagues and is in keeping with the opinion of my parliamentary party colleagues. That is to reject the concept of the amalgamation of our consumer councils into one general body.
The Campbell advisory group ignored the "Strategy for Reform". It never mentioned it. Nevertheless, it found time to take several sideswipes at the existing Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers' Council. I refer to paragraphs 3.1, 3.3 and 5.6.2. When those misleading remarks were challenged by the NIECC chairman, who asked for the evidence to back up the comments, Professor Campbell could only write in reply that he had
"read the letter with care, but did not feel, having done so, that he would wish to qualify anything said in the report of the Group."
That is a fine explanation of how his advisory group reached its conclusions.
If, as it would appear, the order was constructed on the foundation of the advisory group's report, reaching a conclusion for Northern Ireland in direct opposition to the document "Strategy for Reform" for Britain, either Britain's system, which was accepted by the Government, is wrong, or the order should be withdrawn at once.
The changes in the new, 1984, order compared with the 1983 draft order are virtually contained in paragraph 10. However, in article 5(2) the letter (b) is missing after "1967". I do not know whether there is any significance in that. It may be a printing error. In addition, in article 6(2) the letter (c) is missing. I see from schedule 1 paragraph 2(2) that 50 per cent. of nominated members will no longer be confirmed by the Minister. Instead, all the members will be appointed by the Minister when he conducts the consultations. Schedule 1 paragraph 2(3) has no specified time limit for members. That was formerly three years.
Paragraph 10(8) of schedule 1 reveals the sting in the tail of the paragraph and, indeed, of the order. Any little concessions that were given under publicly elected representatives' pressure can, under the notorious negative resolution procedure, be removed at the will and pleasure of the Department. As my right hon. Friend the Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was good enough to explain to me that means that there is no procedure. I have experienced what consultation between any of the bodies in Northern Ireland and the Department means. I say "at the will and pleasure of the Department" regardless of any consultations carried out. If the Department wishes, as was the original intention, that the bodies should disappear into one body without the small sub-groups, under the negative resolution procedure it is within its power to remove them at a stroke. Who is to say that they will be there in six months' time?
I hope that the Minister will consider the suggestion that, if the negative resolution procedure is to be used in future if the order goes through, he will at least consult the

1313
publicly elected representatives who are sent to the House to look after the interests of their constituents before he takes any decision.
In conclusion, I only hope that the uneasy feeling experienced by my hon. Friends and myself—that somehow the order gives the impression of being fashioned around the position or personality of a future chairman—will be assuaged by a future announcement that will surprise and please us all. My right hon. and hon. Friends will seek to divide the House on this matter.
4.35 pm
Mr. James Molyneaux: I cannot claim to have the specialist knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) on this matter, but every impartial listener will have concluded that he put forward what has so far been an unanswerable case. I support what he said.
I, too, extend my good wishes to the Minister. He reminded us that the former Secretary of State appointed what he called an objective and specialist group to examine the matter under debate today. The most important of the terms of reference listed by the hon. Gentleman today was that the object should be to ensure that people in Northern Ireland enjoy no less a degree of consumer protection than those living in other parts of the United Kingdom—Britain. If that was the intention, why depart from the structures which exist in Britain? We are bound to go on to ask whether those structures in Britain are somehow defective. They appear from the chart to be workable and they seem to be a practical method of ensuring consumer protection across the field of activities in the nationalised industries with which they deal. Perhaps the Minister will be able to enlighten us, but so far I can see no justification for departing from the previous structure.
The Minister said, and I do not contest it, that the Northern Ireland Assembly devoted much study to the report of the specialist advisory body. But, as my hon. Friend reminded us, at an earlier stage the Assembly devoted a similar amount of time to considering the opposite view and came to opposite conclusions. It would not be fair to ask the Minister by whom the Northern Ireland Assembly members were manipulated and for what purpose. But it is strange that a body of elected representatives meeting in the Northern Ireland Assembly should suddenly stand on their heads and approve a recommendation which was precisely the opposite of that which was approved unanimously earlier.
The document to which my hon. Friend drew attention was, I think I am right in saying, produced by a former Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs in Britain. My hon. Friend quoted from paragraph 29 and the final words to which he drew attention should be repeated. It said:
"The Government intend therefore to retain the essentials of the present 'one-to-one' … structure."
Nothing said during the consultations, and nothing produced by the advisory body, gives sound justifications for departing from what the Government intended, which was to retain the essentials of the one-to-one structure.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) said that energy costs in Northern Ireland tend to be higher than those in the remainder of the United Kingdom, and that is
1314
common ground between us. The collapse of the Kinsale gas project makes us more dependent on electricity supplies. Coal has also played an important part in our energy supplies. My party has done its best to co-operate with the National Coal Board. It may be of some comfort to the hon. Member for Hammersmith to know that I have found Mr. MacGregor a little difficult to communicate with. On one occasion I attempted to get to grips with him on what I believed to be a matter of mutual interest. His acknowledgements of my letters contained even less than the cards that we send as a holding reply. In the end, he concluded that it was not a matter for the NCB and suggested that I seek advice elsewhere—yet I was simply trying to help him.
We have done our best to preserve a balance in energy supplies for Northern Ireland, and coal plays an important part in that. However, people in Northern Ireland will not be enthusiastic about a greater dependence on coal supplies in the light of Mr. Scargill's behaviour—unless, of course, the consultations between the NUM and Colonel Gaddafi provide for cheap Libyan oil for the remote parts of the United Kingdom.
The Government have acted against their professed target and doctrine of parity with Great Britain. We had always hoped that we and the Government were of similar minds on the matter. I accept that the hon. Member for Hammersmith takes a different view. We have accepted in good faith that the Government believe that there should be parity of treatment between Northern Ireland and Great Britain, but the Government have now acted against that doctrine.
People must not adopt a fallback position and say that because Northern Ireland is such a small part of the United Kingdom it cannot sustain or justify a wide range of consumer protection councils. My hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) dealt admirably with that point when he said that most of the consumer protection bodies in Great Britain were regionalised and broken down into small bodies which, in the words of Lord Whitelaw, provide a close contact with people in the regions.
The argument that Northern Ireland is a small area and therefore should not have a full range of consumer protection devices cannot be sustained because they are available in similar small regions in Great Britain. The Government have acted contrary to their policies in Great Britain. Because of those unjustified contradictions, I have no alternative but to advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against this ill-thought-out legislation.
4.45 pm
Dr. Boyson: I welcome the support of the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Antrim, South (Mr. Forsythe) and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux). In passing, may I say that I hope the hon. Member for Hammersmith will feel that he has as good service from me in the future as I have tried to provide in other areas in the past.
There have been a considerable number of changes from the original order, which was flatly turned down by the Northern Ireland Assembly. The money has been almost doubled and we have supported the idea that the electricity and energy groups should be separated within the council. The order places more stress on the power to consider complaints that are not resolved by the

1315
organisation. One complaint was that people dealt only with the organisations, but the order provides that, if that fails, individuals can make representations to the consumer council.
I have before me a copy of the Government's reply on 9 April—signed by the then Secretary of State—to the Northern Ireland Assembly report on consumer protection. The reply accepted the majority of points raised. I understand the philosophical and political approach of the hon. Member for Antrim, South and the right hon. Member for Lagan Valley in their desire for total identity within the United Kingdom. But, surely, the important point is that there is parity in fact, and the order provides for that. It opens channels for the Northern Ireland consumer that will be as effective as those in England, Scotland and Wales.
The functions of the nationalised bodies will be taken up by the consumer councils and exercised by the General Consumer Council. I accept that the population of Northern Ireland is similar to that of south Wales and parts of Scotland. However, for the first time the consumers will have channels through which they can obtain satisfaction. Although the actual bodies may be different, they are equivalent to those in England, Wales and Scotland.
Earlier, I read out the names of those who would sit on the advisory group, and two of the three are known to me. I am astonished by the idea that the Government can control the advisory group. The belief in the influence of the Government and previous Northern Ireland Ministers is such that I am humbled by the thought that I should achieve similar total control. The professor of jurisprudence at Queens university, Belfast, is not known to me, but I am aware of the standards and status of that university. I would be surprised if a distinguished scholar from that university did not have independence of mind. Mrs. Joan Macintosh is the vice-chairman of our National Consumer Council, so the grip of Northern Ireland Ministers in patronage will be minimal—even if such patronage would have any influence on her—which I doubt, as I know that she is a powerful lady. Similarly, David Tench, who is the legal adviser to the Consumers' Association, is of independent mind.
Although the philosophical and political considerations have been mentioned by hon. Members, we are concerned with the satisfaction of the consumer. I received a letter recently from the Consumers' Association. I did not ask for the letter and it is not an example of the extension of government. I did not know that right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland would divide the House this afternoon. It is pleasant to be surprised but the surprise of a Division is not one that I want on every occasion following my appearance at the Dispatch Box. The letter is signed by the deputy director and not by one of the two members who might have been influenced in the past. He wrote:
"I am enclosing, for your information, a copy of a briefing note on the General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which we will be circulating to a number of MPs'.
I should like to know to which Members the briefing note was sent. The letter continues:
"As you will see, the Consumers' Association supports the Government's proposal to establish a unified Consumer Council for Northern Ireland and to establish one group in relation to the supply of electricity and another in relation to the supply of other forms of energy."
The hon. Member for Antrim, South and I share at least one interest and that is football. I am glad that Northern
1316
Ireland has a good football record. One of the features of my move to the Northern Ireland Office which delighted me was the soccer record of Northern Ireland and even that of the Republic. The hon. Gentleman and I will see eye to eye, or even foot to foot, on soccer if on no other matter.
I should explain to Northern Ireland Members that I have taken about six weeks to learn what I must say on certain matters and must not say on others. They will appreciate that that remark is not directed to philosophy. It will not be my purpose to hurt anyone intentionally. I have tried to embody the old definition of an English gentleman.
It is not the Government's intention to override the General Consumer Council. If the council wants to retain the four bodies, it will do so. I hope that that will satisfy to some extent right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland. Any change will have to follow a decision of the council to make a change. The decision will not come from the Government and we shall not start the process of any change.
I realise that right hon. and hon. Members are concerned about those who wall sit on the new body. Every body is as strong or as weak as those who sit on it and it is important that there are as many independent-minded individuals on the council as possible, provided that they are not so independent that they represent no one but themselves. We do not want a set of anarchists. There s a need for individuals who represent bodies of opinion within Northern Ireland and who have the strength of mind and the will to state their views with clarity. We shall be receiving nominations and I shall be disappointed if right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland do not submit recommendations. They are citizens of Northern Ireland and they will be affected by the outcome. I have heard their views this afternoon, which they have made clear, and I expect them and all other interested bodies in the Province to submit recommendations.
I know that I would need the tongue of an angel to convince right hon. and hon. Members from Northern Ireland that they should not vote against the order. However, I shall plead with them for a moment although I do not believe that I shall be able to influence their decision. I know that they are a truly independent group and that they would form a splendid council. We have been waiting for the order for two years. It has taken longer to get it through the House than the gestation of an elephant. If I were to say, "Yes, you are quite right"—I am certainly not saying that—"and we shall take the order back and start again", the debate would start all over again and protection for the consumer, which is the purpose of the order, would be further delayed. Upon that I rest my case. I believe that the order will be advantageous to the Northern Ireland consumer and the sooner it is implemented the better.
Question put:—
The House divided: Ayes 173, Noes 8.

Division No. 480]

[4.54 pm

AYES

Alison, Rt Hon Michael

Banks, Robert (Harrogate)

Alton, David

Beith, A. J.

Amess, David

Bellingham, Henry

Aspinwall, Jack

Best, Keith

Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.

Blackburn, John

Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Baker, Nicholas (N Dorset)

Bottomley, Peter

Baldry, Tony

Bottomley, Mrs Virginia

1317

Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)

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

Boyson, Dr Rhodes

Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Gummer, John Selwyn

Bright, Graham

Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)

Brinton, Tim

Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)

Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thpes)

Hancock,.Mr. Michael

Browne, John

Hannam, John

Bruinvels, Peter

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Buck, Sir Antony

Harvey, Robert

Burt, Alistair

Hayward, Robert

Butterfill, John

Heddle, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Henderson, Barry

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Hill, James

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Hind, Kenneth

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

Holt, Richard

Cash, William

Hooson, Tom

Channon, Rt Hon Paul

Howard, Michael

Chapman, Sydney

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

Chope, Christopher

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)

Howell, Ralph (N Norfolk)

Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)

Hunt, David (Wirral)

Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)

Jackson, Robert

Colvin, Michael

Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick

Coombs, Simon

Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)

Cope, John

Jones, Robert (W Herts)

Currie, Mrs Edwina

Key, Robert

Dickens, Geoffrey

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Latham, Michael

Durant, Tony

Lawler, Geoffrey

Emery, Sir Peter

Lawrence, Ivan

Evennett, David

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark

Fallon, Michael

Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)

Favell, Anthony

Lilley, Peter

Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Lord, Michael

Forth, Eric

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Fowler, Rt Hon Norman

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Franks, Cecil

Mates, Michael

Fraser, Peter (Angus East)

Mather, Carol

Freeman, Roger

Maude, Hon Francis

Fry, Peter

Meadowcroft, Michael

Gale, Roger

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Galley, Roy

Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)

Gardiner, George (Reigate)

Montgomery, Fergus

Garel-Jones, Tristan

Moynihan, Hon C.

Gow, Ian

Needham, Richard

Grant, Sir Anthony

Neubert, Michael

1318

Onslow, Cranley

Stern, Michael

Oppenheim, Phillip

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Ottaway, Richard

Stradling Thomas, J.

Page, Sir John (Harrow W)

Sumberg, David

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Pawsey, James

Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)

Penhaligon, David

Temple-Morris, Peter

Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Thompson, Donald (Calder V)

Pollock, Alexander

Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)

Powley, John

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Thurnham, Peter

Rathbone, Tim

Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)

Rhodes James, Robert

Tracey, Richard

Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon

Viggers, Peter

Rifkind, Malcolm

Waddington, David

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Waller, Gary

Ryder, Richard

Wardle, C. (Bexhill)

Sackville, Hon Thomas

Warren, Kenneth

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Watts, John

Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)

Wilkinson, John

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Winterton, Mrs Ann

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Winterton, Nicholas

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Wolfson, Mark

Sims, Roger

Wood, Timothy

Skeet, T. H. H.

Woodcock, Michael

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Wrigglesworth, Ian

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Yeo, Tim

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Younger, Rt Hon George

Speed, Keith

Speller, Tony

Tellers for the Ayes:

Spencer, Derek

Mr. John Major and Mr. Ian Lang.

Steen, Anthony

NOES

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Taylor, Rt Hon John David

Maginnis, Ken

Walker, Cecil (Belfast N)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

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

Tellers for the Noes:

Skinner, Dennis

Mr. Harold McCusker and Mr. Roy Betts.

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That the draft General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.

European Communities (Greenland)
5.6 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): I beg to move,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Change in Status of Greenland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.
Greenland, though geographically distinct from the continent of Europe, was at the time of Denmark's entry to the Community fully integrated with the kingdom of Denmark, of which it was and is a part. It was, therefore, obliged to join the Community with the rest of Denmark, although 70 per cent. of the Greenland population voted against membership in the referendum in which Denmark voted to accept membership. In 1979, however, there came an important change in Greenland's relationship with the rest of Denmark. She received a substantial degree of home rule, and in the elections in 1979 the Greenland party opposed to EEC membership won a majority.
Fisheries are Greenland's major economic activity, accounting for half her exports. Greenlanders have always seen disadvantages in the application of the Community's fisheries policy for which, as a territory remote from other member states and with relatively little industry or agriculture, they saw few compensating advantages.
In the referendum on the membership issue in 1982, Greenland opted for withdrawal by a small majority and sought associated status under the Community's arrangements for overseas countries and territories. In May 1982, the Danish Government therefore submitted a memorandum to the Council of Ministers proposing that Greenland should cease to be within the geographical scope of the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Economic Community and be added to the list of overseas countries and territories in annex IV to the EEC treaty. As the treaties contain no provision for the withdrawal of a member state, or a part of one, the precise terms of Greenland's change in status had to be negotiated within the Community to provide appropriate amendments to the treaties.
During the negotiations it was agreed also that Greenland should cease to be within the geographical scope of the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. After discussion in the Council on a request from Denmark, the treaty referred to in the schedule to the order was signed in Brussels on 13 March 1984.
I should like to draw the attention of the House to the details of the treaty. The purpose of the treaty is to give effect to Greenland's wish to make the transition from membership of the Community—as a part of Denmark—to association with it. The treaty does that by removing Greenland from the scope of application of those provisions of the EEC treaty which apply to the European territory of members of the Community in general. The EEC treaty is amended by the inclusion of Greenland within its part IV, relating to the association of overseas countries and territories within the Community. In addition, the new treaty removes Greenland from the geographical scope of the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
Annexed to the treaty is a protocol, which provides for duty-free access to the Community for fish and fishing
1320
products coming from Greenland in return for satisfactory arrangements for access by the Community to Greenland's fishing zones. The protocol provides also for the application to Greenland of the Community's detailed arrangements on tariff treatment and other matters for the overseas countries and territories in relation to products covered by both the EEC and the European Coal and Steel Community treaty.
Arrangements were also agreed between Greenland and the Community to provide for a framework fisheries agreement. This established principles governing Community fishing in Greenland waters, with a protocol setting the initial quotas for Community fishermen for the first five years. The Community's fishing opportunities under the agreement are to be balanced by the annual payment to Greenland from the Community budget of 26·5 million ecu—about £15 million. Greenland will not, however, receive aid from the European development fund by virtue of her OCT status, during the validity of the fisheries protocol. There is also provision for procedures under which the Community may act in the event of the overall agreement being disturbed. The regulations providing for these arrangements are not listed in the schedule to the order, but it is nevertheless right to mention them to the House, as they are intended to form one package with the treaty and protocol. The draft texts making up the complete package were submitted to the scrutiny of the Select Committee on European Legislation on 24 February 1984.
The treaty is to come into force on 1 January 1985 if all member states have ratified it by then. Otherwise it will come into force one month after the last state has ratified. Subject to the views of this House, we expect to have completed the necessary procedures for ratification by the 1 January 1985 deadline.
The House will be aware that the effect of the order is that the treaty with attached protocol will be able to operate in the law of this country in accordance with their provisions.
Before I conclude, I should say a brief word to the House about the agreement on fisheries to which I referred earlier. The agreement, which was laid before the House on 14 August, has several interlocking elements intended to balance the interests of Greenland and those of the Community. For its part, Greenland will continue to benefit from duty-free access to the Community market for fish and fishery products in return for her commitment to the fisheries agreement with the Community. Under the protocol to the agreement, taking into account catches by Greenland vessels, the basic quotas set for Community fishermen for the first five years represent an overall level virtually equivalent to the quotas set by the Council of Fisheries Ministers for all the major Greenland fish stocks. It is important to note that the Community is not being asked to alter its current fishing opportunties significantly. Any major reduction in current Community fishing efforts at Greenland would have led to claims for compensation from Community fishermen elsewhere in Community waters, and could have upset the entire balance of the common fisheries policy—established with such difficulty only last year. This has been avoided and the quotas between member states, including the United Kingdom, will be allocated in accordance with the normal procedures and criteria.
Mr. Robin Cook: Will the Minister repeat the assurance given to the House in July that the United Kingdom quota which will emerge from the process will be no less than that which Great Britain has hitherto enjoyed in Greenland waters?
Mr. Rifkind: Yes, the division of quotas between the various member states of the Community is being allocated on the basis of the historical share of Greenland waters. Great Britain's historical share is relatively low, but my understanding is that it will amount to what what we have enjoyed traditionally.
All in all, the Community's fishing opportunities in west and east Greenland waters, including those quotas which may be allocated to Norwegian and Faroese vessels under the relevant reciprocal fisheries agreements, amount to some 100,000 tonnes of cod equivalent—mainly cod, red fish, Greenland halibut and shrimps. These opportunities are balanced by the annual payment to Greenland to which I referred earlier. The Community's fishing rights in Greenland waters will not, however, end at the beginning of 1995. Although the agreement is concluded for 10 years, there is provision for successive six-year periods, thus providing a solid basis on which Community and Greenland fishermen can plan for the future.
I hope that I have given the House sufficient general explanation of the background to the order and its objective for the order to commend itself to the House as representing a fair and balanced deal for the Community and for this country.
5.13 pm
Mr. Eric Deakins: I rise with some trepidation. I was unaware that I might be one of the few Opposition speakers. I draw attention to the symbolic significance of the order.
I shall concentrate on three points. The first is that the order and the treaty which is embodied in it prove conclusively, if there had been any doubt, that it is possible for a territory to withdraw from the Common Market. Many of us were in no doubt about that because that is what the referendum campaign in 1975 was about. I accept that we lost it, but there were still people at that stage who thought that it was impossible for any territory or country, once having signed the Treaty of Rome, to withdraw. If the referendum campaign had not convinced them of that, this order must knock on the head for ever the belief that it is impossible for any country legally to withdraw.
Secondly, the order and the treaty which it embodies prove conclusively that it is possible for a country or territory which withdraws, or seeks to do so, to negotiate satisfactory and mutually beneficial arrangements to cover the period after the withdrawal. Although Greenland's problems are tiny, perhaps, in proportion to the withdrawal of a larger country such as the United Kingdom, nevertheless, there is no doubt that it is possible to negotiate. Given good will on both sides it should be possible for Great Britain to do the same.
My third point is seen in article 2 of protocal 2. It is a new feature, one that I confess I had not realised when the Foreign Secretary made his statement to the House on 14 March reporting the Foreign Affairs Council on the previous day, which had approved the treaty. Article 2 makes it clear that not all the negotiations affecting the
1322
future relationship of a state or territory which withdraws from the Community and the Community need be settled and finalised before the withdrawal becomes accomplished legally. Article 2 makes it clear that there are to be continuing negotiations on a number of issues. That is a useful parallel for Great Britain if any future British Government should decide to withdraw.
I do not wish to delay the House as there is all-party agreement on the order. It should be borne in mind that what the Minister said about Greenland finding few compensating advantages for the disadvantages of Community membership, in the opinion of many of us applies to Great Britain. While it may be thought that that is a partisan statement or a reflection of political positions which have been taken up over a number of years—certainly in my case—I invite the attention of the House to the recent report of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry and the current investigation by the Treasury and Civil Service Select Committee, in the latter case to the economic benefits of Great Britain's membership of the EEC and in the former case to the trade benefits. It was clear from the report of the Trade and Industry Select Committee that it could not find any of the compensating trade benefits for the cost of the common agricultural policy which were promised when we joined.
I do not wish to draw any further parallels because that would be inappropriate when we are discussing a fairly narrow order. The occasion should not pass, however, without our recording our appreciation of what has happened in the case of Greenland. We should send a message to our colleagues in the House and to the country that this is an example which, if the British people and a future British Government wish, we can follow.
5.18 pm
Mr. Teddy Taylor: As the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) said, this is a non-controversial order. It would be a mistake to draw wider conclusions from it. There is now a growing acceptance in Great Britain that for Britain membership of the Common Market has brought about an appalling loss of jobs, has had a disastrous effect on our trade and caused a major reduction in our freedom. I understand that the Government would not be willing to accept any manuscript amendment to add the words "United Kingdom" to the order.
I am sure that all of us would wish to join in congratulating the people of Greenland on freeing themselves from the appalling burdens and stifling bureaucracy of the Common Market. They have, of course, until recently, been subject to the common agricultural policy which seems to have given them high prices without any compensating advantages. It has given them high steel prices which have unfortunately had a severe effect on the public works which are developing there.
The people of Greenland have been subject—this has cost a great deal of bureaucratic time—to stifling bureaucracy. It sometimes appals us to see the volume of legislation which pours out of the Commission, applying to the United Kingdom, Greenland and others. I saw two recent examples in the European papers. One was the final decision relating to the noise made by lawn mowers. My hon. Friend the Minister with responsibility for consumer affairs advised me only yesterday of a new Common Market directive which is affecting jobs in the Midlands.

1323
It regulates the contents of stink bombs. That kind of bureaucracy undoubtedly has a very serious effect on a free country, and to that extent we should congratulate Greenland on freeing itself of an unnecessary burden.
As the Minister rightly said, Greenland has had to pay a substantial price for getting out of the Common Market. It has had to agree to give a very substantial amount of the fish within its waters. The best estimate I have is that the amount, at 1982 prices, was equivalent to 60 million ecu, which is about £35 million. For that, Greenland is being paid about £15 million per annum. Although the hon. Member for Walthamstow said that satisfactory terms were negotiated, I think that the Minister who replied to the debate in July was right to say that it was a very satisfactory deal for the rest of the Common Market countries, because they are effectively taking £35 million worth of fish annually for a payment of only £15 million.
There are five specific questions on which I should greatly appreciate the Minister's observations. The first is the only general one. In view of the great problem that we have had in going through this legislative procedure since the people of Greenland again voted to leave the Common Market in February 1982, would it not be possible for the Ministers in the Common Market to find an easier and less complex way for countries or parts of countries to leave the Common Market if they wish to do so? I do not think that it adds in any way to the dignity or the development of the Common Market to have an organisation that is so difficult to get out of. It compares very unfavourably with that superb organisation the European Free Trade Association, with only 19 civil servants, based in Geneva, no agricultural policy, no regional policy, and no nonsensical Socialist bureaucracy, and which simply concentrates on getting trade barriers down and promoting political co-operation.
My four specific points are rather more detailed. First, could the Minister again say that the Greenland people will have unimpeded preferential access for their fishery products to the rest of the European Community? The Minister was absolutely specific about that in his speech, but in July, when EC document No. 5063/84 was discussed, there seemed to be some reservations and restrictions. Page 5 of a letter issued in Brussels on 17 February 1984 said that preferential access was among the advantages on Greenland's side, hut that they depended
"on the preferential margin actually granted as compared with the rates accorded competing non-member countries."—[Official Report, 20 July 1984; Vol. 64, c. 678.]
I said at the time that I did not know what on earth that meant. Unfortunately, the Minister was not able to explain it in detail. It would help if the Minister would simply repeat that it is unimpeded access and not subject to any reservations whatever.
My second specific question relates to how precisely the agreement on fishery quotas is to observed. The Minister will know that one of the issues in the Greenland referendum, which we all followed closely, was that Greenland considered that the Common Market agreements were not being strictly observed. We know that to be a fact from our own experience. There was, for example, the ridiculous agreement on reducing steel production within the Common Market. We slashed our steel capacity. Unfortunately, some other members of the Common Market increased their capacity, and we fared very badly. Similarly, we all agreed to cut our milk production. In the past three months, Britain has reduced
1324
its output by 7·5 per cent. while four other members of the Common Market have increased their milk output. Obviously, that is part and parcel of what happens with Common Market agreements.
As Greenland will no longer be in the Common Market, I think the Minister has some kind of duty to say, on behalf of the Community, precisely how the fishery quotas are to be observed. Although there is a limited quota allocated to the United Kingdom, the Minister will be well aware that we did not take up those quotas because the amount was tiny and Greenland was very far away.
The only people who fish Greenland waters are the Germans. The Germans have a substantial quota allocated to them, worth about £30 million a year. In what way are we to ensure that the quota is observed? The Greenlanders will see German vessels coming into their waters in substantial numbers, but how can they in any way ensure that the Germans will keep their deal? The Germans, the French and the Italians have a particularly poor record in keeping Common Market agreements when the interests of other countries are affected, and I wonder whether it is fair for us not to have some kind of guarantee that the quotas will be kept.
My third detailed question is about Euratom. As a member of Euratom, there was an obligation on Greenland to go ahead and mine for uranium, whether it wanted to or not. The Minister will be aware of the very significant opinion in Greenland which takes the view that uranium should not be mined at all. Will the Minister say whether Greenland is now free not to mine uranium, and has not accepted any obligation to mine uranium whether it wants to or not?
My fourth detailed question relates to the rights of Greenlanders as members of an overseas territory. I am very confused about the rights given to overseas territories. For example, in relation to hospitals in Southend, guidance has been given by the Department of Health and Social Security that I find very strange. If someone appears at Southend hospital with a broken leg and says, "I come from Guyana", the immediate question that the hospital authorities have to ask that person, before he can be given consideration, is, "From which part of Guyana do you come?" If he comes from British Guyana, he has to pay £90 a day for his treatment. If he comes from French Guyana, he gets free treatment, because French Guyana is classified as an overseas territory of the Common Market, and the people are thereby entitled to free treatment. The same principle applies to countries such as Martinique and other French overseas territories, but not to British overseas countries.
Will the Minister say whether, under the special status of overseas territory, Greenlanders will be afforded the same opportunities as residents of countries such as French Guyana, which are classified as overseas territories? I find it particularly offensive that we discriminate against members of the British Commonwealth while at the same time giving costly health treatment free to members of France's overseas territories.
If someone from French Guyana looks for employment in Southend, the restrictions are very limited, but only recently, a firm in Southend was instructed to get rid of an Australian, although he had shrapnel in his leg from flying with Fighter Command in the war.
In relation to Greenland, can the Minister say whether we are adding to the number of overseas territories which will be fully entitled to hospital treatment and to the help

1325
of the welfare services at low cost? It is generally an unsatisfactory arrangement. I think that the view of most sane people in the House of Commons is that we should either make provision for our Commonwealth friends and some others as a whole, or treat all foreigners alike. I find it very difficult to see why we should regard people from Greenland or French Guyana as having greater entitlement to free medical services in Britain than our friends from Australia, New Zealand, Zimbabwe and other parts of the Commonwealth.
I hope that the Minister will clarify the points that I have mentioned. I make it abundantly clear that I am asking the questions only for clarification and not because I wish to oppose the order.
Although there is a relatively small attendance, we are this afternoon witnessing the removal from the Common Market of half the land mass of the Common Market—in fact, of the second largest island in the world. The only larger island is Australia. Greenland is indeed a very large island. Its people have fought hard to regain their freedom. They have battled with the Common Market's bureaucracy for no less than three years and now they see an opportunity to rid themselves of the appalling interventionist policies of the EEC, the stifling bureaucracy and the enormous economic burdens. I am sure that, although Greenland has a small, independent-minded population, it would be the unanimous wish of the House to wish the people well on having freed themselves from those burdens and on entering a period in which they can enjoy more freedom and independence.
5.30 pm
Mr. Michael Brown: I agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), because they both drew attention to the significance of this event. I am delighted to see that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is listening to the debate. Who knows that he may look forward to the day when, true to his conscience, he will be at the Dispatch Box moving a similar order for this country? We all know where his true feelings lie on the issue.
The order makes it clear once and for all that it is the right of the people of any country to decide that they want to be a member of the Common Market in one year and their right, through their Government, to decide in another year that they want to change their minds. We must make sure that the people in this country are aware that final sovereignty over us being a signatory to a treaty and a member of an organisation such as the Common Market is and must always be, here in the House of Commons.
The order shows that there would be nothing wrong in a political party being elected to power upon the basis that it wanted to renegotiate the Treaty of Rome and put before the House of Commons, with a mandate from the people, an order along those lines. That must be stressed. I hope that one day in years to come, a Conservative Government might feel themselves capable of putting forward such an order. However, we must recognise that it is absolutely right and proper in our democracy for it to be stressed that a member country, with the democratic votes of its people, has the right to change its mind.
1326
I am speaking in favour of the order because of the reason given by the people of Greenland for deciding that they were no longer at home in the Common Market. The principal reason that drove them to renegotiate their position in the Common Market was the deal that they got out of the common fisheries policy. I represent the town of Cleethorpes, which adjoins the fishing port of Grimsby. I am sure that I shall have the support of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) in what I am about to say. If, in a referendum, the people in his and my constituencies judged the Common Market purely on the basis of the fishing deal that came out of the common fisheries policy, they would probably arrive at the same decision as the people of Greenland.
In moving the order, my hon. Friend the Minister of State drew attention to the fact that, for Greenland in particular, there were no other compensating benefits from membership and that Greenlanders were so heavily dependent on their fishing industry that they found themselves in this situation. The people of Grimsby are virtually dependent on their fishing industry and see little compensating benefits from membership of the Common Market. That is why the hon. Member for Great Grimsby takes such a strong stance on the Common Market.
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Are my hon. Friend's constituents reassured that, through Common Market funds, we are supplying 167,000 tonnes of cheap food each week to the Russians to alleviate starvation?
Mr. Brown: I do not think that the people of Grimsby would see it in that light. My hon. Friend characteristically illustrates the reasons why so many people are unhappy about the present situation in the Common Market.
I conclude by welcoming the order and stressing once again that, at the end of the day, it must always be the right of any sovereign country to change its mind. There must be many hon. Members on both sides of the House who are deeply committed to the principle of the Common Market, but they should recognise that it must always be the right of any Government, with the backing of the people, to change their minds and be able to renegotiate their position within the Common Market to the extent that such an order can be brought before their sovereign Parliament.
5.35 pm
Mr. K. Harvey Proctor: I should like to join the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) and my hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) and Brigg and Cleethorpes (Mr. Brown) in congratulating Greenland on bringing to a conclusion its withdrawal from the European Economic Community. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said that Greenland was a large land mass. We should wish it well in its associate status with the EEC. All Back-Bench Members who have spoken hitherto have congratulated Greenland on taking that action and wished it well for the future.
I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Minister of State what his Department's attitude is. Have similar congratulations and good wishes been sent from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said, from Her Majesty the Queen herself? It would be right and fitting on this last day of our parliamentary Session to ensure that

1327
those at the Foreign Office at senior levels of Government sent a telegram tonight, perhaps after Prorogation, to the leaders of Greenland, expressing the good wishes of this sovereign Parliament for Greenland's future and congratulating them on the action that they have taken.
As all those who have spoken in the debate mentioned, this may be the opportunity for paving the way for other members of the European Community either to leave the Community at a future date or to leave and acquire associate status. My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East said that it was a little too late in the day for my hon. Friend the Minister to accept today what he described as a manuscript amendment to the order. My hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Cleethorpes spoke of the possibility of parliamentary time being found in future for a debate on whether the United Kingdom should stay in the EEC——
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. Whatever the merits of such a proposition, it is not for the House to debate it today. We are talking about the membership of Greenland, not that of the United Kingdom.
Mr. Proctor: I am grateful for that advice. I was only paraphrasing what other hon. Members informed the House. I was not expressing——
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is pushing a little further the license that I allowed previous speakers. I hope that he will not seek to exploit my tolerance further.
Mr. Proctor: I am grateful for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I should like to refer to specific questions arising from the order about differences that might apply to other states leaving the Community. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to comment on that. As I understand it, if any member country other than the United Kingdom wished to leave the European Community, the correct procedure would be to table an order similar to that now before us relating back to the European Communities Act 1972. My interest is in whether the same procedure would suffice if this country wished to follow the same path. I presume that in those circumstances the Government would say that primary legislation would be required to repeal the 1972 Act, which puts this country in a position different from that of Greenland or any other member country. I should be grateful if my hon. Friend the Minister would clarify that point.
In conclusion, I remind the House of what was said in the Government document that was pushed through our letterboxes during the 1975 referendum campaign.
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Which side were you on?
Mr. Proctor: My hon. Friend asks which side I was on. I am happy to declare my interest. I was on the side of the United Kingdom and its interests and against membership of the European Community. Having worked at that time for the group of Members, including the present Leader of the House, who opposed EEC membership at that time, I voted and campaigned against membership.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that other hon. Members who are waiting to speak will not be tempted to try to convert this into a depate on Britain's membership
1328
of the EEC. We are discussing an order relating to Greenland's membership. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and the House will stick to that.
Mr. Proctor: I apologise profusely to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was attracted, or provoked, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). I was actually coming to the end of my speech. I wish to conclude by quoting from the documents that were pushed through letterboxes in 1975.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: References to letterboxes in Greenland might be in order, but not references to letterboxes in Cambridge.
Mr. Proctor: In that case, I shall refer to letterboxes in Greenland as it is in Greenland that a democratic decision has been taken. We were told in 1975 that continuing membership of the European Community relied upon the
"continuing consent of Parliament and People".
Greenland has now taken its decision. We shall no doubt take ours in due course.
5.42 pm
Mr. Tony Marlow: I am pleased to follow the eloquent comments of my hon. Friends. I hope that I shall riot stray from the straight and narrow path of order if I say that, unlike them, I do not seek Britain's withdrawal from the Community. Nevertheless, I have strong views on the subject.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) said, Greenland is the biggest island in the Community. We are probably the second biggest. Greenland has a very large land mass indeed. When this measure is passed, as I am sure that it will be, with good will, the Community will be deprived of a significant proportion of its land mass. Size, scale and territory are matters of significance because they mean resources. The Community must therefore consider seriously its future size and scope, especially its land mass and its geographical and geological resources, in the interests of future generations. Will the loss of the great land mass of Greenland be balanced by the accession of Spain and Portugal? Will that accession take place and, if so, when?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Spain and Portugal are a long way from Greenland. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will turn his attention northwards.
Mr. Marlow: I fully accept your remonstrations, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As we are losing a part of the Community, however, some members will no doubt wish to seek compensation by gaining territory in other areas. We are losing the resources, geology and scope of Greenland. In the overall context of the Community, therefore, in economic terms and perhaps potentially in military terms, it is important to assess whether those losses will be balanced by compensating gains in other areas. I put it to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that the accession of Spain and Portugal and whether and when it is to come about are matters of concern arising out of the order.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to his opinion, but in this matter it is the opinion of the Chair that counts. I hope that he will turn his attention away from Spain and Portugal and towards the order before the House.
Mr. Marlow: Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The debate is entirely about Greenland and you are quite right to tell me that that is the case.
I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister has picked up the tone and import of my message. I very much look forward to his reply.
5.45 pm
Dr. John Marek: I shall be brief, but I believe that it is right that another Opposition Member should congratulate Greenland on the courageous decision that it has taken, albeit by a small majority. I wish the people of Greenland every success on the course that they have decided to map out for themselves in the future.
I echo the words of the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) in asking the Minister whether arrangements similar to those mentioned for French Guyana and Martinique will be available to Greenland after its withdrawal from the Community. This is certainly a bone of contention. I visited St. Helena in the summer and discovered that for St. Helenians a month's stay in hospital costs about £1,500 in Capetown but £5,000 in the United Kingdom. Many people there are upset at the advantages apparently enjoyed by some dependent territories of Community countries vis-a-vis others. Comparisons were frequently made with Martinique. I hope that the Minister will address himself to that and let us know exactly what the position will be for Greenland.
Having said that, I congratulate the people of Greenland and wish them every success.
5.47 pm
Mr. Robin Cook: I should set the Minister's mind at rest from the outset by saying that the Opposition do not intend to divide the House on this order. Nevertheless, we have had a pleasing debate and it would be wrong to let it end without a formal response from the Opposition Front Bench.
It is only about a dozen sitting days since we last debated Greenland's withdrawal from the Community and there was a certain similarity between the comments made by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) on that occasion and today, but they were none the worse for that as it was a vigorous speech.
I think that the hon. Member for Southend, East will agree that today, as in July, there has been a surprising lack of enthusiasm in the House for Greenland's membership of the Common Market. Indeed, a curious feature of the seven or eight debates on the Common Market that have taken place during the year in which it has been my duty to turn up at the Dispatch Box on such occasions has been the total absence in the House of any enthusiam for anyone's membership of the Common Market. These who took us into the Common Market on their prospectus have not attended the debates in which we have discussed the consequences of membership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) rightly referred to the Select Committee report on the trade consequences. It would have been interesting to have a response to that from at least one of those who in previous years urged that the consequences would be quite different.
The significance of this debate is one to which every speaker has drawn attention. That is that here we see the withdrawal from the Common Market of what is a small population—one that is less than the population of
1330
virtually every constituency represented in the Chamber—but a very large land mass. Greenland's loss effectively halves the total land area of the Common Market. The significance of this step is that it shows not just that there is now a legal precedent for negotiating withdrawal, but that it is politically and diplomatically possible to negotiate withdrawal.
The Greenland Government managed to get an attractive deal as a result of the process of negotiation and have secured the equivalent of £300 per annum for every man, woman and child in Greenland for each of the next 10 years, an agreement that is renewable at six-yearly intervals thereafter. One is tempted, although I shall not be so tempted for fear that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will draw me sharply to order, as you have done with previous speakers, to expand on the contrast between what the Greenlanders are getting for withdrawing from the Common Market and what we are continuing to pay to stay in it.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is an interesting contrast between that line of argument and the fact that Socialist Spain believes that its people might benefit from coming into the EEC? Is not the weight of argument on that side, simply because of the number of people involved, much stronger?
Mr. Cook: We await with interest and eagerness the outcome of the negotiations between Spain and the Common Market and Portugal and the Common Market. One cannot but notice that within the past week an additional difficulty has been placed in the course of the successful conclusion of these negotiations. I have some sympathy, which I had better keep a fairly covert sympathy, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in view of your strictures, with the point made earlier by the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow). I suspect that when 1 January 1985 arrives, we shall find that Greenland has left the Common Market, but I shall be surprised if, on 1 January 1986, we find that Spain and Portugal have managed to get in.
The hon. Member for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) would be wise not to press his point too far because if he does he will find that the getting in of both countries depends entirely on the terms of getting in, and those terms depend entirely on sustaining the rickety structure of the common agricultural policy, which the hon. Gentleman, among other hon. Members, wishes to see knocked down.
Mr. Marlow: The hon. Gentleman, vis-a-vis Greenland, has raised the point of the accession of Spain and Portugal in 1986. He will understand the great significance of that, which is that any increase in own resources is justified only on the basis of that accession.
Mr. Cook: That is a valid and important point and one that we shall no doubt have an opportunity to examine when the House debates the increase in own resources. I think that the Government will be in great difficulty when that time comes in sustaining such a move as being necessary to pay for an enlargement that looks unlikely to happen by the date of the increase in own resources.
The hon. Member for Southend, East raised a matter that concerns me, that of enforcement. It is undoubtedly the case that what prompted the Greenland people to vote, by an adequate majority, to withdraw from the Common

1331
Market was not the fisheries regime but the country's frustration at being unable to police and enforce the fisheries regime, and its clear perception that the fisheries regime was flagrantly and frequently violated by other countries that were ostensibly its partners in the Common Market.
The House should have some sympathy with that point of view because we experienced similar problems and discrimination ourselves. The hon. Member for Southend, East made the comparison with the steel regime, but it is not necessary to look at any other regime besides the fisheries regime. It has adequate illustration that we are experiencing the same difficulty in obtaining enforcement and adherence to the fisheries agreement that the Greenlanders have experienced in the past five years.
For example, only two years ago one of our partners in the Common Market claimed extra restitutions on the export of a volume of mackerel caught in British waters that exceeded its annual quota, and obtained a subsidy from the Common Market on the export of that volume although it plainly, in claiming that sum, was admitting to having broken the quota agreement. The hon. Member for Southend, East made the point that it appears that there is only one other country in the Common Market that is even attempting to impose milk quotas. We, as one of the two countries respecting the agreement on milk quotas, might ask ourselves why it is that the agreement has not been more adequately enforced.
Against that background, we must have some sympathy with the considerations that have moved the people of Greenland. Here, I come to the point raised by the hon. Member for Billericay (Mr. Proctor). He asked whether the Queen would be sending a message of congratulation and felicitation to the Greenlanders on their withdrawal from the Common Market. As I understand it, the Government's position, to use the term that they employed on the last occasion that the House debated the matter, is that they respect the decision of the Greenlanders. I feel that it would be desirable to go beyond that. The Opposition understand their position and wishes, and we wish them well in the brave experiment on which they have embarked. We shall be watching closely to see how they prosper in their new, independent state.
5.56 pm
Mr. John David Taylor: This brief debate is important to the United Kingdom because it makes it clear that a precedent has been created. The people of one member nation within the EEC can, by their own decision, withdraw from membership of the Community. It is an interesting precedent, which will be noted throughout the nation.
One specific point arises from the departure of Greenland from the Community, to which I should like to draw the attention of the Minister. It is the weird constitutional relationship that Greenland had with Denmark. Originally one thought that Denmark and Greenland had joined together in 1973 as one nation within the EEC, and that a certain number of seats within the European Assembly had been awarded to the nation of Denmark, including Greenland. Then it emerged that Greenland got one of those seats in the Assembly, which is not in itself a democratic institution. It is certainly not elected on the basis of one man, one vote, because a few thousand voters in Luxembourg have six seats, while 40
1332
million voters in the United Kingdom have 81 seats. Likewise, a few thousand voters in Greenland had only one seat.
Now, Greenland is leaving the EEC and can do so separately from Denmark. What is happening to the one seat allocated to Greenland? Is it disappearing, or will Denmark now gain an extra seat? Will this seat go to the Arabs on the coast of Morocco, who apparently will now join the EEC with Spain? Is it going to the Azores, or could we give it to Gibraltar, which is the only part of Europe that is still not represented in the Assembly, for purely political reasons?
5.58 pm
Mr. Rifkind: It is appropriate to welcome the warm words of appreciation for this order that have come from both sides of the House. It is pleasant to see such a rare degree of unanimity on matters affecting the European Community.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Deakins) and a number of other hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook), referred to what they described as a precedent for the withdrawal of a country or part of a country from the European Community. What has happened on this occasion has been the requirement to renegotiate a treaty. The order is the consequence of negotiations which involved the unanimous agreement of all the member states, and it will require the ratification of all the member states. That is the appropriate way in which to deal with such matters.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr Taylor) raised a number of detailed points. He asked for an assurance that Greenland would have unimpeded access to the European Community for its own fishery products. That matter is dealt with specifically in article 1 of the protocol agreed earlier this year, which gives Greenland equivalent access to the Community for its own fishery products, to take account of the right that the Community will continue to exercise in Greenland waters. My hon Friend also asked—as did the hon. Member for Livingston whether there were safeguards as regards the enforcement of the Community quota arrangements in Greenland waters, given the difficulties which Greenland has faced in the past. I refer my hon. Friend and the hon. Gentleman to articles 3 and 5 of the agreement on fisheries between the Community and Greenland. Article 3 states:
"The Community shall notify the Greenland authorities of the name, registration numbers and other essential characteristics of fishing vessels which may be authorised to fish within the area of jurisdiction of Greenland."
Article 5 states:
"The authorities responsible for Greenland may take, within their area of jurisdiction, such measures as are necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions."
Such measures would presumably involve the Danish navy, because of Greenland's continuing association with Denmark in matters of external relations.
My hon. Friend also asked about the implications of Greenland's withdrawal from. Euratom. Membership of Euratom has not involved any obligation to mine uranium. It has simply required that any uranium that might be, mined should be shared with and made available to other members of the Community. That particular obligation will no longer apply to Greenland. Greenland will be free to determine what mining it wishes to engage in.
My hon. Friend and other hon. Members also referred to Greenland's proposed status as one of the overseas

1333
countries and territories. Certain questions were asked about the implications of that status. My hon. Friend sought to suggest that there was some significance in the fact that French Guyana enjoyed certain advantages deriving from OCT status which are not available to the territory which he described as British Guyana. As the House will know, there is no longer any territory which can be referred to as British Guyana. There is an independent republic of Guyana. It is an independent state within the Commonwealth. French Guyana on the other hand, is still administered as part of France and has therefore, to be treated in a distinctive way.
In general terms, Greenland will continue in future to enjoy the rights available to other countries of OCT status—not only the French territory to which my hon. Friend referred but also a substantial number of British territories including Bermuda, the Falkland Islands and various other islands around the world.
Despite its membership of the OCT group of countries, Greenland will not be entitled to benefit from the European development fund. Greenland has a relatively high income per capita compared with most developing countries. It was, therefore, agreed that it would be inappropriate that Greenland should have access to a fund intended for Third world developing countries. There is a precedent for that decision. Brunei does not have access to the fund either, although classed as an OCT country.
Dr. Alan Glyn: What will happen to the seats of the representatives from Greenland in the EEC? Will those vacancies revert to Denmark?
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) raised the same question. When the allocation for Denmark in the European Parliament was determined, the total population of Denmark was taken into account. Although Greenland will no longer be associated with Denmark for the purposes of the European Parliament—I believe that the total population of Greenland is only about 100,000——
Mr. Cook: It is 45,000.
Mr. Rifkind: It is even less than I had suggested. Denmark's overall entitlement to seats, therefore, will not be affected It has always been for Denmark to decide how to allocate its seats, just as Parliament decides how to allocate seats among the various parts of the United Kingdom.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: The hon. Gentleman may, inadvertently, have misled the House about the circumstances in which the United Kingdom and three other states came to have 81 seats instead of 80, which was the original allocation. In Northern Ireland only, under an agreement arrived at by a previous Administration, there was to be election by proportional representation. That required three seats. An additional seat, therefore, was given to the United Kingdom by the
1334
EEC, which, of course, also gave an additional seat to the three other countries with parity. It is not strictly correct to say that the EEC has not influenced the internal distribution of seats in part of one of the component nations.
Mr. Rifkind: The right hon. Gentleman has made a valid point, which I unreservedly accept.
There will be no change in Denmark's own representation, and the Danish Government may make their own arrangements about the allocation of the seats. They will remain entitled to their present allocation on the basis of the population of metropolitan Denmark.
Speaking on behalf of the Opposition, the hon. Member for Livingston suggested that Greenland had achieved a very good deal in that it was being given £15 million to leave the Community. That is not an accurate description of what has happened. The £15 million is not compensation for leaving the Community. It is a payment specifically in respect of the access which the Community will continue to have to Greenland waters. The arrangement is very similar to arrangements already existing between the Community and many third countries, whereby a sum of money is paid in return for access for Community fishing vessels. Greenland will, of course, continue to have access to the Community for its own fishing products.
Mr. Cook: Could the Minister explain what financial compensation the United Kingdom receives for having granted the Common Market access to British fisheries?
Mr. Rifkind: That is a somewhat foolish question. We are dealing with the withdrawal of Greenland and the Community's entitlement—which it was anxious to maintain—to fish in Greenland waters. If the Community wishes to fish in waters which are not part of the Community, it is right and proper that there should be some quid pro quo. The hon. Gentleman may speculate about the implications of that for other territories that might wish to withdraw from the Community, but such speculations are not relevant to the order.
Until now, Greenland has received £19 million from the European development fund. Overall, therefore, less money will be spent on Greenland after its withdrawal.
Mr. Marlow: Many of my hon. Friends are worried about the loss of territory involved in Greenland's withdrawal. When does my hon. Friend believe that we are likely to see any new territories—such as Spain and Portugal—joining the Community?
Mr. Rifkind: Negotiations with Spain and Portugal are at an advanced stage, and we hope that the proposed date of January 1986 for their accession will be adhered to.
I hope that I have responded to the points which have been raised. I commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Change in Status of Greenland) Order 1984, which was laid before this House on 22nd October, be approved.

Data Protection
Queen's Recommendation having been signified.
6.9 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. David Waddington): I beg to move,
That the Data Protection Registrar shall, from 20th September 1984, be paid a salary which shall be the same as that payable from time to time to a Deputy Secretary of the Civil Service.
The motion needs only a brief instroduction. The need for it is found in paragraph 3 of schedule 2 of the Data Protection Act 1984. The Act provides for the appointment of a data protection registrar who is to be paid such salary and pension
"as may be specified by a resolution of the House of Commons."
The money is provided out of the Consolidated Fund.
Many hon. Members will be aware that the first data protection registrar, Mr. Eric Howe, has now been appointed by Her Majesty under letters patent and took up post on 20 September. Although Mr. Howe has already started work and has set about the formidable task of planning for and setting up his office with diligence and enthusiasm, he has not yet received remuneration as there is no authority to make payments out of the Consolidated Fund until the House has set the level of his salary and an effective resolution has been made. Because of the summer recess, it has not been possible to proceed with this before and we must ensure that arrangements are made to pay Mr. Howe as soon as possible. Hon. Members will see that the resolution is backdated to 20 September in conformity with paragraph 3(3) of schedule 2.
We believe that the registrar's salary should be the same as that which is payable from time to time to a deputy secretary in the Civil Service. Mr. Howe has said that he would be content with such remuneration. For the record, the current salary of a deputy secretary is £35,278, and it will increase to £36,500 from 1 November. The registrar's pension arrangements must also be fixed by a resolution of the House.
In accordance with the normal arrangements for an appointment such as this, Mr. Howe has been given two basic options. He may either choose an arrangement on the basis of his existing pension or be pensioned by analogy with the principal Civil Service pension scheme. He is still considering the matter. As is often the case in such circumstances, it is taking a little time to work out all of the details of the two options. We are therefore not yet able to propose a resolution concerning Mr. Howe's pension, but that should not prevent us from setting his salary now. Once his pension arrangements have been sorted out, a separate resolution will be proposed.
I believe that the proposed salary is fair remuneration for what will be a difficult and onerous job. It is acceptable to the newly appointed registrar and I therefore commend the motion to the House.
6.12 pm
Dr. John Marek: I am somewhat surprised that the registrar has accepted his post. I suppose that the House will have to pass the motion—if we do not we might have a resignation. If we halved his salary he might not be prepared to do the job. I think that £35,000 is a lot of money and doubt whether many people are worth that much. I should be much happier if we paid him somewhat less. The Minister told us in the Committee stage of what is now the Data Protection Act 1984 that the Government
1336
would look for a person of high calibre to fill the post. Salary scales in Britain demand that we pay such a person about £35,000 a year. However, I am not happy that the public must pay so much to get a person of high calibre.
I should like to examine the duties of the registrar to ascertain whether he should receive this salary. His duties are set out in section 36. Section 36(1) provides:
"It shall be the duty of the Registrar so to perform his functions under this Act as to promote the observance of the data protection principles by data users and persons carrying on computer bureaux."
The Act lists eight data protection principles. They do not involve matters that the registrar will be able to clear up after his mail on a weekday morning. It is a lengthy business that demands much concentration. The Government originally said that the registrar's office would employ 20 staff. I read in The Times of 17 October that more than 40 are to be recruited. The Government are already 100 per cent. out. It is now sinking in that data protection is not a trivial matter and that it will require much expertise.
If the registrar is to be paid such a large salary he must do the job properly. There are 200,000 computer systems that hold personal data to be registered. The registrar must do that properly. He cannot merely respond to applications for registration by return of post and without investigation. I suspect that that will happen initially but if we are to pay someone so much he should scrutinise the systems that are being registered to establish whether they pass the data protection principles. I am sure that in perhaps 98 per cent. of cases there will be no problem. The problem is to and the 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. of sharks or fly-by-nights. A good registrar will earn his money by spotting that 1 per cent. or 2 per cent.
Section 36(2) provides:
"The Registrar may consider any complaint that any of the data protection principles or any provision of this Act has been or is being contravened … and where the Registrar considers any such complaint he shall notify the complainant of the result of his consideration and of any action which he proposes to take."
If the registrar does his job properly he will not simply write letters saying, "Dear Sir/Madam, I have seen your complaint. It is very interesting but unfortunately I have neither the staff, nor the facilities nor the capability to do anything about it." If that happened we should not pass the motion, as we would be throwing money out of the window. The registrar should have the facilities to investigate complaints, to make recommendations and to put things right.
Section 36(3) provides:
"The Registrar shall arrange for the dissemination in such form and manner as he considers appropriate of such information as it may appear to him expedient to give to the public about the operation of this Act"
That function could be performed cursorily. The registrar could say that the register is available in his office in Manchester, and that is it. It would be nice if the registrar took this duty seriously and perhaps thought about making the register available in public libraries. If he could not: do that an abridged version would do.
Section 36(4) provides:
"It shall be the duty of the Registrar, where he considers it appropriate to do so, to encourage trade associations or other bodies representing data users to prepare, and to disseminate to their members, codes of practice for guidance in complying with the data protection principles."
Many bodies are now considering codes of practice, not on a statutory, but on a voluntary basis. There will be many different codes of practice and some will apply to

1337
only one firm. Again, it is not a simple matter to look at complicated documents to see whether those codes of practice are fair to data users and subjects—data users, subjects and people working in computer bureaux will be involved. If the registrar is to earn his salary he must do that job properly. He must scrutinise the minutiae of the codes of practice to ensure that they satisfy the data protection principles and him, as registrar, that they are the types of codes which should be operated.
Finally section 36(5) states:
"The Registrar shall annually lay before each House of Parliament a general report on the performance of his functions under this Act".
If he is to earn his large salary, I hope that he will not be muzzled. I hope that people in Government Departments or the police will not deter him from mentioning certain matters because, for example, they affect national security. Clearly, if matters affect national security they cannot come before the House, but in marginal cases people may try it on. I hope that the registrar will be independent, make up his own mind and be fearless in deciding what he will report to Parliament. If he wishes to report a matter to Parliament, I hope that he will not be dissuaded from doing so.
If we are to pay such a high salary and have a person of high calibre, we must give him the facilities necessary for him to show his high calibre and to exercise it in the interests of the country.
6.22 pm
Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I shall not detain the House for long because we want to move on to other matters. The job of registrar is important. I share the reservations of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) about having to pay such a large salary from public funds, and agree that that does not mean that we should regard the job as being anything less than one of considerable importance.
The Minister knows of my deep and severe reservations about the Bill. We opposed it on Third Reading because we believe that it was inadequate for the tasks that would have to be done. Therefore, it comes as no surprise to me that the Government's original figure for the number of people needed to run the registrar's office has already been doubled. In due course it will have to be considerably increased beyond the current figure of 40. In that sense the job will be larger, and the post will grow considerably in importance.
The sheer inadequacy of the Act means that the burden which rests on the registrar will be greater. He will have to use his judgment about matters which contravene, not the detail of the Act, which is inadequate, but the spirit behind the concept of data protection. Not only will his staff inevitably increase but the Government may come under pressure as the inadequacy of the legislation becomes evident. They may have to think about amending the legislation sooner than expected, or to expand the job of the registrar. The inadequacies of the Bill and the job of the registrar are already becoming evident in ways which were mentioned on Third Reading.
I draw the Minister's attention to the article in Computing of 13 September 1984. It points out that councils are complaining that the Act is becoming largely unworkable and that the resources which the Government
1338
are giving them so that they will conform with the Bill and not come to the attention of the registrar are wholly inadequate for that task. That complaint does not come only from Left-wing councils—far from it. The chief complainer is Birmingham city council. The assistant city treasurer, Jeff Pipe, said that the sum received to enable the council to conform to the Act in such a way as not to fall under the scrutiny of the registrar "is a laughable figure". The article further points out that the Act is proving extremely difficult to operate and does not clearly define its objectives.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but he is straying wide of the subject. We are dealing with the registrar's salary. It would be appropriate for him to make passing references to the registrar's duties in relation to his salary.
Mr. Ashdown: I hear your admonition and accept it, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The size of the post of registrar will grow and therefore we must have someone of seniority. The weight which will rest on his shoulders will grow considerably in future. I am glad that the Government attach importance to that. That is shown by the seniority of the gentleman whom they chose to fill the post. Although I may be unhappy about the total sum, for those reasons I agree with the Government that the seniority of the person reflects the duties that will come to rest on the registrar in due course.
6.27 pm
Mr. Denis Howell: I have a growing incomprehension about the attitude of the alliance parties on this matter and, indeed, on other matters. The Social Democratic party voted for the Second Reading of the Data Protection Bill and played a constructive role in Committee but on Third Reading voted against the Bill—the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) certainly did—which his colleagues in Committee had said was acceptable.
Mr. Ashdown rose——
Mr. Howell: I shall give way in a moment but I have not yet finished with the hon. Gentleman. We are used to his peregrinations and the fact that he rides roughshod both in the House and at Liberal conferences. He throws to the winds all the logic, understanding and political acumen that we have come to expect from generations of Liberal politicians. We do not see those qualities in the heir apparant to the leadership of the Liberal party. After his antics on the Bill, I am glad to say that I doubt whether he will make that position.
Mr. Ashdown: The right hon. Gentleman is repeating the attack he made on me on Third Reading. On that occasion he was not courteous enough to give way to me and to substantiate his ridiculous allegations. Will the right hon. Gentleman read again the speech made by the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) on Third Reading? He said that if certain amendments were not made the Labour party could not vote for the Bill. Although those amendments were not made, the right hon. Gentleman called for a party vote in favour of the Bill and succeeded in persuading only five members of his party to vote with him in favour of the Bill. The rest sat on their hands or were conveniently absent.

1339
It was a disgraceful performance and a reversal of an original commitment, which he could not even bring his own party to support.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I hope that we can now get back to the straight and narrow and discuss the salary to be paid to the registrar.
Mr. Howell: There was no intellectual challenge in that interruption that need concern me now. I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not make attacks on him—just discerning observations.
I do not object to the numbers of staff that we have been told are being recruited; indeed, in this case the Government are redeeming their undertakings to the House. The Minister said in Committee and on Report that if it was found to be necessary to increase the staff beyond that which he believed was appropriate the Government would not hesitate to authorise adequate staff for this office. I assume that that is what they have done, and since we urged him to do so it would be extremely churlish if I did not recognise it now.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) for drawing attention to many of the matters to which we attached great importance in Committee, and my hon. Friend played a constructive role during the passage of the Bill. As he said, the registrar must be someone of the highest calibre — a man of independence and integrity—if he is to protect the liberties and the private information of our people. That is his most important charge in an age of an ever-increasing amount of data held on computers that can affect our citizens. Throughout our discussions hon. Members on both sides of the House mentioned that growing problem and the worries of individuals that no private and confidential information should get into the wrong hands.
We may have got it right. I share one view of the hon. Member for Yeovil: the Opposition would not have approached the problem in this way. Nevertheless, the Government chose to produce the Bill based on the principles contained within it.
The first task of Mr. Eric Howe will be to ensure that the principles of the Act are upheld by everyone, whatever the circumstances. That in itself is a formidable task. He must also oversee the codes of practice with which we became familiar during the passage of the Bill, not least in medicine and the social services. The registrar must also consider employment data, which worried us. Where there are exemptions, such as in the case of the police and the security services—we understand that and we debated it fully—he must ensure on behalf of the authorities that the security of the realm is properly maintained, and must ensure that there is adequate explanation and safeguards to a citizen whose access to data information is denied on the grounds of national security.
As the registrar must carry out all those tasks, he must be properly compensated. It is for the Government to judge the correct payment, although I should have thought that,
1340
having regard to the sophisticated duties of this officer, his proper compensation could have been related to that of judges and senior counsel, who have similar responsibilities. I have little information about salaries in private industry or in the judiciary at that level, but I assume that the Government have considered everything and believe that this salary is adequate. If so, I accept their judgment.
I believe passionately, as should all hon. Members, that public service should not be devalued in terms of remuneration, as we in the House often devalue our services to the nation when we deal with such matters. I welcome the fact that his salary will be fixed to a known appointment in the Civil Service—in this case the rank of deputy secretary. For such appointments, and in relation to Members' salaries, we should be consistent in deciding the appropriate rank in the Civil Service to which a salary should be linked. That would remove from the area of public debate much of what I believe to be the unnecessary friction that occurs. It is another reason for supporting the order.
All that it remains for me to do on behalf of the Opposition is to welcome Mr. Eric Howe's appointment and to wish him well. He has a formidable task to safeguard the liberties of our subjects and the rights of the nation, but I am sure that he will do so. It should be recorded that he will do so with the blessing of hon. Members on both sides of the House.
6.36 pm
Mr. Waddington: With the leave of the House, I shall reply briefly to the debate. All those who have spoken in the debate agree that this is an important Act of Parliament and that the registrar must perform important functions. Whenever we referred to the registrar in Committee we said that we were determined to appoint a man of high calibre and a person of integrity who could fulfil these onerous duties with distinction.
The motion deals only with the appropriate salary and £35,000 is a lot of money, but we looked for a man of high calibre and it was necessary to pay a fairly generous salary to get such a person. To put the salary into perspective, may I say that Mr. Howe earned £31,000 as the deputy director of the National Computing Centre. Often during our debates we compared the duties to be performed by the registrar with the duties performed by, for instance, the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration. I should remind the House that the latter earns £44,000 a year. His salary is on the level of that of a permanent secretary, whereas Mr. Howe's salary will be on the level of that of a deputy secretary.
With those few words, I once again commend the order to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That the Data Protection Registrar shall, from 20th September 1984, be paid a salary which shall be the same as that payable from time to time to a Deputy Secretary of the Civil Service.

Procedure
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure (House of Commons Paper No. 570) and agrees with the recommendations contained in paragraph 14.[Mr. Biffen.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Paul Dean): Mr. Speaker has asked me to suggest to the House that as part of the debate on motion No. 6 on procedure, it would be convenient also to discuss motion No. 7:

(1) That during the next Session Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate on one of the matters specified in paragraph (2) of this Order, he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has made such an announcement he may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.

(2) This Order shall apply to debates on:

(a) the second reading of public bills;

(b) matters selected under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) for consideration on allotted Opposition days; and

(c) motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker has selected the amendment to motion No. 7 in the name of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James).
6.38 pm
Sir Peter Emery: This short debate and the motion before the House arise from the first report of your Procedure Committee, Mr. Deputy Speaker, which not surprisingly is entitled "Short Speeches". I am grateful especially to the Leader of the House for arranging for this debate so rapidly after the publication of the report. The Committee is also pleased that the Government have considered it sensible to propose the exact recommendations of the Committee for adoption by the House. Those recommendations can be seen in the motion on the Order Paper.
The trials and tribulations through which ordinary Back-Bench Members must go in trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye in major debates is hard to understand by anyone unless that person has been a Member of this honourable House. The number of speeches torn up, deposited in the waste paper basket and never delivered because of lack of time in debates is more than legion. All this can be even more frustrating for the new Member—more frustrating perhaps than unrequited love for the young courtesan, although some of us may no longer fit into the category of young courtesan.
I wish to deal with one criticism which I have heard which suggests that these recommendations are another attempt to gag Members of Parliament. Nothing could be
further from the truth. Indeed, exactly the opposite are the facts. Paragraph 14 on page ix of the report clearly sets outthe position. It states:
"Our proposals are designed to seek ways of ensuring that as many Members as possible participate in debates whilst not preventing individual Members, for whatever reason, from having the opportunity to make longer speeches if they consider it necessary."
We accept immediately that this measure is limited and will mean that only two or four more Members will be called in the normal all-day major debates. None the less,
1342
we consider that this is worth while and believe that it will be particularly so for those Members who get called. Therefore, the Committee started by looking at the facts.
Consideration of the length of speeches has been given many times by many different Committees. After the last major review of procedures in 1977–78, the House accepted as an order, by a large majority, implementing an experiment that during the Second Reading of Bills Mr. Speaker might be able to apply a 10-minute limit on speeches between 7 pm and 9 pm. However, because there was no permanently appointed Procedure Committee, as there is at present, no assessment was ever made of the success or otherwise of that experiment, and it duly lapsed.
When the present Committee was set up by the House, its terms of reference specifically asked us to consider among other things
"the application of time limits on speeches".
I am particularly grateful to my colleagues on the Committee for enabling us to deal with this inquiry promptly. The Committee is indebted to Viscount Tonypandy, our previous Speaker, for his evidence and to Mr. Speaker for his informal advice.
Our proposals in the report allow us to build on the previous experiment in a way which we believe will command the widest measure of support in the House and which will be practicable. In many instances our proposals are similar to the previous experiment in the following ways—the restriction of speeches to 10 minutes during a two-hour period would be triggered by an announcement by Mr. Speaker that in the light of the number of members wanting to speak, the 10-minute rule would apply. This limited restriction would apply to only part of the debate, and paragraph 8 of the report sets out the arguments as to why this would actually be for two hours only. It would apply on Mondays to Thursdays.
We held this view, wishing to stay close to the previous experiment and believing that Private Members' Bills and time was a rather different ball game which could be considered by the Committee when it reviewed the success of our limited recommendations. These recommendations are put forward in a new Parliament for an experimental period of one year.
Our proposals this time move on from the previous experiment in that they apply not just to Second Reading debates but to full-day debates on Opposition Days and to substantive Government motions. In other words, they would apply to nearly all the major debates on the Floor of the House. They give Mr. Speaker the option of deciding whether the 10-minute restriction should apply between 6 pm and 8 pm or between 7 pm and 9 pm.
If the House approves the motion tonight, it is the Committee's intention to assess the working of the rule as to its time of operation and the range of debates to which it applies during the current session and then to make permanent recommendations to the House.
Although modest, our proposals go some way towards meeting the demand for a greater sense of fairness in debates in which many Members wish to take part. We must surely recognise that even with the slightly limited attendance tonight ours is, by world standards, an unusually large parliamentary assembly. It is not realistic to expect all those who wish to be called in every debate to be able to speak; but we believe that our proposals will lead to some increase in the number of Members who are called in the major debates in which they wish to participate.

1343
Our report makes it plain that we do not propose that rigid time limits should apply to all speeches. There are some who would like to see that, but we considered it essential to retain the traditional virtues of debate in this place which are admired in many other parliamentary democracies. Our proposals still safeguard the position of those Members who wish, for whatever reason—perhaps because they are spokesmen of other parties, groups, regions or Committees, or because they have a particular constituency or personal interest or a distinctive and complicated case to put forward—to speak for longer than 10 minutes during specific debates.
Paragraphs 11 and 12 of our report also refer to the length of speeches of Ministers, Front Bench spokesmen and Privy Councillors. There was a strong enough feeling to record that when the 10-minute rule is to apply, all speakers—Back-Bench and Front-Bench and Privy Councillors—should look to shortening their speeches in the interests of the House as a whole. In these instances my personal view is that Ministers should always instruct their Departments to prepare speeches of 20 to 25 minute length at a maximum, thereby allowing, even with interruptions, a speech of no longer than 30 minutes. Ministers may not realise how popular this could make them.
As I recommend this fairly modest proposal—in your absence, Mr. Speaker, I thanked you for the advice that you gave to the Committee—I ask all hon. Members to realise how much can actually be said in 10 minutes if one really tries. I am glad to say that I have now spoken for only nine minutes and 10 seconds.
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours rose——
6.48 pm
Mr. Donald Anderson: These recommendations, though modest, have been carefully considered and are well worth while for an experimental period. I fully support them.
6.49 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): It might be for the convenience of the House if I intervene at this stage and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) and those who served with him on the Procedure Committee for this report.
I start with a belief that a high level of frustration and dissatisfaction is inevitable for all who come to this House and take part in its proceedings. I believe that that would even have been experienced by previous generations of parliamentarians, many of whom came here more in a spectating role and less in a participating role than is true of this House of Commons. I also have an instinctive hostility to anything that tries to impose on our proceedings any more rigidity than we already possess.
Therefore, it is in that sense of agnosticism that I look at the report. I welcome its modesty, which has been underlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton, and, in particular, the emphasis that it is experimental and flexible and leave much to your discretion, Mr. Speaker.
It is in that cautious sense that I recommend it in a personal capacity, because this is truly a House of Commons occasion and, if there is to be a vote, it should be so seen.
1344
None the less, I do not wish the modesty of my welcome to detract from the fact that I believe that if we grasp the fact that many speeches are considerably enhanced by their brevity, we may, by one way and another, improve the general quality of debate in the Chamber.
I want to conclude on a point which I am sure that the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) was trying to establish when he sought to intervene. Any speech which is judged net of interruptions is possibly a speech that much diminished in its attractiveness to the House. Of course, it shows that it is foolish to have any preconceptions in terms of arithmetical times.
Above all, I must warn the House about what I suspect is a modish fashion for the length of ministerial speeches. I have no objection to ministerial speeches being shortened. I am sure that that would help us all. But once Ministers are given the protection that they need not give way because they have to abide by the convention that they will only speak for a certain time, we take from the House a most charming dimension of parliamentary blood sports—the ministerial speech coming adrift under interrogation. In this situation there is clearly both baby and bath water and I am sure that the House would like to view it in that way.
6.51 pm
Mr. Peter Shore: Like the Leader of the House, I approach the matter with a good deal of agnosticism. Certainly, I am no mad enthusiast for the proposition that is before us. Indeed, if it were not couched in terms of being a one-year experiment of a rather limited kind, I am rot at all sure that I would be speaking for it at all. Why? The argument is fairly obvious. The argument in favour of limiting people to 10 minutes is basically that more people can speak. Nobody objects to that statement of purpose. That is precisely the way in which the detailed propositions in paragraph 14 are introduced. It says:
"Our proposals are designed to seek ways of ensuring that as many Members as possible participate in debates".
However, there are other purposes in debate as well. They are that there should be a good debate, not an artificial debate, and that someone who has something worth saying should not be stopped and artificially restricted in the saying of it. It may be—not always, but it may be—that on the particular occasion that a Back Bencher speaks between the hours of 7 pm and 9 pm he has something of burning importance to say that should be heard. So have no doubt that there is a trade-off here. We shall lose something. We should be prepared to watch the experiment with that clearly in mind.
Mr. Eric Forth (Mid-Worcestershire): Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that another powerful reason in favour of the argument is that the restriction of speeches might discourage incoherent rambling and self-indulgent contributions and would encourage people to structure their speech in advance and produce a tight, taut argument?
Mr. Shore: I cannot be certain about that. It depends very much on how right hon. and hon. Members approach the question of addressing the House and with what seriousness and concentration they turn their minds to what they have to say. No automatic assumption can be made that, because Members have a limited time in which to speak, they will make better speeches.

1345
Having paraded my doubts, I must say that, like others, I think that a certain amount can be said in 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) who introduced the debate, nicely and neatly kept within the 10-minute self-imposed rule to good effect. I have not even bothered to look at the time and hon. Members saw how happily I gave way. But if I were self-conscious and worried about the time, that would be a draw back and I might well say precisely what a Minister might be tempted to say if he were so restricted, as the Leader of the House reminded us—that I have not the time.
Mr. John Home Robertson: Hon. Members do that anyway.
Mr. Shore: Yes, people do it anyway, but the temptation will be all the greater. Therefore, the spontaneity of debate is affected.
As I said, a lot can be said in 10 minutes. The hon. Member for Honiton has shown us that and my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) showed us even more succinctly. The Leader of the House did not exactly encroach beyond his 10 minutes, and I shall certainly do the same.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) who reminded me that the Gettysburg address takes exactly three minutes to read and I think that I would be right in saying that even the sermon on the mount can be got through in 12 minutes. Therefore, it is not an intolerable burden to impose 10-minute speeches on Members between the hours of 7 pm and 9 pm or 6 pm and 8 pm, according to the Speaker's guidance. I can only say that we must watch—and I am glad that we shall do so on this occasion—the experiment, monitor it and report back.
6.55 pm
Mr. Robert Rhodes James: At an appropriate moment I shall move an amendment which extends the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House to Fridays.
I fully appreciate the remarks made about the high level of frustration. My amendment is logical, intelligent and sensible and, therefore, will perhaps not commend itself to the vast majority of the House, particularly because my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, when talking about Mr. Gladstone this week, referred to 1886 rather than 1881.
One should not underestimate the frustration and difficulties that Back Benchers have. Last Friday, which is supposed to be an easy day, 40 hon. Members wished to speak in a debate on higher education. When we have public Bills and other contentious issues, many hon. Members also wish to speak briefly.
My proposal will ensure only that between the hours of 11.30 am and 1 pm on Fridays nine Back Benchers will have the opportunity to address the House. It is a modest proposal which follows on from the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). It is important and it will give to that minority, the Back Benchers of the House, the opportunity to express their views on major issues.
6.57 pm
Mr. A. J. Beith: I am attracted by the suggestion of the hon. Member for Cambridge (Mr.
1346
Rhodes James), knowing full well that the discretion which you have, Mr. Speaker, in applying the limits, could readily be applied so that it was not allowed to intervene in cherished traditions on the way in which private Members' and other business is handled.
As the hon. Gentleman said, many important debates take place on Fridays to which exactly the same problems apply. Those problems, on Fridays and other days, reflect to some extent on the business management of the House. There have clearly been many occasions when those responsible for the presentation and timing of its business have given insufficient time to major issues and, conversely, well-known occasions on which a large amount of time has been allowed and hon. Members have been sought, even press-ganged, into taking part extensively in debates which need never have lasted as long. We all know that that happens and we should all apply ourselves to trying to ensure that the time of the House is used more wisely.
I am with the Leader of the House in his defence of the right—nay, the necessity—of Ministers not to be under too much restriction of time in their opening of debates. I support the general admonition of Front Bench speakers in the report, but it is important that they should be subjected to intervention and not be able to avoid that pressure. That is partly because there are times when the sheer weakness of their case should be exposed and partly because when presenting, for example, the Second Reading of a Bill, there are details and problems about the Bill that should be explained as the speech goes on and on which hon. Members can press the Minister for a fuller explanation. Such interventions often avoid the necessity to make a speech later in the debate. On many occasions I have felt that a ministerial speech of 45 or 50 minutes has been fully justified.
I direct my criticism at the Opposition Front Bench, although not in any unpleasant or even partisan spirit. On many occasions, Opposition Front Bench speakers have been under the mistaken impression that to speak at length strengthens the effectiveness of their case. They speak at great length even on statements. On many recent occasions a ministerial statement of three or four minutes has been followed by a counter-statement of many times that length. It has been considerably less, rather than more, effective, and has probably led to a number of Opposition Back Benchers being excluded from the exchanges. That also happens during debates. That admonition should be heeded by the Opposition Front Bench.
The report quite properly recognises the position of those who must speak occasionally for more than 10 minutes. For example, the spokesman for a minority party may wish to present a case as fully as the case presented by the Opposition spokesman. There is no logical reason why, if the Labour party presents a case that requires 30 minutes, the Liberal, SDP or some other minority party may take only 10 minutes to deploy their case. It may be that, on occasion, we might make more effective use of 10 minutes than of 30 minutes. However, the Committee rightly recognised that the presentation of a view by a party or a Select Committee may take more than 10 minutes. That is the purpose of your discretion, Mr. Speaker. You can make provision for that. However, an hon. Member may wish to speak from the Liberal Bench between 7 o'clock and 9 o'clock, and it would be proper to impose a 10-minute limit. I am glad that the Committee recognised that.

1347
It would be wrong if the House wished to go further along that road and preserve a pattern of debate that is not the pattern of debate taking place in the country. We must not suggest that a Government view takes 30 or 35 minutes to deploy, that the Labour Front Bench view will take the same time but that any other views, from whatever quarter, must be expressed in a much shorter time. I am grateful to the Committee for not taking that view.
In the report of the proceedings of the Committee there is an account of a division that carries with it the seeds of future trouble. Against my advice, the Committee decided to defer the consideration of Opposition time until it had conducted other business. Inevitably, that will mean that it will be some time before we come to the contentious issue of how Opposition time is divided. We shall shortly embark upon another Session and that issue is bound to raise its head. The Labour party has 19 days of Opposition time at its disposal. During the past two Sessions, it has offered one day to the alliance, thus taking for itself eighteen-nineteenths of the available time. By no standard is that just, reasonable, or a recognition of the debate taking place in the country. I shall not pursue that argument tonight as there will be many other occasions to do so. However, I regret that the Committee did not give the House the benefit of its advice at an early stage in this Parliament. It would have saved the House a lot of trouble had it done so.
7.3 pm
Mr. Richard Ottaway: When I came to the House last year from the sanity of the outside world, I was somewhat amazed by the set of rules for debating in the Chamber. In the spirit of the debate, I shall keep my comments brief.
I support the reforms proposed by the Select Committee, but theydo not go far enough. The principle should be carried into other sectors of our procedures, such as Report stage, Third Reading, Committee stage and motions. We should try to outlaw two sorts of speech. One is the speech made by hon. Members whose brevity is not their strong point. There is an old saying that if one cannot say what one has to say in 10 minutes, one should write a book. During the proceedings on the Police and Criminal Evidence Bill on Monday, 21 Members spoke on racial discrimination in the space of 152 minutes, an average of seven minutes each. That established that it is possible to restrict speeches to 10 minutes, and the proposed rule would encourage more such debates.
The second speech that should be outlawed is the filibuster. I had the unpleasant experience of seeing the Nottinghamshire County Council Bill talked out, not on one evening but on three evenings. While I do not deny the right of anyone to use the rules to his advantage, that manner of proceeding misunderstands the objectives of this place. If someone is opposed to legislation, the remedy is through the ballot box, not the filibuster. It is worth noting that in the European Parliament anyone opposed to legislation has one and a half minutes speaking time for what it calls an explanation procedure.
For those reasons, I support the motion, but I hope that when the experiment is reviewed my points will be taken into account.
7.5 pm
Mr. Hugh Brown: The hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. Ottaway) is the only
1348
speaker who has tried to give a reason for the introduction of a ten minutes rule. I am following a worthy precedent in taking up remarks made by the previous speaker. The trend in the House, especially among new Members, is to come to the Chamber with a well-researched, 10-minute speech that has been already handed out to the local press. While I recognise that that is part and parcel of the purpose of making a speech, it destroys the atmosphere of real debate when carried to excess.
I am a little quizzical about the magic figure of 10 minutes. I, too, am an agnostic about the whole purpose of the recommendation. Brevity is marvellous, provided it is in someone else's speech, and especially when waiting to make one's own speech. No one can match the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), and I shall not try to do so.
What is a long speech by a Back Bencher? I know that you, Mr. Speaker, have a direct interest in this debate. I do not think that there are many instances of long speeches after 6 o'clock or 7 o'clock. If a debate is interesting, hon. Members are queueing to join in. I am more concerned about the declining attendances in the Chamber. I do not understand the reason for the proposed change. Is it to allow one or two more hon. Members to contribute, or is it to improve the quality of the debate in the Chamber and, therefore, attract more Members?
It is not a bad thing to listen to someone else's speech. I do that regularly, and I find it interesting. I assume that the recommendation completely carries out the suggestion in paragraph 14 of the Select Committee report. I assume that it applies to all hon. Members, whether Privy Councillors or leaders of Opposition parties, and that it is indiscriminate if Mr. Speaker says that he is applying the rule to a particular debate. If that is so—I shall not be pressing this issue to a Division—it is difficult to oppose such a meek and mild suggestion that there should be an experiment for a year followed by a review. In any event, discretion will be with Mr. Speaker. In terms of fundamental changes being recommended, this is something of a non-event.
In my experience, some of the most interesting debates take place when there is a free vote or when the issue is regarded as a House of Commons matter. We see this evening one of the largest attendances that we are likely to witness in the Chamber at 7 o'clock. I do not think that there were as many Members present last night at the same time even for the debate on unemployment.
I do not welcome the proposition that is before us, but I accept it halfheartedly, if only because it is part of the process of trying to enhance the prestige of the Chamber. As discretion will rest with Mr. Speaker, I am happy to accept it.
7.11 pm
Dr. Alan Glyn: I welcome the motion, although it does not go as far as the motion which I have had on the Order Paper for a long time. At least it will give the House the chance in the next year to assess how the recommended procedure works in practice. Of course, we should like to know whether it will apply to Privy Councillors. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery), the Chairman of the Committee, for raising the issue so quickly. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House on bringing

1349
the matter before the House. I think that it will give Back-Bench Members a better chance to participate in our debates.
The motion which I have been placing on the Order Paper for a long time recommends that speeches should be confined to 15 minutes except by leave of the House, which would meet the point of the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore). If that provision were introduced, it would enable a Member with a particular interest, or who represented a particular faction in the House, to continue speaking for longer than 10 minutes if Mr. Speaker exercised his discretion accordingly. The issue would be left always to the discretion of Mr. Speaker. Perhaps that is something that we should consider in future.
My motion was considered when it appeared on the Order Paper in 1970 with more than 100 signatures. It was rejected, but I received a nice letter from the Chairman of the Committee which considered it. Throughout the years I have ensured that it has appeared on the Order Paper so that Members are made aware that there are ways of allowing more Members to speak in our debates. I am grateful to those who have supported it.
The words of Viscount Tonypandy were appropriate when he said that the procedures that we are discussing might help to remove some of the frustrations which Back Benchers suffer. It is especially important that such a system should be introduced when there is one party with a large majority, which means that its Members have a much more limited chance on a one-to-one basis of having their say.
I hope that the experiment will prove a success. If it does, I hope that it will be extended. If it is extended to all speakers at the discretion of Mr. Speaker, a Member who has a particular interest will be allowed to continue speaking by leave of the House. We would thus achieve the object of the 10-minute speech and exceptional circumstances would be met by the exercise of Mr. Speaker's discretion.
7.16 pm
Mr. John Mc William: I have much enjoyed serving on the Procedure Committee under the chairmanship of the hon. Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery). It has been an enlightening experience and I am now much more informed about the way in which the House operates. I agree basically with my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Provan (Mr. Brown). I have been motivated throughout by the desire not to see the rights of individual Members further eroded.
It has been alleged that if we readopted the earlier experimental procedure more Back Benchers would be able to participate in our debates. The Procedure Committee's report is directed to ascertaining whether that will happen in practice. It is unfortunate that when the previous experiment was conducted we were not in a position to compare like with like. We hope now to introduce an experiment that will enable us objectively to assess whether Members have more or less opportunity to have their say within the constraints that we are asking you, Mr. Speaker, wisely to apply. The proposition must surely commend itself to all hon. Members because we want objectively to make an assessment.
1350
It is my instinct to defend the rights of Back Benchers. I want to defend the rights of all hon. Members and that has been the view of the Procedure Committee. The hon. Member for Honiton, the right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) and I have expressed concern about hon. Members' rights. It has been alleged that the proposed limitation would enable more Back Benchers to participate in our debates and it is our desire to ascertain whether that is right.
The hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) is not right in his assertion that the Labour Opposition have eighteen nineteenths of the Supply Days. The Labour party is not the only Opposition party in this place. There are Opposition parties other than the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party. The fact is that other Opposition parties have been allocated time. The previous Select Committee took that into account when it decided to reduce the number of Opposition days. I had the privilege of being a member of that Committee. Some of the Committee's other recommendations were not implemented and that reduction may not necessarily be entirely relevant in terms of what the House has seen fit to introduce. I do not detract from the argument of the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed, but I suggest that it is an issue that merits further consideration.
I ask all hon. Members to accept that the intention of all members of the Procedure Committee is to defend the rights of hon. Members from further erosion. It wants to ascertain whether those who advocate reducing the duration of speeches to 10 minutes are right or wrong.
7.18 pm
Mr. Roger Freeman: I am not persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton (Sir P. Emery) or my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House. I make my brief contribution to this debate from the vantage point of a new Member. There are two reasons why I am not persuaded. The first relates to the quality of debate that exists at present and that which is likely to exist under this new rule. My hon. Friend the Member for Honiton argued that, with this new rule, we might get in one, or possibly two, extra speeches from Back Benches. I would argue that we must look to the qualitative argument in addition to the quantitive one. I suggest to my hon. Friend in all humility that, with a 10-minute rule in operation, with the best will in the world, new Members will not give way to interventions. It is hard enough as a new Member to participate sensibly in a debate by giving way and responding in an intelligent fashion. With a 10-minute rule, I fear that no interventions will be granted by Back Benchers during the two-hour period. I cannot foresee any way in which injury time could be taken out for interventions in a sensible and practical fashion. Interventions would be counted within the 10 minutes.
For the quantitative benefit of getting in one or two extra speeches, the House would suffer qualitatively in terms of contributions. I was always brought up to believe that this was a debating Chamber—not one where we have a serious of speeches.
Sir Peter Emery rose——
Mr. Freeman: I am loth to give way, as I am making an extremely short speech.
Sir Peter Emery: I intervene just for the sake of accuracy. I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. When

1351
the experiment was carried through the period of the 1979–80 Parliament it was interesting that, even with the limitation of 10-minute speeches, hon. Members gave way. Part of my hon. Friend's argument does not hold water historically.
Mr. Freeman: I accept that, but I point out that during the debate on the Rates Bill, I and many other hon. Members were frustrated at not being called. Under a voluntary restraint procedure, without the operation of a 10-minute rule, there was an excellent debate during which a great number of hon. Members were called. I have gone over that debate and tried to see how many extra speakers would have been called had a 10-minute rule operated. I was hard pushed to calculate more than one or, at the outside, two extra speakers. That happened under a restraint procedure, based upon Mr. Speaker's appeal to hon. Members. That system seemed to work well.
The second reason why I am not persuaded by the arguments of my hon. Friend the Member for Honiton is that I think that the rule would discriminate against Back Benchers.
Mr. Rhodes James: Oh, no!
Mr. Freeman: The rule would discriminate against Back Benchers collectively, because I believe that the real perpetrators of lengthy speeches are seen before 7 pm. Appeals for brevity might more correctly be directed to Front Benchers and Privy Councillors. By imposing a limit upon Back Benchers, one is directing the rules and regulations at the wrong class of speaker. Once again, it is an example of the poor bloody infantry being singled out for attack when the real culprits are the general staff.
7.22 pm
Mr. David Winnick: Like the hon. Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman), I must confess that I am not over-enthusiastic about the proposals, but unlike him I think that there are arguments that we must believe in accepting this report. In some circumstances, so many hon. Members wish to contribute to a debate that a time limit of some type seems to be almost inevitable. We must accept that now, unlike previous times and previous centuries, virtually all hon. Members wish to speak—the only exception being Government Whips. In previous centuries, it was not unknown for a large number—perhaps the majority—of Members of Parliament not to participate in debates. It was never expected that they would speak. The time of the House was taken up by the oratory of the great stars, who certainly took more than 10 minutes to put their arguments. We are, therefore, in a different ball game.
One of the reasons why I believe a time limit is necessary is found in what is described as a day's debate. That is a misnomer. Rarely does a day's debate begin before 4 pm or shortly afterwards. Rarely does the day's debate begin immediately after Question Time. The reasons are obvious. There are private notice questions, statements, points of order—sometimes I am the guilty party—applications under Standing Order No. 10 and ten-minute Bills. On occasions, the day's debate can begin after 5 pm, although normally it begins at some time around 4.10 pm. If a debate begins at 4 pm or 4.10 pm, it will be after 5 pm before the two front Benches have finished.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was followed by the Chancellor of the
1352
Exchequer—not that we learnt much from the Chancellor—who finished his speech at 5.13 pm. So yesterday, Back Benchers had between 5.13 pm and 9 pm to contribute to the debate. In the main, there is time for perhaps 18 Back Benchers to speak before the replies begin—eight hon. Members from each side. We must recognise that as well as the humble back Benchers like myself, Privy Councillors on the Back Benches and hon. Members from minority parties wait to be called. We may find that in a so-called day's debate only six Back Benchers from the Labour Benches were called.
I have looked at yesterday's important debate on unemployment. Altogether, seven Labour Members of Parliament were called to speak on the major issue of unemployment, which affects all our constituencies. Going by what you said yesterday, Mr. Speaker, before the debate started a large number of Labour and Conservative Members wrote and asked whether they could be called. Of the seven Labour Members who spoke in yesterday's debate, one—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry)—had to limit himself to three minutes. One cannot make much of a case in three minutes, although my hon. Friend did well. I feel therefore, that there is a case for some kind of limitation. I hope that that limitation is not applied frequently and that there will be a great deal of restraint on your part, Mr. Speaker, in imposing such restraint. Given a choice of the times available for speaking, I would rather have 6 pm to 8 pm than 7 pm to 9 pm and my reasons are pretty obvious.
I should like to raise other matters. I hope that in raising the first point I shall not be misunderstood by you, Mr. Speaker. Should the alliance—which organises itself as one group and constantly says to the county} that its members are blood brothers and one group in Parliament although it has not had a formal amalgamation—be treated as two separate parties in debates? In effect, Opposition time is taken by a member from the Social Democratic party and the Liberal party, and the next speaker in the debate is from the Government side. That does not always happen, but when it does it makes inroads into the amount of time left for Labour Members of Parliament.
On another point would it be so bad—I hope that this will not be misunderstood—for a list of speakers to be published beforehand? The Procedure Committee report comes down heavily against that proposal. As I understand it, a list of speakers is put up in another place. The argument against having a list of speakers is that, if an hon. Member knows that his chances of being called are remote, he will not stay in the Chamber. I am not convinced by that argument. In practice—I hope that I am not causing Mr. Speaker any embarrassment—we ask Mr. Speaker about our chances.
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I don't.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover—Simon Pure—does not, but most of us who have more human failings and weaknesses do so, if many Labour Members wish to speak.
Mr. Skinner: You mean you grovel.
Mr. Winnick: I have never grovelled in my life. I certainly do not need any lectures from my hon. Friend. I should be the last one to grovel to anyone.
Mr. Skinner: You are grovelling now.
Mr. Winnick: My hon. Friend knows my reaction to another remark that he made in December 1980.
Mr. Skinner: I know, when you grovelled to Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Winnick: At least I do not grovel to the media, like some I could mention.
It is pretty agonising to find that 12, 15 or 20 colleagues want to be called and we have no idea of our chances of speaking. We ask you, Mr. Speaker, as I know Conservative Members do. What would be the harm of experimenting with a list? One of the drawbacks might be that we should be unable to negotiate although I do not know that we can negotiate now. If a list is drawn up the chance of being called in a different batting order is somewhat remote. That is a weakness. If a list were published, one would not be able, I suppose to see you, Mr. Speaker, or the occupants of the Chair and change the batting order. There is a case—I am not arguing it strongly—for publishing a list so that we do not have to do what we do, and I make no apologies for doing it.
At the beginning of my remarks, I mentioned the pressure that there was to speak. It is expected that most of us will speak. Why not? We come here to put a point of view. I know that I am elected to put the point of view of those whom I represent—working people. If I did not do so there would hardly be any point in being here.
I am convinced that if television were introduced—I am not saying that I am the strongest opponent of television here—the pressure to speak would be even greater. Prime Minister's Question Time has been altered dramatically as a result of radio. It may well be that in time we shall have television, but I have yet to make up my mind about it. However, I know that if we were to bring the cameras into the Chamber there would be enormous pressure to be here and to speak; otherwise we should be criticised.
I do not argue with a great deal of enthusiasm for the experiment, but for the reasons that I have given, I believe that the Committee has probably come to the right conclusion.
7.31 pm
Mr. Tony Favell: I listened carefully to my hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). My experience is contrary to his views. I support the proposal, and I shall support the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James). There are far too many occasions when hon. Members sit in the Chamber for five or six hours with an important contribution to make but are unable to say a word, never mind make a short speech. I believe that that is worse than someone being cut short after 10 minutes.
My experience as a new Member has shown that those hon. Members who have been here for years and who have the greatest reputation, not just among new Members but among the older, are those who are clear and concise. Those who are not merely clear the Chamber.
7.32 pm
Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: The Select Committee is to be congratulated on the report. It gives me cause to reflect on what happened to me when I was elected to the House in 1979. I, with many of my hon. Friends, came into the Chamber and witnessed what angered many of us on that occasion—a stream of
1354
speakers being called, invariably led by Privy Councillors who to us at that time appeared to have a privileged position in terms of their right to speak.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek), who has had to return to his constituency, would, if he had caught your eye, Mr. Speaker, have drawn your attention to the debate on Government policy that took place on 31 July this year. He would have referred to the allocation of time, which is what this debate is about, and the proportion of time given to Front Bench spokesmen, Ministers, Back Benchers and Privy Councillors. During a debate that took five hours and 40 minutes, 45 per cent. of the time was allocated to Front Bench spokesmen and Ministers. Privy Councillors were allocated 25 per cent. That made a total of 70 per cent. Only 25 per cent. of the debate was allocated to the further 500 Members who, I believe, have equal rights during our debates.
I remember that I felt aggrieved when I was first elected and raised the matter with a number of my colleagues in the Tea Room. Amongst them was a good friend of mine, Mr. Bob Cryer, the former Member for Keighley. He said, "Dale, there is a simple way to deal with the problem. You forget Supply days, Government motions, Second Reading debates and you concentrate on Third Readings, Report stages, and Finance Bill Committee stages on the Floor of the House, and you have a feast. You will find that throughout the year you can enjoy your parliamentary life much more by being able to listen to others speak, because, invariably, on a tense Supply day"—invariably it is tense as everyone waits to speak—"people are not listening." There is a lesson in that for us all, but that does not mean that I wish to oppose the experiment. I see it as an experiment, but I have one reservation which is the point that was raised by the Leader of the House as to what happens with interventions.
One of the great joys of debating in the Chamber is what happens when there are interventions. They are the meat of our debates. The cut and thrust of parliamentary debate is dependent upon the quality of the interventions and the way in which some hon. Members are able to probe and expose inconsistencies in the case being put forward by the proponent of any argument.
I believe that this experiment, as it has been construed in the form in which it is being presented to the House, may well diminish to some extent the quality of our debates. I do not believe that the motion precludes you, Mr. Speaker, from taking into account the fact that those interventions are a vital part of our debates. In your wisdom you might wish to take into account the length of those interventions and, perhaps, allow a little flexibility as to what constitutes 10 minutes to ensure that we all enjoy the richness of what we believe to be some of the finest debates in the country.
7.36 pm
Mr. John Browne: I agree with one of the sentiments expressed by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). It pointed to the percentage of time allocated in the debates. They are telling figures. But I disagree with him about interventions. The evidence shows that when this experiment was carried out before, it did not discourage interventions all that much.
I believe that the present experiment which is targeted at a certain time of the day for the later, mainly Back-Bench speeches is discriminatory and I agree about that with my

1355
hon. Friend the Member for Kettering (Mr. Freeman). I propose that the experiment be adopted for all Back-Bench speeches including Privy Councillors, and that the opening speeches of Ministers should be limited, like replies, to 30 minutes.
I agree with the hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick), who spoke of a list system. It does not give a true reflection of the modern day to have hon. Members waiting in the Chamber for two days during two-day debates. They prepare a speech and wait two days but do not get called. That is wasteful. We should move towards a list system which would reflect the modern age. Members would have a reasonable target at which to aim and would know whether they were likely to be called.
The reporting of the House has been mentioned. Hansard's reporting of debates is extremely good and fair because there is no editing. What worries me about BBC reporting in the Chamber and hence television, is that there is editing, and that means great political power. I should support the introduction of television into the Chamber but not while there is heavy editing, because that is an enormous encroachment of unrepresentative, unelected, political power.
I support the motion but not the amendment.
7.39 pm
Mr. John Home Robertson: I am one of those masochists who voluntarily spends time in the Chamber listening to debates. I have a great deal of sympathy with you, Mr. Speaker, and the Deputy Speakers who have the misfortune to be compelled to sit through long debates.
I acknowledge that there is a problem and that there are some people who go on at some length and are inconsiderate to some of their colleagues on both sides of the House.
I remember an occasion when you, Mr. Speaker, made an effort to penalise one side of the House because a particular hon. Member on that side had spoken for rather too long. I know because I suffered from it. It was my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), speaking on the summer Adjournment, in connection with the Falkland islands. It was a very interesting speech but he went on at some length. As a consequence, you, Mr. Speaker, called two hon. Members from the other side of the House before you called me. I felt mildly aggrieved at the time because it was not my fault. That was one way of tackling the problem and it had some effect. I had better not dwell too much on my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, who is a very dear friend.
As we all know, we have the problem of people who abuse their opportunties in this House. The Select Committee's proposal is useful and I should like to give it a fair wind, but I am worried that it builds into the Standing Orders, Mr. Speaker, the existence of your list of speakers. The motion is that
"Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate"
a certain procedure will be followed. Presumably, at the commencement of public business, no one has yet had an opportunity to rise in his place and seek to catch your eye. The only way in which you can know that hon. Members want to catch your eye is when they have written to you, and you have a list on your shelf. I am a little worried about that. Some of us have misgivings about the existence
1356
of that list and pecking order. Everyone has a quick look at it. If hon. Members find that they are not well placed on the list, they tend to leave and do not come back until the Division at 10 pm. It is a pity that the random element of trying to catch Mr. Speaker's eye does not seem to apply any longer. Perhaps that is a matter meriting further consideration in due course.
However, the proposal is flexible. You, Mr. Speaker, already have discretion in several matters. We have the so-called ten-minute Bills. I have heard speeches which have continued for rather more than 10 minutes when hon. Members have been seeking the leave of the House to introduce Bills.
The consequence of the proposal could affect the Scottish Grand Committee, and I should like to ask the Leader of the House about that. As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Scottish Grand Committee is a sort of hybrid Committee. It is not a Standing Committee such as those that deal with legislation. It is a Committee which deals with the Second Readings of Bills, with matter days and Estimates days, and business of that nature. As a consequence of the proposal, could similar restraints be imposed in the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees? I do not express a view on whether that would be a good or bad thing, but I wonder whether the proposal may have knock-on effects.
There are certain problems which always affect us when the House is dealing with Scottish affairs. As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are not many Scottish Conservative Back Benchers. Therefore, when the House is dealing with Scottish legislation or the Second Readings of Scottish Bills, we always have the rather unedifying spectacle of the Scottish Conservative Whip going out into the highways and byways to look for the hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker), on whom he knows he can rely to make his usual speech. Some of us have heard that speech on many occasions. It should not be necessary for the hon. Member for Tayside, North to be present at the Second Reading of every Scottish Bill and make that speech. Anything that can restrict the padding that is sometimes inserted into debates, particularly Scottish debates, will be most welcome.
The motion embodies a useful proposal, and I am grateful to the Select Committee on Procedure for bringing it before us. I think the House should give it a fair wind.
7.44 pm
Mr. Dennis Skinner: I want to put it on the record—[HON. MEMBERS: "Filibuster".] No, I shall not filibuster. I just want to put on the record that I am amazed at the number of people on our side of the House, in particular on the Back Benches, who have adopted the attitude that the proposal is not a bad idea and that we should give it a fair run. Most of those present on the Opposition Benches are the type of people who would be seen here at 1 am and 2 am, fighting against the Government, doing the Opposition's job. I just cannot understand their naivety in imagining that the proposal will do other than give more power to the Executive.
The proposal will not curb the speeches from the Government; it will not result in the Opposition Front Bench having to curtail their speeches. It will even allow Dr. Death, called by the Speaker immediately after the two Front Benchers, to speak on behalf of the SDP, contradicting the Liberal spokesman, as he did today on the statement—but I shall not go into that. They are

1357
allowed 20 minutes. I am not against the Liberals and the SDP having 20 minutes each to contradict one another. But when statements are made, a nice little group of people —the leader of this party, that party and the other party—are handed copies of the statements, whatever they may be. Back Benchers must be made to go along with the idea of handing power to the Executive and to the Speaker.
It was suggested that the proposal will be an experiment. As for there being any question of my grovelling to television, I remind the House that the miners' strike has been on for eight months and I have not appeared once on BBC television. Hon. Members can draw the conclusion that, far from grovelling, I have been giving people some stick.
During the past 14 years I have been concerned about the way in which power has gravitated even more towards the Executive. As Labour Members we are supposed to be using every available minute of our time in thwarting the Government. The only value of the Opposition is in buying time, in stalling, in using time effectively to hold up the Government. Yet hon. Members are agreeing that it will be all right for some people to speak for 40 minutes because we are daft enough to make our speeches in eight or nine minutes. When we get to the most important point we shall be allowing the Speaker to pull us up and prevent us from finishing the speech. If we do that we shall get into an incongruous position. Are nearly 200 Opposition Members and 300 Conservative Members going to fall into that trap? Surely they have more sense than that.
The idea is put forward that the Speaker is somehow immune from criticism, and that he can be given the so-called objective task of deciding when to operate the scheme. It will be for the Speaker to decide who is to be stopped in full flight. I have an idea who will be the first one to get the whip. I have only to say two things of the wrong sort and the Speaker pulls me up. I shall not fall for the proposal.
During the past 14 years the Executive has taken more power to itself. There have been occasions in the recent past when the Speaker has prevented business questions from being continued when hon. Members have been on their feet wanting to raise legitimate items of business for the following week. It has been said that it happens only occasionally and that generally speaking, the Speaker will call every hon. Member who has risen. But every so often we find that the Executive seeks to reduce further the opportunities for Back Benchers to raise issues. The same argument applies to statements.
Mr. Home Robertson: I fear that my hon. Friend may be misunderstanding the proposal that is before the House. Like my hon. Friend, I would hate to give up any opportunity that already exists to obstruct the business of the Government. [Interruption.] What we are debating here is business which is already——
(1) That during the next Session Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate on one of the matters specified in paragraph (2) of this Order, he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has made such an announcement he may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.
(2) This Order shall apply to debates on:
(a) the second reading of public bills;
Mr. Skinner: Has my hon. Friend read the motion?
Mr. Home Robertson: I am wondering——
Mr. Skinner: What I have to say to the hon. Member for wherever it is with those thousands of acres, is this. One gives an inch and they take a mile. Now it is Supply days, then it is Second Readings and then it is something else. They will say, "It is only an extension of what we did in 1984, when we allowed Mr. Speaker to stop us after 10 minutes." When television comes, some more rules will be brought in, and we shall have to curtail our speeches even more. Why? Because television has had such an impact in every area of our life into which it has intruded.
Mr. Home Robertson: My hon. Friend has not read the motion.
Mr. Skinner: I have read it. There is no need to make snide remarks about not having read it. I am saying to the House: Don't just look at what is on the Order Paper. Look into the future and imagine what the Executive will do once it realises that it has a list of tame Back Benchers prepared to toe the line and go along with a cosy arrangement that has been drawn up by the club of consensus. Whenever I see the Front Benches agreeing together, I have a natural instinct to say that there is something wrong.
Mr. J. Enoch Powell: That is a good rule.
Mr. Skinner: When the official Opposition and Government Front Bench get together, and the leaders of the Liberal party and the Social Democratic party tell their minions to join in, I know that it smells. If the Whips are involved as well, it is even worse. So I have read the motion and I know what it means in practice. No doubt it will be carried as these 10 Back Benchers flock into the Lobby to support that consensus and Mr. Speaker. However, I am prepared to bet that in 12 months' time there will be more people against it than there are now.
I say to my hon. Friends: Do not have anything to do with this. Our job is to harry the Government day and night. Some of us like to use that opportunity. Once one gives the power to the Executive that is suggested in the motion, they will say that they will take a little more from us. I am not prepared to give them that inch. They might want to take a mile later. They are not having anything from me tonight.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note of the First Report of the Select Committee on Procedure (House of Commons Paper No. 570) and agrees with the recommendations contained in paragraph 14.
Motion made, and Question proposed,
(b) matters selected under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) for consideration on allotted Opposition days; and
(c) motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown.
That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.—[Mr. Biffen.]
Amendment proposed to the Question, in line 5, after 'o'clock', insert
', on Monday to Thursday sittings, and between half-past eleven o'clock and one o'clock on Friday sittings,'.—[Mr. Rhodes James.]
Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The House divided: Ayes 49, Noes 34.

Division No. 481]

[7.54 pm

AYES

Alton, David

Hayward, Robert

Amess, David

Hind, Kenneth

Beith, A. J.

Kennedy, Charles

Benyon, William

Key, Robert

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Lester, Jim

Boyes, Roland

McWilliam, John

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Marek, Dr John

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

Meadowcroft, Michael

Burt, Alistair

Moynihan, Hon C.

Butler, Hon Adam

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

Butterfill, John

Powley, John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Cartwright, John

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Cash, William

Sims, Roger

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Spencer, Derek

Coombs, Simon

Steel, Rt Hon David

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

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Waller, Gary

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Watson, John

Fallon, Michael

Wood, Timothy

Favell, Anthony

Forth, Eric

Tellers for the Ayes:

Franks, Cecil

Mr. Robert Rhodes James and Mr. Richard Ottaway.

Ground, Patrick

Hargreaves, Kenneth

NOES

Bellingham, Henry

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Madden, Max

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Mather, Carol

Browne, John

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Buck, Sir Antony

Parry, Robert

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Pike, Peter

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

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

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Proctor, K. Harvey

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Soames, Hon Nicholas

Glyn, Dr Alan

Stevens, Martin (Fulham)

Harvey, Robert

Stradling Thomas, J.

Holt, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Tellers for the Noes:

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Robert Atkins.

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put:
The House divided: Ayes 67, Noes 22.

Division No. 482]

[8.4 pm

AYES

Adley, Robert

Brandon-Bravo, Martin

Alton, David

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)

Amess, David

Browne, John

Beith, A. J.

Burt, Alistair

Benyon, William

Butterfill, John

Biffen, Rt Hon John

Campbell-Savours, Dale

1360

Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)

Meadowcroft, Michael

Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)

Molyneaux, Rt Hon James

Cartwright, John

Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)

Cash, William

Moynihan, Hon C.

Clwyd, Mrs Ann

Ottaway, Richard

Coombs, Simon

Page, Richard (Herts SW)

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

Powell, Rt Hon J. E (S Down)

Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.

Powley, John

du Cann, Rt Hon Edward

Rhodes James, Robert

Emery, Sir Peter

Robertson, George

Eyre, Sir Reginald

Robinson, Mark (N'port W)

Favell, Anthony

Sainsbury, Hon Timothy

Forsythe, Clifford (S Antrim)

Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')

Forth, Eric

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Franks, Cecil

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Glyn, Dr Alan

Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)

Ground, Patrick

Smyth, Rev W. M. (Belfast S)

Hargreaves, Kenneth

Spencer, Derek

Harvey, Robert

Steel, Rt Hon David

Hayward, Robert

Taylor, John (Solihull)

Hind, Kenneth

Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)

Holt, Richard

Viggers, Peter

Home Robertson, John

Watson, John

Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)

Winnick, David

Kennedy, Charles

Wood, Timothy

Key, Robert

Lawrence, Ivan

Tellers for the Ayes:

Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)

Mr. John McWilliam and Mr. Roger Sims.

Lester, Jim

MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)

NOES

Bellingham, Henry

Marek, Dr John

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Mather, Carol

Boyes, Roland

Parry, Robert

Carlisle, John (N Luton)

Pike, Peter

Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S.)

Prescott, John

Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)

Proctor, K. Harvey

Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)

Silkin, Rt Hon J.

Freeman, Roger

Walker, Bill (T'side N)

Howard, Michael

Waller, Gary

Knight, Gregory (Derby N)

Lloyd, Peter, (Fareham)

Tellers for the Noes:

MacKay, John (Argyll & Bute)

Mr. Dennis Skinner and Mr. Robert Atkins.

Madden, Max

Question, as amended, agreed to.
Ordered,
(1) That during the next Session Mr. Speaker may announce at the commencement of public business that, because of the number of Members wishing to speak in a debate on one of the matters specified in paragraph (2) of this Order, he will call Members either between six o'clock and ten minutes before eight o'clock or between seven o'clock and ten minutes before nine o'clock on Monday to Thursday sittings, and between half-past eleven o'clock and one o'clock on Friday sittings to speak for not more than ten minutes; and whenever Mr. Speaker has made such an announcement he may, between those hours, direct any Member who has spoken for ten minutes in such a debate to resume his seat forthwith.
(2) This Order shall apply to debates on:

(a) the second reading of public bills;

(b) matters selected under paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 6 (Arrangement of public business) for consideration on alloted Opposition days; and

(c) motions in the name of a Minister of the Crown.

That this Order be a Standing Order of the House until the end of the next Session of Parliament.
8.15 pm
Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It should be placed on record, and perhaps you will take this

1361
into account because as Mr. Speaker you will have a great deal of discretion in the matter of 10-minute speeches, that, out of the 650 Members of Parliament who are available to take part in this momentous exercise, fewer than 100 chose to do so. As only 93 hon. Members took part in the vote, you should, during the course of the year of this experiment, bear in mind that the number of Members participating in the vote was a minute proportion—a smaller proportion than could be secured in a postal ballot for a trade union leader, or in Some other examples about which we have heard so much.
What sort of democracy is it that prevails here? Eighty per cent. of hon. Members are playing truant, have gone absent or are on fact-finding tours in the Caribbean or wherever they are sunning themselves. I hope Mr. Speaker, that you will take all those factors into account and that you will use whatever authority you have, stick it under the cushion under your Chair and keep it there.
Mr. Speaker: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman.

Procedure
  MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

    INCOME TAX
    The Vice-Chamberlain of the Householdreported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
    I have received your Addresses praying that that the Double Taxation Relief (Taxes on Income) (China) Order 1984 and the Double Taxation Relief (Air Transport Profits) (Kuwait) Order 1984 be made in the form of the drafts laid before your House.
    I will comply with your request.

House of Commons Services
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That this House takes note with approval of the Second Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) (House of Commons Paper No. 256).—[Mr. Biffen]
8.17 pm
Mr. Roger Sims: I suspect that our debate this evening will not be found on the front page of the tabloids tomorrow morning. We shall probably be fortunate if it merits even a line or two in the so-called heavies. That is unfortunate, because part of our discussions will be devoted to the work of all-party groups, of which, according to the Select Committee report that we are considering, there are some 180. It is perhaps inevitable that the party system under which our politics are run, the configuration of this Chamber and the fact that there is somewhat selective broadcasting of our debates, such as the debate yesterday, give the impression to our constituents that we as Members of Parliament are constantly at odds with each other.
The fact is, as we know and they do not, that a great deal of work is done across the party line, and in the many all-party groups in which are represented Members of Parliament who may belong to different parties but who have certain interests in common, and who work together to further those interests. Those all-party groups serve an important, valuable and vital role in our parliamentary system.
Allied to the all-party groups are a number of what might be described as political interest groups, which involve not only Members of Parliament but outsiders who meet here to discuss matters that particularly interest them with Members of Parliament. There has been a notable proliferation of such groups in the past few years, and that development has been the subject of some criticism. I do not concur in that criticism. The more that Members of Parliament work together across party lines on nonpartisan issues, the better. The more that Members of Parliament meet those affected by our decisions, listen to their views and take those views into account, the better. However, the proliferation has caused problems, not the least of which has been the sheer difficulty of finding rooms within the Palace of Westminster and the outbuildings where the groups may meet.
The House should congratulate the Services Committee on having sought to grasp that nettle and made various proposals. In particular, the Committee has sought in some way to codify the various groups. It attempts to distinguish between groups involving only Members of Parliament and those that involve strangers—as we call them. It has also suggested a priority booking system for accommodation. The system seems logical and workable. We shall find out when we try it.
It is, however, unfortunate that the Committee did not resolve the important issue of nomenclature. Paragraph D on page x of the report suggests:
"The term all-party group should be applied only to those bodies consisting solely of members of this or both Houses … Bodies which admit non-members … should be styled parliamentary groups."
The use of the expression "parliamentary group" has increased in recent years. If the report is adopted as it stands, the use of that expression as applied to groups containing non-Members will be officially recognised. The word "parliamentary" implies that the body that it

1363
describes is either an integral part of Parliament or very closely connected with it. The word "Parliament" is often used to describe the buildings in which we meet, but Parliament was not destroyed by the fire of 1834. Parliament is an assembly—a unique body of people. I am jealous of Parliament and of its standards and reputation. I hope that I shall not appear to be unduly self-important, or to be standing on my dignity, when I say that I am proud to be a Member of Parliament. I believe that that feeling is shared by many hon. Members, whether they entered the House a year ago, or 10 or 20 years ago, or more. It is an honour and a privilege to be one of the 650 people who represent millions of our fellow citizens. I wish to protect Parliament, and its name. The expression "parliamentary" should be used sparingly, especially if it is to be used in any formalised or official way.
Some of the party groups or so-called parliamentary groups—I quote from paragraph 2 of the introduction to the report—
"were believed to be using the House's status, as well as its heat, light and space, for purposes which were non-parliamentary".
On page 1 of the report, a letter from the Parliamentary Labour Party refers to:
"The way in which unofficial bodies use the House of Commons connection to imply greater status than they would otherwise have."
I do not suggest for a moment that many of these parliamentary groups should be criticised. Most of them are entirely respectable. There is, for example, the parliamentary all-party penal affairs group. That is a group in which I have some interest. I make no criticism whatsoever of the activities of that group. It is a well-conducted and well-informed group which carries out some very good work and has produced some useful documents.I have attended a number of its meetings. One might say that I was a member of the group, but here another problem arises—how to define a member of a so-called parliamentary group. Members of the all-party groups which cover various countries attached to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association and the Inter-Parliamentary Union are always invited to make a nominal subscription. There is, therefore, a membership list. I know, because I am treasurer of such a group. However, many of the other groups are simply groups of interested people. There is a general invitation to Members of Parliament to attend meetings.
Those Members of Parliament who attend may not be specifically members of the group. Should there be a stipulation that such a group should contain, say, five or 10 hon. Members or Peers? Most of the meetings of the penal affairs group are held in the Jubilee Room. They are usually attended by two or three hon. Members—sometimes more, or sometimes only one—together with perhaps a handful of Members of the other House. The meetings are also attended by probation officers, magistrates, social workers, people from the National Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders, court clerks and prison officers. They are all interested in the issue under consideration—penal affairs. However, should such a group be called a parliamentary group? Does it merit that description simply because it meets within this building? Does it merit it simply because a few Members of Parliament attend its meetings? If, instead of meeting in the Jubilee Room, the group met in Central Hall across the road, would we describe it as a parliamentary group?
1364
If we must call a group "parliamentary" simply because a few hon. Members belong to it, virtually any group of people including a few hon. Members could describe it as a parliamentary group. Let us suppose that a number of people who are interested, in writing—in good books—get together and form a group and meet regularly at the Savoy hotel, and that the group includes—as it well might—some hon. Members. Such a group would not—surely—be called a parliamentary group. However, if that group moved a short distance up the river and tied its meetings in the conference rooms of Norman Shaw North, I presume that it could be called a parliamentary group.
By all means let us use the term "parliamentary" for groups of Members of Parliament. All-party groups could certainly be described as all-party parliamentary groups, because they are composed of hon. Members of this House. However, the expression should rarely be used for any other group. The report proposes a system of registration. If we have to give groups names I suggest that they be known as registered groups. That would distinguish them. I recognise that some groups such as the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee are old established, reputable and might fall foul of my amendment. That is why I said that the expression "parliamentary" should be used only rarely for groups that do not consist solely of Members of Parliament.
The report proposes that the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee should oversee implementation of the regulations in the report and be empowered to operate according to the spirit rather than to the letter. I should be content for that Committee to use discretion about the use of the word "parliamentary". If the report is not amended, all sorts of groups could call themselves parliamentary, with all that that implies and, more importantly, all that that appears to imply outside the House.
I assume that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House and the Serjeant at Arms will draw up detailed regulations and publish them. I hope that my right hon. Friend and the House will accept my amendment and that the regulations that are to be published later reflect the spirit of what I have said.
8.31 pm
Mr. John Silkin: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) for his description of the report by the Sub-Committee on Administration and Accommodation, of which I am the Chairman. We felt that the problem had been growing in difficulty and importance for so long that it was best, at the earliest opportunity, to provide the House with a report that it might digest. We therefore reported about nine months ago to the Services Committee, which reported to the House about eight months ago. There has been a long gestation during which the problem has grown.
Hon. Members might be surprised at the number of ad-party groups. We have only unofficial figures because there is no system of registration. It is fairly accurate to suggest that there are more than 80 groups linked by a common interest—often an industry—and another 100 which are based on an interest in an overseas country. As the hon. Gentleman said, some are under the aegis of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association or the Inter-Parliamentary Union. The problem arises from groups competing for a finite number of Committee Rooms. Moreover, they are in competition at popular times of the

1365
week with Committees of the House, party meetings and other committees. Although a limited system of priorities operates, there are still difficulties. Important party bodies have had difficulty in securing rooms. We all have experience of that. The groups have also experienced difficulty. The pressure is such that, if a House Committee displaces a group's meeting without much notice—the rules properly allow for that—the meeting often has to be cancelled because no alternative room can be offered. We must develop a system that as" nearly as possible satisfies both of those conditions.
As the hon. Member for Chislehurst said, there is strong justification for all-party groups. The hon. Gentleman gave a valid and rather splendid example of what might have been a parliamentary group were it meeting in the House but which was not because it met in the Savoy hotel. I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman was not criticising the Savoy hotel. Although all-party groups have no organic connection with the House, they have been recognised as part of parliamentary life for many years. We ought not to disturb that recognition. It is important for hon. Members to maintain their links with outside bodies. If we do not do that, we become too inbred and repeat too much of what we have heard before.
Mr. Robert Adley: I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) that groups have proliferated. The right hon. Gentleman has just used the word "recognised" and my hon. Friend used the word "registered". I have read the document carefully, although I have left my monocle and glasses behind so I cannot see as much as I would like. Who will do the recognising and the registering? That is not clear from the document.
Mr. Silkin: The rules for regulation and registration—I shall deal with enforcement later—will be matters for the Services Committee. If the House accepts the motion, the immediate provision of terms of registration will fall to the Sub-Committee on Administration and Accommodation. I hope that the rules that it provides will be generally satisfactory.
Links with all-party groups are part of the life of the House. They must not be severed, but we must keep a balance. I understand what the hon. Member for Chislehurst said. He wants to preserve those links while preserving the dignity and life of Parliament. We must take the principle that parliamentary accommodation should be used for parliamentary purposes. The proposal is that there should be an ordered priority in booking rooms in which groups that have given undertakings about their general structure and activity, and which can therefore be considered to have linked themselves to Parliament, should have relative priority in booking rooms. The proposal has the additional benefit of dealing with the criticism that too many non-Members of either House can become involved in activities in the Palace of Westminster.
We have been told of meetings at which strangers have addressed strangers with or without the presence of hon. Members. We have heard rumours that some strangers might even have been charged for entrance to group meetings. We believe that the remedy lies first in real all-party groups being distinguished from parliamentary groups that admit strangers to their membership.
1366
Secondly, an all-party group would have to consist of hon. Members of more than one political party. It would be restricted to Members of this or both Houses and there would be no registration formalities. Parliamentary groups would have to register. They would include people who are not hon. Members, although they would have to be open to all hon. Members. Moreover, they would have to have at least five Members from the party in government and five from the parties in opposition. If a subscription is to be charged to hon. Members, it should be limited to a token amount.
Finally, there should be an explicit undertaking to respect the rules. That would ensure and guarantee the parliamentary nature of the occasion. The benefit of registration is that there would be a form of relative preference in booking a Committee room. The absolute preference, given to House Committees and subject only to the lien enjoyed at certain times in certain rooms by the meetings of the three largest parties, would continue. If a room were required for such a meeting, all other bookings, no matter when they were made, would be overridden.
A relative preference would be given to single party groups, those groups confined to two or more parties, all-party groups, recognised parliamentary groups and individual hon. Members who are meeting their constituents or those directly connected with their constituency. Those bodies or persons would enjoy their existing long-standing right to book Committee Rooms from recess to recess and from Easter to the summer.
No other bookings, for example from a non-registered parliamentary group, would be accepted until a calendar month before the intended meeting. Meetings which by their character or registration are demonstrably parliamentary would have a place higher in the queue than others.
I told the hon. Member for Chislehurst that I would deal briefly with enforcement. We have deliberately made no provision for enforcement. Hon. Members must draw the attention of the Services Committee to instances where they believe that the rules or the spirit of the rules have been broken. That is how we normally order our affairs and no other form of policing would be acceptable.
Having made that point, I feel that I am slightly begging the hon. Gentleman's question, which was what was the definition of "parliamentary". A parliamentary group is one in which the element of parliamentary interest outweighs the group itself. He cited the Penal Reform group. I would cite the Disablement group. There is a distinct parliamentary interest in those groups, which means that there is every reason why their meetings, although attended by few hon. Members, should be held in the Palace of Westminster and not in the Savoy hotel.
Sir Peter Emery: Some members of the Ghana parliamentary group are Members not of this Parliament, but of the Ghanaian Parliament. When Ghana has a Parliament, the difficulty does not arise, but there have been periods in the history of Ghana—there is one now—when its Parliament has been abolished. At such times those people are no longer Members of Parliament as such. I hope that to fulfil the wish of the Ghana parliamentary group, whose interest is basically with the Ghanaian people and in the parliamentary structure, that that unfortunate happening would not mean that the group would cease to meet the definition of the Services Committee.
Mr. Silkin: A parliamentary group is one in which the Parliament concerned is the United Kingdom Parliament. There are a number of overseas groups where the strict definition may not always be applicable. However. I take the hon. Gentleman's point.
The hon. Member for Chislehurst must forgive me when I say that we are getting into deep waters by making the distinction for which he asks. I ask him to reconsider his amendment and to wait and see how the proposals in the report work. He is asking too much of the Administration and Accommodation Sub-Committee at the moment.
There is a further disadvantage. There is nothing to stop such a group from calling itself a registered parliamentary group. The hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker or I could not intervene and prevent it from inserting the adjective "parliamentary". Any group can call itself parliamentary if it so wishes. We cannot tell some groups that they are all-party groups or parliamentary groups, and others that they are only registered groups because the Sub-Committee on Administration and Accommodation has so decided. That is a recipe for disaster.
Mr. Sims: I do not wish to prolong the argument. I do not quarrel with the Sub-Committee's distinction between groups which consist solely of hon. Members and groups which contain other elements. My point related to the wording used to describe them—the classification of those groups. I agree with the rest of the report.
Mr. Silkin: I well understand that. My point is that the judgment which he asks us continually to make may be difficult to make. I cannot see any way of stopping people from inserting "parliamentary" into a description of their group. I think that it would be best to see how the proposals in the report work. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be willing to withdraw his amendment. We in our turn will undertake to keep it under constant review and to reconsider it in the House if events justify it.
I started with the question of timing, and I shall finish with it. We had hoped that the proposals would be implemented at the beginning of the 1984–85 Session. It is a long time since the Services Committee reported. In view of the time that has elapsed since the report was made, perhaps we should consider deferring its implementation until January 1985. That would allow full time for parliamentary registration and for the other formalities to be carried out.
8.47 pm
Mr. Edward du Cann: All hon. Members will agree that the second report of the House of Commons Services Committee is a most useful document. The House owes a debt of gratitude to the right hon. member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and his colleagues, who have done the work that has led to the report's publication. I am sure that hon. Members present would like to congratulate him on his lucid presentation of the report.
I had looked forward to the right hon. Gentleman making his maiden speech from the Back Benches, where some of the most distinguished hon. Members habitually sit. I am surprised that he is still on the Front Bench. His eminence deserves that position. Whether he is on the Back Benches or on the Front Bench, it is good to see him in such good form.
1368
The report has its origins in the determination on the part of a number of senior hon. Members to bring about a change in the way in which we carry out part of our work. Those particularly involved were the chairman of the parliamentary Labour party, his predecessors, to whom I wish to pay tribute, some prominent Opposition Front Bench Members, including the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore), and many of my colleagues in the 1922 Committee. Our objective was clear to curtail, if not to prevent, the abuse of the facilities of Parliament by outsiders. The process began more than five years ago. The need was obvious then and it has become more acute since. It led first to the establishment of a small group of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Northavon (Mr. Cope) the acting Chief Government Whip, and subsequently to this report. All those who played a part in the process deserve the appreciation of the House. This debate, too, should be welcomed. It is essential that prompt action follows the long period of gestation.
We have an undoubted dilemma in the House. As the mechanics of democracy—its proud, enthusiastic practitioners—we must all insist that nothing should be done that would make it more difficult for members of the public to meet their parliamentary representatives at any time to discuss with them the issues of the day, to hear their views, or for us to render account of our motives and actions. The House of Parliament exist by courtesy of the people of our nation. They are our Houses, I agree, but they are first for the transaction of the business of our nation and for the individuals who comprise it. We are their representatives and we must have proper facilities to do our work—unmolested, but I would not say undisturbed. We are their servants and they, our electors, must have full access to us at all times. Indeed, I would argue further that it is our special duty in a democracy to do our best to involve members of the public to the greatest extent possible in our work. It is a daily necessit) that we ensure that their participation in our work is brought about on the widest possible scale.
All that is clear and indisputable. However, common sense dictates that there must be orderliness. Inevitably, therefor, there must be physical limitations on access. This place is not Wembley stadium; it cannot accommodate 100,000 people at any one time. The dilemma for us comes in deciding where to draw the line of regulation and limitation.
Since I entered the House of Commons, and especially during the past 10 or perhaps five years, two new factors have intervened, or perhaps two old factors have become much more important. The first is the growth of the organised lobby, which is perhaps inevitable. Perhaps because of the increased influence of Government, which now reaches down to touch every corner of our daily lives, it is inevitable that groups of people will wish to come together inceasingly to influence what we do. Some my argue that the growth of the organised lobby is valuable, for good Government depends on well-informed representatives, and those who lobby us do much to improve our knowledge.
However, as the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford correctly said and as the report shows, there has undoubtedly been much abuse of the willingness of Members of Parliament to help outside bodies to present their cases. The report substantially understates that abuse;

1369
I think it is formidable and it must be brought to an end. I warmly endorse the statement in paragraph 3 of the report that,
"parliamentary accommodation should be used for parliamentary purposes."
The report is absolutely right to differentiate between those activities which are essential to the effecient functioning of Parliament and those which are purely ancillary.
My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) spoke, with his usual ability and clarity, very much to the point at issue. We all know how necessary it is to give proper priority to party committees, to such all-party groups as Select Committees, and to all-party committees such as the British-American parliamentary group, the national groups or the Parliamentary and Scientific Committee; but, with my hon. Friend, I put a large question mark against ancillary groups.
On the subject of lobbies and their growth, my advice to my right hon. and hon. Friends is simply this: Members of Parliament should be a little more cynical about lobbies and pressure groups than we have hitherto been. We must adjust our attitudes now that there are so many of them, and we must be more selective in our readiness to listen. That is the first new, or changed, factor.
The second new factor relates to security. The security system now must be different from what it was only a short time ago. There is an overriding need for competent security in this place on a continual basis, and all of us who have recent events very much in mind would agree with that. We must show much greater sympathy with the work that the Serjeants at Arms and the police must do on our behalf, and we have a duty to make their task easier than it is at present. In the general interest, we must be much stricter than we are about the right of admission to this place. There is no sense in the modern context of saying to everybody, as we appear to do now, "By all means come into this place as of right." For that reason, I wholly agree with the spirit of my hon. Friend's remarks when he spoke to his amendment.
We could argue the matter this way or that way, and could draw the line a little on that side or a little on the other; the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford was right to say that we should mull over these matters more quietly and perhaps consider them in cloistered session. We would be justified in reflecting a little on what we have allowed to happen in this place. We allow secretaries, research assistants, and people who work in the Library not quite unrivalled access to all parts of the building, but much freer access than they used to have. I begin to wonder whether we are not allowing the people who work here the right almost to take over the place. We would be much healthier and better able to do our work if we introduced much stricter rules about where people might go. After all, the House depends largely on the ability of Members of Parliament to communicate together privately in rooms and corridors. The corridors are not for gossip among Library assistants, nor are they places of access for secretaries with their papers.
I hope that everything that we do in future, and the consideration given by the Select Committee on Services to our affairs, will begin from the premise that we cannot possibly do our work in the way in which we need to do it in the national interest unless we reserve this place primarily for ourselves.
1370
I end as I began by welcoming the report. It has taken a long time to produce. In my view it is not as strict as it ought to be because we must come to terms with these two new factors. In that context I hope that we will be very strict about who we allow to come here and who we allow to interfere with the work that we must do in the nation's interest.
8.59 pm
Mr. Robert Adley: I am grateful to those who organise affairs for allowing us to have this debate. This is a House of Commons matter, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) rightly reminded us, essentially we are here as guardians of the public interest. Although, as my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) said, the matters we are discussing will not hit the headlines, we should be aware that we are looking not just after our own interests but also the interests of this place on behalf of the people.
The fact that my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton is here is something which every hon. Member welcomes and notes, because, above all else, he is a parliamentarian. He is diligent in his duty not only on behalf of those whom he chairs as chairman of the 1922 Committee but also and always in his dealings with the hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Dormand) in the work that they do not only on behalf of Back Benchers but on behalf of the institution of Parliament.
I very much agree that, welcome though the report is, in many ways it is modest and very polite about some of the abuses that we know have been going on, both commercially and quasi-politically in the name of this Parliament building.
This is an all-party occasion and it would be unfortunate if I said anything to ruffle anyone's feathers. However, we have seen how some local authorities—I shall mention no names—have almost deliberately sought to create groups with outlandish names and titles in order to provide a forum for minority groups. We all support the rights of minority groups, but in some cases this has got completely out of control. If we are to follow the report's proposals—and let me be quite ridiculous—a group representing "Left-handed Lesbians Against the Bomb" would be dignified with the title "parliamentary group". That is not the way to help solve this problem. My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst made that point extremely well.
I hope that his amendment will be withdrawn only on the strict understanding that the Services Committee will take seriously the view that has already been expressed and which may well be repeated again. It is not a matter of great secrecy if I mention that the Select Committee on Members' Interests, on which I serve, has been looking at the question of lobbying. I very much agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton said. There are quite disgraceful abuses of the word "Parliament" and of the use of this building. I really do fear that the title "parliamentary group", rather than solving the problem, will make it worse.
I intervened briefly in the speech of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and asked him to amplify his views on the use of the phrase "registration". I fear that we may compound the problem rather than solve it by referring to a registered group. We would thereby be dignifying people in the knowledge that not only are they allowed to call themselves a parliamentary group but that they can say that they are on

1371
the register. One can envisage certain public relations companies claiming that not only are they a parliamentary group but that they are "registered" parliamentary groups. That makes the matter even worse.
We all know how journalists like to have a hook on which to hang a story, and they like to have a title on which to hang the name of a Member of Parliament. It does not matter whether the Member of Parliament is chairman, deputy chairman or secretary of X, Y or Z parliamentary group, because many of us know that many of our all-party groups and party group sub-committees are less important than their titles imply. It is because we are presumably trying to stop the abuse or misrepresentation that we know takes place in the House in the use of the name "parliamentary group" or "all-party group" that we are here tonight.
There was a story in The Times "Diary" only today about a public relations company which apparently tried to invite all the members of a Select Committee to a dinner in order to put across the case on behalf of a pharmaceutical company. That sort of activity could well be aided and abetted by following the example of registering the use of the word "parliamentary".
Another point that has been touched on this evening relates to bilateral groups. I hope that if I mention that no one will think that I am washing dirty parliamentary linen in public. However, in the past year or so it appears that the usual channels have, for the best of reasons, decided to tighten up on the formation of bilateral parliamentary groups, by which I mean, in the terms of the report, not parliamentary but all-party groups—in other words, groups for Members of Parliament of both Houses exclusively which seek to take an interest in and be nominated as being interested in a particular part of the world.
I, with others, wanted to form an all-party ASEAN group because the Association of South-East Asian Nations is a particularly important grouping of nations, as hon. Members will know. As two member countries are members of the Commonwealth and three are members of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, I had to go to considerable length with the IPU and the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to register the group. One of those to whom I spoke and from whom I had to seek permission did not know what the initials ASEAN represented. Therefore, we must consider the matter carefully.
Yesterday on the all-party Whip there was a meeting of the all-party Taiwan group. Her Majesty's Government do not have any diplomatic relations with the regime in Taiwan. I wondered whether it would appropriate if an all-party group for northern Cyprus were to be formed. That country has recently declared itself an independent republic. I wonder whether we shall find an all-party group for Khalistan, the nation which the Punjabis wish to fall.
I raise those matters because they are relevant to the same problem. It comes back to the question about registration. I see that the report assumes and states openly that
"All-party groups under our recommendations would need to consist of members of more than one political party … there should be no question of the speakers being members of the group itself."
It goes on to refer to the fact that they would not need to be registered. In effect, there is a form of unofficial registration being organised by the Whips at the moment which is not entirely satisfactory. Whatever arrangements
1372
are made for all-party groups—groups comprising mainly members outwith the House—they could also be considered for the formation of new all-party parliamentary groups which apply to Members of Parliament. One has to be careful when using the language that we normally use because the document is changing our normal language and that puts us into even more difficulty.
The report is important. It is the first time that: the House has discussed a report which deals with an abuse which we all know exists. I am worried about the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst. He made the point well. The adjective "parly" is not one that we should use to dignify a group without careful consideration. I urge my hon. Friend either to move the amendment or, if he withdraws it, only to do so in the tight of clear assurances that the point will be considered before any system is put into operation.
9.8 pm
Mr. Gary Waller: I agree with many oF the anxieties expressed in the debate by my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) and others. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) my eyes fell on the clause in paragraph 2 which says:
"Some of the groups were believed to be using the House's status …"
After that phrase the report confined itself to the status conferred by the accommodation in the House, which perhaps is not surprising as the inquiry was carried out by the Accommodation and Administration Sub-Committee of the Services Committee. As the debate has shown, hon. Members are concerned about much wider issues than accommodation. The description "parliamentary group" confers considerable status on any body using it. The media assume that such a group carries considerable weight.
I wish to mention two so-called parliamentary groups that have hit the headlines during the past year, but which many hon. Members would not regard as parliamentary groups in the commonly understood sense. Indeed, they are not mentioned in the fact sheet compiled by the Public Information Office, which lists about 80 groups. Unfortunately, I was unable to speak to the officers of the two groups before the debate. It is difficult to discover who they are.
One of the groups is described as the parliamentary group video inquiry. Hon. Members may recall that it created something of a rumpus when it produced apparent evidence that the overwhelming majority of children aged six years—and even under that—had seen pornographic videos. Various independent commentators who made their own inquiries produced contradictory evidence. The group's inquiry was carried out by a body that had little to do with Parliament. I understand that its chairman was a peer but that no hon. Member of this House attached his name to the inquiry. Yet that group probably received as much publicity during the past year as any Select Committee of the House, all-party group or party committee.
The other group is something called the parliamentary road safety advisory council. I do not know whom it advises, but it is not this House. I do not know what entitles it to call itself a council. One might think that road safety was not a contentious issue, but that group has said

1373
that it is in favour of a number of contentious recommendations such as the compulsory wearing of rear seat belts. No doubt many hon. Members would agree with that, but many would not.
The fact that it is described as an advisory council lends a certain legitimacy to it in the eyes of the media. A television programme during the past month, which I did not see, devoted a great deal of attention to its report. Those who saw the programme or read about it in the press assumed that it was an official body. The report has probably attracted more attention than the official inquiry into road safety carried out by the Select Committee on Transport. Yet that group is not listed in the fact sheet supplied by the Public Information Office of the House.
For those reasons we should be concerned not only with accommodation but with the status conferred on a body that describes itself as a parliamentary group. Such groups would have no great problem with accommodation, but they also have no problem attracting a great deal of media attention because they are thought to have official status. I welcome the report and its recommendations but I hope that further attention will be given to the concerns that have been expressed so eloquently about the wider issues.
9.15 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: This debate is long overdue. I speak as the chairman of the parliamentary scout group and it seems that the group would meet the criteria which has been set out. I have, therefore, no qualms about the criteria, and the fact that you, Mr. Speaker, allow the group to make use of the Speaker's House for its annual tea party shows that it is recognised as a legitimate body.
I speak also as the treasurer of the all-party industrial safety group. To my knowledge the group has not met for years and it seems that I am a treasurer with no funds. I am not quite so confident that the safety group would fulfil all the requirements that have been set out. I am not sure that all its members would be prepared to fork out £2, for example. I am concerned with safety in many areas, especially in the air, and to my knowledge the group has never directed itself to air safety. It seems that it would have a large question mark placed against it.
I would not object to the placing of that question mark because if we are to eradicate abuses we must be ruthless in the way in which we consider the intentions of groups, their history, what they are going to do and what they have done. The thoughtful speech of my right hon. Friend the Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann) dealt effectively with that issue, as did the introductory remarks of the right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin).
I believe that there is general concern about the way in which this place is being used. As we walk along corridors we see people we do not know and do not recognise. The
1374
lobby is growing that promotes commercial or political interests in peculiar forms. The members of that lobby are not using the House as Members would like it properly and effectively to be used.
The parliamentary scout group meets once a year officially for its annual general meeting. It meets also as and when it is judged that imminent legislation is likely to have a major impact upon the scout movement. The group's object is to look after scouts' interests in Parliament. That means that it does not need very often to make use of parliamentary facilities and that is true of other groups. It should be recognised that this place is under pressure when legislation is introduced that is likely to have a substantial effect on the interests of various groups. When that happens there will be a number of meetings and at other times there will be few meetings. That is why the amendment, which was so well presented, is one that I can support. There must be a tightening up of criteria, which is why I drew attention to the safety group. As I have said, I doubt whether it could meet the criteria if we accept the amendment. It is on that basis that I accept the amendment.
Mr. Speaker: I call the Leader of the House.
9.19 pm
The Lord Privy Seal and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Biffen): I had no intention of participating in this debate, but in response to such pressure who I am to resist? My hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Sims) has also suggested that I comment. I want to make it clear that this is very much a House of Commons occasion. We are debating a report from an appropriate Services Sub-Committee. The right hon. Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) has said that he will take account of the representations about nomenclature. I hope that in that spirit we may proceed without a Division, because this is a most tangled subject to which we have been—I would not like to say lackadaisical—insufficiently expeditious. On reflection, we might believe that we could have been more expeditious. Tonight we have the opportunity to take matters forward. On the basis of experience and taking account of the points that have been argued, I hope that we may do so without a Division.
Amendment to the Question made.
At end add
'but considers that any group falling outside the recommended definition of all-party groups should not be entitled to use the term "parliamentary" but may be described as a registered group. '.—[Mr. Sims.]
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House takes note with approval of the Second Report of the Select Committee on House of Commons (Services) (House of Commons Paper No. 256) but considers that any group falling outside the recommended definition of all-party groups should not be entitled to use the term "parliamentary" but may be described as a registered group.

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
9.21 pm
Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I have the same problem as the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Adley)—I do not have my spectacles either, but I hope that that will not impair the quality of the debate. I have been offered various pairs by my hon. Friends, but I shall, however, do my best without them. Last week, the Leader of the House—I am sorry that he is no longer in the Chamber—told me that the European Parliament has no influence. It appears that on matters of defence policy the House has even less influence. I hope during this debate to be proved wrong.
For more than two years the United States army and air force in Europe has been practising a strategy which their generals describe as "blitzkrieg". That is well documented in the "Military Review" of August 1984. The magazine has a graphic cover headed "Blitzkrieg and the Airland Battle" by Major-General John W. Woodmansee of the United States army. The article states:
"The Airland Battle doctrine is producing significant changes in the way the Army operates on the battlefield. Combat units will possess expanded capabilities that will enable them to employ blitzkrieg-type techniques against larger enemy forces."
That is officially in United States parlance called "airland battle". Dozens of articles have appeared in the United States army professional journals describing the implementation of their strategy in every aspect, from logistic support to personnel files. The United States Congress has held numerous hearings on the subject. In almost all those hearings, Germany is the centrepiece of the discussions. The United States forces have signed joint army and air force "concepts" to implement the airland battle in training and operations. The most important was agreed in April 1983. Caspar Weinberger has told Congress that airland battle was used on NATO's Reforger 1982 exercise. It is now reported in the press that NATO is set to approve a similar policy in Europe under the title "FOFA"—follow-on forces attack. The "Christian Science Monitor" of 10 October 1984 states:
"NATO sources expect defence ministers to approve this first major shift in alliance doctrine in nearly 20 years when they meet here in December. The sources say the NATO military committee has hacked such a concept and member-state ambassadors and experts are preparing the final wording for incorporation into allied planning."
In The Observer of 20 October 1984 Ian Mather, the defence correspondent, said:
"Defence Ministers are to be asked to give formal approval to a new military strategy designed for fighting far inside enemy territory. Known as FOFA which stands for Follow-On Force Attack, the concept represents the first major shift in Alliance thinking for 20 years."
The article continues:
"It has the backing of the Chiefs of Staff of all member countries, who sit together on NATO's Military Committee, the highest military body in the Alliance, and it has been accepted by the Defence Planning Committee, which consists of all"—
I stress "all"—
"ambassadors to NATO. The final step is for the scheme to be approved by defence ministers at their annual meeting in Brussels in December."
Despite the mountain of evidence in the press stressing the reality and the danger of the policy of nuclear blitzkrieg, the Government have repeatedly denied that any major changes were in hand. In the Army debate a
1376
week ago, I complained that a letter of mine dated 26 September to the Secretary of State for Defence had not been answered. Despite repeated questioning by many of my right hon. and hon. Friends, the Government have declined to make any statement on strategy on the Defence Estimates.
The Defence Select Committee has not and apparently does not plan to examine the issue. When I raised the subject in the Army debate, Conservative Members preferred to talk about girl guides and Army bands rather than matters of great significance and urgency.
I suggest that if the Government know what has been going on, they are guilty of seriously misleading the House. If they are ignorant, or have been bamboozled by the Pentagon, they do not deserve to remain in office. They can only lamely repeat the statement that they must know to be untrue.
On Monday 22 October, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence Procurement said:
"There would be no question of any NATO country conducting a battle in a way that was inconsistent with NATO strategy. This applies to US forces as to any others. When under Allied command they will conform to NATO political and military principles."—[Official Report, 22 October 1984:, Vol. 65, c. 526.]
Those strategic changes have been discussed in great detail in virtually every current affairs programme and defence journal, but apparently they are too confidential to bring to the House.
It is a disgrace that the level of discussion in the House is not permitted to rise above the level of Certificate of Secondary Education level while the media debate is at Ph.D. level. The issues are serious. We cannot afford to risk the peace with a blitzkrieg airland battle. Documents and testimony on United States policy show clearly that earlier first use is recommended and an immediate counter-attack into East Germany and Czechoslovakia is suggested. It clearly believes that nuclear weapons can be used to win a military victory and, lastly, that Pershing II is regarded as "fire support".
United States Army document "US Army concept for airland battle" states:
"Theatre forces should not be considered solely as a bridge to strategic nuclear war. They are weapons which must be considered in the context of a war-fighting capability. From the outset, it is acknowledged that in this scenario it would be advantageous to use tactical nuclear and chemical weapons at the early stage and in enemy territory."
The US Army Field Manual 100–5, 7–15, continues:
"Nuclear weapons are particularly effective in engaging follow-on formations or forces in depth because of their inherent power and because of reduced concerns about troop safety and collateral damage."
I refer to a document of the Senate Armed Services Committee of 1983, under the title "Fire Support", and quote from an exchange between General Wagner and Senator Goldwater. General Wagner, in reply to Senator Goldwater, said:
"Our fire support, and here I am basically talking about indirect fire support, runs from the borders which are up front, field artillery and multiple launch rocket systems, to the rear units JTACMS and Pershing II."
In reply to a written question from the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Latham) the Minister of State for the Armed Forces quoted a NATO document which said:
"The Allies need no convincing that in such a war there would be no winners."—[Official Report, 11 June 1984; Vol. 61, c. 359.]
Yet the Government still say that there is no such concept as the one I have suggested this evening.

1377
What is so dangerous is not simply the insanity of planning a nuclear blitzkrieg but that such a policy overturns the basis of NATO's claim to be a defensive alliance. Recently Lord Carrington said that our forces and exercises were purely defensive. That is obviously untrue. The concepts of airland battle and follow-on force attack—whatever they are called—are inherently offensive, as any sane person can see. That is why the Labour party's policy on defence is one that I commend to the Government and to the public at large.
We make clear in our defence statement that
"the overriding priority of humanity must be the prevention of nuclear war and global holocaust. We are committed to a non-provocative, non-nuclear defence policy which will contribute to progress towards world-wide nuclear, chemical and conventional disarmament. We are realists. The process of disarmament will not occur overnight: it will be brought about by a process of independent steps by individual countries and by international agreements following patient negotiations. We will work to build trust and detente and make strenuous efforts to improve the international climate and, step by step, contribute to greater security for Britain and the world."
I suggest that as a first step the Government should vote at the United Nations for a verifiable multilateral freeze on the production, testing and deployment of nuclear weapons and delivery of carrier systems designed primarily for nuclear weapons. A freeze would stop the deployment of nuclear war fighting first strike weapons. It would buy time for future reduction and disarmament agreement. The Government should in any case announce an immediate halt to the testing, production and deployment of Britain's own nuclear weapons as a first step on the road to nuclear disarmament. They should vigorously press the United States to return to the comprehensive nuclear test ban negotiations.
At present Britain plays only a minor role in international disarmament and arms control negotiations. Like the Government, our party is committed to the fullest British participation in all relevant international arms negotiations. We deplore the build-up of nuclear arms by both the United States of America and the Soviet Union. We oppose all nuclear weapons. We believe that there can be no justification for adding to the existing overkill capacity by deploying cruise and Pershing II missiles or Soviet countermeasures.
If what I have said so far has not made the point, I should like to draw the attention of the House to an exclusive interview given by General Rogers to Reuters, printed in the International Herald Tribune on 26 October. The General attempts to dismiss airland and battle and present follow-on force attack as a purely conventional option. I think that I have demonstrated that airland battle cannot be dismissed and that follow-on force attack is not a conventional option. Regardless of hon. Members' views on those policies, both sides of the House should condemn the way in which the Government have misled hon. Members. Just three days before I received written answers refusing to say whether follow-on force attack had been agreed to by NATO's military committee, and would be debated by Ministers in December, General Rogers told journalists that both my allegations were true. I think that it is worth reading out the questions that I asked the Minister and the answers that I received. I asked the Secretary of State for Defence
"what view of the follow on force attack concept has been taken by the NATO Military Committee."
1378
The Minister of State replied:
"Military Committee business is by its nature confidential."
I then asked the Secretary of State for Defence
"whether the follow on force attack concept will be on the agenda of the December meeting of NATO Defence Ministers?"
The Minister replied:
"The business of the Ministerial Committee is confidential. A communique setting out the major conclusions of Ministers' discussions will be issued at the end of the meeting."—[Official Report, 29 October 1984; Vol. 65 c. 856.]
Yet General Rogers held a briefing for journalists and gave a press conference, but the House must still be kept in ignorance. He told the International Herald Tribune on 26 October that he hoped that
"North Atlantic Treaty Organisation defence ministers would endorse the plan, known as 'follow-on force attack' … when they meet December 4–5 in Brussels.
In an interview at his headquarters here, General Rogers said the plan already had been approved by the 14 allied chiefs of staff in NATO's military committee …
General Rogers stressed that he did not advocate that NATO adopt the more far-reaching official US doctrine of air-land battle, which involves pre-emptive strikes and ground counteroffensives. 'That's hogwash,' said the former US Army chief of staff. 'What I'm talking about is the use of weapon systems and not masses of forces attacking to Prague or Warsaw'."
There we have it. In their replies Ministers have shown contempt for the House. We should have a full debate on the matter as soon as possible. Having seen the answers that one gets to questions in the House, I believe that there is much truth in the comments made by the New Statesman in an editorial on 6 July 1984. It says:
"The problem is not the House of Lords, but the House of Commons. All the pomp, circumstance and tradition that surrounds the Commons conceals the fact that it is the most inefficient and feeble legislative body in the democratic world. As the saga of the paving Bill has once again demonstrated, the House of Commons is totally dominated by the executive. With its present working hours and practices vital Bills can and do pass through all their stages in the Commons half digested, often with the most perfunctory consideration of the issues and principles involved."
It continues:
"Equally, this session's Police Bill and the Data Protection Bill, for example, will have a massive effect on the United Kingdom for decades. By the inadequate standards of the House of Commons, quite a lot of time was devoted to both these measures. By the standards of any other Western legislature Parliament played almost no part in leading an informed public debate on the issues involved."
Unless we have satisfactory answers from the Minister today, we should call for an immediate emergency debate on this subject because it is clear that, so far, in their answers and their failure to provide answers to hon. Members' questions Ministers have shown a certain contempt for the House. They have also shown contempt for the intelligence of the British public who can read every day in their newspapers about matters which I have raised today but which cannot be or have not yet been discussed on the Floor of the House of Commons.
9.41 pm
Mr. Bill Walker: The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has spent some time commenting on what she regards as the inadequacies of this Parliament, but she has just made use of one of the vehicles at the disposal of Back Benchers to bring questions before the House. I believe that she may well find that this is a much better House than the one that she left and that Back Benchers can and often do bring about changes through the pressure that they put on the legislative body.

1379
If fine words and fine speeches were all that is required to bring about trust between nations, there would be no problems. Hansard is full of fine words and fine speeches as, no doubt, is every Foreign Ministry in the world. Sadly, however, all those fine words have not brought about trust. We live in a world where trust is absent and we have to live in it as it is, not as we should like it to be. We should all like it to be quite different. In that world, in which we must, if we can, protect the peace for our children and our children's children, it would be most unwise to discard and throw away that which has given us peace in Europe for so many decades. If any alteration were to be made, the British people would have to be convinced that it was a sensible proposal.
The hon. Lady should reflect on the result of the last general election. The Labour party, not the Government, made an issue of defence in that election. The hon. Lady has only to look at the Labour Benches to realise the impact of that on the British electorate.
Mr. Gordon Brown: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Walker: In view of the time, I shall not give way.
If the hon. Member for Cynon Valley is a student of these matters, which she must be as she has brought the subject forward for debate, she will know that each generation of weapons brings new challenges and that both sides have to face the impact that the new weapons may have. She must also recognise, however, that NATO is a defensive alliance. All NATO's planning is designed to deal with attacks against NATO. The very description, "follow-on force attack" indicates that it would follow a force that had already attacked. Otherwise, there would be no need for a follow on. What would it be following if the other side had not already attacked with their early weaponry? It is important to recognise that the new generation of stand-off weapons, which are available to both sides of the iron curtain, have brought about new challenges because of the way in which they are deployed.
So far, both sides have maintained the peace because both sides believe that they have deterred the other. It is not what one thinks about one's own deterrent capability that is important—it is what the other side thinks. Equally, one cannot always advise the other side of the details of what one would do in a given set of circumstances. It would be a foolish general who told the other side what he proposed to do.
The hon. Lady, who has made a study of this, will realise that it is when the other side knows what one is likely to do that it can anticipate it and judge whether it would be viable for it to overcome what one is offering. In other words, things are going on all the time on both sides, some of which are explained in detail and some of which are not.
Usually, what is not explained in detail is important in defence, and information on the latest modern technology is not given out either in legislative assemblies or in the media. That is why NATO's tactical plans cannot be and should not be debated in public. We place a duty on our military personnel to study all the options that are open to them—should they ever be attacked—with the equipment that we have given them.
The hon. Lady mentioned the use of chemical weapons. She must know that the British Army of the Rhine has no chemical weapons, and it would be difficult for it to launch
1380
a chemical attack, as she was suggesting. We set the world an example by disposing of our chemical weapons, but sadly that example was not followed. One of the lessons that I hope that we have all learnt is that good phrases, words and examples do not produce the responses that we want. In a world that lacks trust, but in which we are determined to maintain peace, we have a duty to our children and to our children's children not to put that peace at risk unnecessarily. The hon. Lady should think through carefully some of the comments that she made, and which she will read tomorrow in Hansard.
It is all very well for the hon. Lady to read out something written by someone else somewhere else. I am sure that there are Labour Members who have made a long study over many years of the tactical and other weapons that are available to our forces. After the last election, a Labour Member asked me why it was that he got such a poor response on Labour's defence policy from his constituents. I asked him whether, in the city that he was canvassing, many of the people in the age group 65-plus were hostile to what he was saying on defence. He said that they were, so I said that that should not surprise him because many of them were probably members of the 51st Highland Division, which went to France in 1939 to fight Hitler's tanks with pop guns, or the equivalent of pop guns. Those who did not die ended up in prison camp. Such people cannot be persuaded that one can disarm without there being any impact.
The hon. Lady does us a service by providing us with the opportunity to give that message again, while there are still enough people around who cannot be conned because they remember such events. In Europe, we require effective tactical plans and those plans should not be debated fully in public because we would be putting our troops at risk.
9.48 pm
Mr. Ted Leadbitter: Over the years, we have discussed defence and national security many times. Often, the two sides of the House have found themselves locked into their own philosophies and party manifestos, and falling short of what the country requires of them. When my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clywd) referred to the New Statesman, she may well have touched the kernel of a problem. I do not believe, with the New Statesman, that we are one of the weakest of democratically elected bodies, but there is none the less a kernel of truth in the article. What is the point of considering defence and security if we do not have the information on which to base judgments?
Over the years, I have taken an interest in questions of security. During the second world war, I was involved as a young officer in the invasion of Dieppe. I was made very much aware at that time of the consequences of bad security. Many British lives have been lost because of bad security.
The House has a high degree of competence. There are men of great excellence on both sides of the House. They are capable of making judgments if they have the information. We are on the threshold of establishing a new committee system. We are beginning to monitor and scrutinise the Departments. As a democratically elected body we have a duty to be informed. The military commanders do not have a monopoly of wisdom in this field. They are highly competent, professionally, but, in terms of policy, we must have a say.

1381
It is easy to be drawn into emotive discussions of our nuclear armouries. Many years ago, I had some involvement with the military college of science. Even in those days I was humbled by the rapidity of technological change. Today, however, the pace and momentum of change is frightening. The country must pause to think carefully about the resource input into new technology and nuclear weaponry. We may well find even in the short term that we have squandered resources on such weaponries. For instance, many people agree that Trident is not a good buy.
Mr. James Hill: Good-bye to the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Leadbitter: I do not object to interventions, but an accident involving such weapons would be no laughing matter.
We are suffering from deprivation in many areas of social health such as the social services, education and housebuilding. Those are matters which affect the quality of life for ourselves and our children. The question of what proportions of our resources we devote to weaponry and to the quality of life is one on which hon. Members are far more competent to make a judgment than are the military.
I am not too excited about unilateral disarmament. Nobody has a monopoly of detestation of nuclear power. The House should never argue about who thinks best about the horror of the holocaust that might come about accidentally or deliberately. None of us wants to destroy civilisation but I am not persuaded that we can suddenly decide to disarm unilaterally and arm conventionally. It is not practically possible. We should have considerable difficulties that our friends in the free world would not understand if we did that. Moreover, a few years ago I heard no arguments about our belonging to NATO. Thank God there was no division of opinion on that years ago. NATO is important. If we consider unilateral disarmament in Britain, do we take the argument to its logical conclusion and insist that NATO should have no nuclear weapons? Our friends would not have that. We must be partners in the defence of the free world. The British people do not elect us to air the niceties of our political philosophies but to look after their interests. Whether we like it or not, there is a gut feeling in Britain that Parliament should stand firm in the defence of the realm.
How, then, do we reduce our nuclear arsenal? I see my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (Mr. Home Robertson) standing outside the Bar of the House shaking his head. If he disagrees with me he should get in here and participate in the debate. Nobody was amused by the SALT talks, the START talks or by the so-called agreement at Helsinki. They were the farce of the theatre. Statesmen had little walks in the woods thinking that people would be excited by the confidentially of it all. We must go for nuclear disarmament in a way that sustains the confidence of the Alliance and our relationships in NATO. The best way to achieve mutal agreement is not to make hurried decisions such as "We shall have no nuclear weapons and go straight over to conventional ones." Britain's industrial infrastructure would not let that happen. People in the industry would not do it. We must negotiate.
Some people might ask me where I stand on party policy. As far as I am aware, party policy has not been
1382
determined. The defence debate has been drawn out and involves many people. We must keep certain options open. Many of us were unhappy with President Reagan's statements when the presidential election was a long way off. His tune has changed as the election has come closer. Many of us have been disturbed by statements by the military who are responsible for our affairs in Europe. By all means be critical of them, but I should like to hear someone talk about the attitudes of our potential enemies. I want to know why we are so heavily critical of our friends and not so hasty to criticise our enemies. Some countries are not well disposed to Great Britain. I know people who have visited Russia, as I have. They come back with some sort of understanding of the position there.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Lennox-Boyd.]
Mr. Leadbitter: We must tell the Russians that they must get round the table and discuss these matters. Although those who visit Russia leave with a special understanding of it, they also have an added duty—to understand our position.
Before the last war I heard all this talk. We were within a hair's breadth of being defeated. The Falklands conflict was the last time when we were involved in a conventional war which involved the Army, the Navy and the Air Force. I strongly believe that it could have been avoided. Nobody would dare to say that we were within a hair's breadth of being defeated in that conflict, but ammunition supplies were worryingly low.
We should not talk about changing the balance of power on instant reaction judgments. We must agree to want a reduction in nuclear armaments and to get rid of the mountains of nuclear warheads that could destroy the entire civilised world. Great Britain must get other nations to do that by mutual agreement. If we cannot reach mutual agreement, we must tell our allies and NATO what we want, but we must maintain a line to NATO. Does anyone believe that we shall feel easy in our beds at night if NATO is weakened, if we withdraw from NATO tomorrow or if America went back to the Monroe doctrine?
The great struggle in the world is for energy. An examination of the world shows that about 68 per cent. of manganese and 72 per cent. of copper is in South Africa. Copper is needed for telecommunications and is essential for military purposes. We need £1,300 worth of chromium for one modern aeroplane. When one considers the amount of attention that Russia is giving to Africa, one realises that today's struggle is for energy. Energy is needed to keep nations alive, and people are prepared to fight for it.
I am convinced from my experience of war and of peacetime before the second world war that we had better be strong. We should not sell this country the right sort of bargain if we hastily begin actions that satisfy our party conferences but not the people at large. There is nothing wrong with telling the people that we shall be strong enough so that we shall never surrender, but we shall be wise enough to negotiate and to have as many fail-safe systems as we can to minimise the effects of accidents. If we must criticise our friends, let us also criticise our potential enemies. Nothing will serve Britain worse than if we try to resolve short-term problems quickly. It would be wiser to seek long-term benefits through patient negotiation.

1383
I feel very strongly about one point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley. I will not hear it said that the House of Commons is inefficient. Many hon. Members work extremely hard in Committees in the House, and I wish to know where there is another assembly in the world where all the stages of a Bill are properly thrashed out hour after hour, morning, afternoon and night, not only in this place but in the other place. Let us not diminish the House of Commons. There are plenty of people outside who wish to do that. We should defend it.
10.6 pm
Mr. Nicholas Brown: I am pleased to be able to make a short contribution to this important debate. I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for preserving the tradition whereby people with slightly different views are called to speak one after the other. Although I have tremendous respect for my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), I do not wholly share his views on this matter. I am committed to the defence policy of the Labour party. I am committed to membership of NATO, as is the Labour party——
Mr. Bill Walker: Just.
Mr. Brown: I shall say what the Labour party stands for, not Conservative Members. They should content themselves with saying what the Conservative party stands for. The Labour party is committed to NATO, but it is also committed to unilateral nuclear disarmament.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker) said that the Labour party may have lost the general election because of its defence policy, but I fundamentally disagree with that. We lost the election because we failed to explain our defence policy. The media and spokesmen for the Conservative party tried to make it clear that the Labour party wished somehow to disarm the entire nation, but that is completely untrue. The Labour party is committed to a conventional defence policy—to the sort of defence policy of almost every other nation. Only a few countries have defence policies based on nuclear weapons.
To suggest that Britain is still in the same league as the United States or the Soviet Union is to take history back about 100 years. It is wrong to suggest that Britain is still an imperial power with a duty to bestride the entire world. That is a backward-looking approach to foreign policy. The Labour party lost the election because it did not explain its policies properly and because it allowed the Conservative party, through its friends in the press and the media, completely to distort our policies.
Mr. David Atkinson: The hon. Gentleman said that the Labour party did not explain its defence policy at the last election. He ought to come to the working areas of my constituency, where he will find that people who supported the Labour party for many years turned out wearing their medals to vote Conservative because they disagreed with Labour's defence policy.
Mr. Brown: I am happy to take up that offer. If the hon. Gentleman arranges a joint meeting in his constituency to discuss defence policy, I shall happily stand alongside him so that we can each explain the policies of our parties. I urge him to accept.
It is wrong to say that our defence policy will be based on a nuclear deterrent that we possess independently. I challenge any Conservative Member to describe the circumstances in which our nation, regardless of the
1384
Americans, would independently use its nuclear deterrent against the Soviet Union. I challenge them to describe the result for the people among whom I live on Tyneside. We would all be dead. That is not a defence policy but a suicide policy, and it is quite unacceptable to my constituents and me.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: The deterrent has worked triumphantly for so long because an enemy can never be sure that one day it would not be used. That is the whole point of the independent nuclear deterrent.
Mr. Brown: The hon. Gentleman will not play nuclear poker with my life or the lives of my constituents. I do not accept what he has said. Whatever the arguments for the Americans' nuclear deterrent or the Soviet Union's nuclear deterrent, the idea that the Government should pursue a policy that confines nuclear warfare to Europe and gets us killed is fundamentally wrong and stupid. It is the Government's duty to move the world away from nuclear proliferation rather than towards it. This nation should be saying that nuclear war in Europe looks back into the pages of history rather than forward.
If the United Kingdom says that it must have nuclear weapons, countries of similar size and with similar economies can also demand them as well, and there are now a substantial number of countries whose economies are stronger than ours. They may say that they will waste that strength on the development of nuclear armaments, but the more nation states that possess such weapons, the more likelihood that such weapons will be used. The Government should behave responsibly and try to move the civilised world away from the possession of nuclear arsenals rather than insisting on having them. If we insist on having such an arsenal, every other country with the resources to have one has the moral right to use the same argument.
The hon. Member for Tayside, North spoke of not giving our plans away. That was a sensible point, sensibly made. But if we endorse the use of nuclear weapons confined to Europe we are giving our plans away. If, having lost a conventional military battle, we can conceive of using nuclear weapons, we are more or less telling our nuclear armed opponents, "You hit us before we hit you". By doing so we bring the nuclear holocaust closer rather than pushing it further away. In particular, we bring it down on our own heads. I can think of no nation less fitted to survive a nuclear attack or to take part in a nuclear war than this one. I therefore urge moves that lead away from that rather than towards it.
10.15 pm
The Minister of State for the Armed Forces (Mr. John Stanley): The House will be grateful to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for raising the subject of follow-on forces attack, which has exercised Labour Members considerably over the past few months. I hope to be able to dispel some of the misconceptions under which she is labouring.
The issue has initiated a wider debate on the Adjournment than we would usually have at the close of business in the House. We were glad to have a sound and common-sense contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Tayside, North (Mr. Walker). We were also interested to hear the voice of—I hope the hon. Gentleman will not mind me saying—the old Labour

1385
party in the speech of the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), and the new Labour party in the shape of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne (Mr. Brown). The hon. Member for Hartlepool made the best speech on behalf of the Opposition that we have heard from either the Back or the Front Benches in the present Session. The only regret is that I fear that the hon. Gentleman is in a decreasing minority within his party.
It is also fitting that the 1983–84 Session of Parliament, which has seen such a great deal of parliamentary interest in many aspects of defence and strategy should conclude with this Adjournment debate.
Undoubtedly much of this parliamentary interest has focused on NATO's strategy, on the role of nuclear and conventional weapons in that strategy, and on the evolution in our tactics and our weapons systems that is needed to ensure that NATO continues to provide a credible deterrent to the growing Soviet and Warsaw pact threat—a threat that we updated in our Statement on the Defence Estimates earlier this year.
Much the most serious misconception that has been repeated again and again from the Opposition Benches during this last Session, is that NATO is seeking to embrace offensive strategies and offensive military doctrine. That, of course, is the incorrect allegation endlessly repeated by the Soviet propaganda machine. It is certainly disappointing to find it repeated by Opposition Members—and again, I am afraid, by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in her speech—when it has no foundation in reality whatever.
I can only reiterate that NATO is a purely defensive Alliance. As was made clear in the declaration of Brussels in December last year:
"Our alliance threatens no one. None of our weapons will ever be used except in response to attack."
Mr. Roland Boyes rose——
Mr. Stanley: No, I shall not give way because I have only a brief time in which to speak.
What is true of NATO is equally true of its most powerful member, the United States. As President Reagan said in his speech on East-West relations in Washington on 6 January:
"Our challenge is peaceful … We do not threaten the Soviet Union".
It cannot be emphasised too often that NATO's posture is a solely defensive one. NATO has no aggresive designs on anyone; NATO threatens no one, and NATO has no military strategies based on initiating conflict.
What then is NATO's defensive strategy and what is the relationship of follow-on forces attack to it? NATO's strategy is one of deterrence based on forward defence and flexibility in response to aggression. That strategy was adopted by the Alliance in 1967 following the attainment of strategic parity by the Soviet Union. The Alliance believes that the strategy remains credible and viable in the political and military situation that faces us in Europe today. We see no justification for changing it and we do not believe that any credible alternative exists to forward defence and flexible response.
Let me explain the key principles on which NATO's deterrent strategy of forward defence and flexible response
1386
rests. First, it rests on a manifest determination on the part of all members of the Alliance to act jointly and to defend NATO's treaty area against all forms of aggression.
Secondly, it rests on a clear Alliance capability to respond effectively at all levels of aggression so as to convince the aggressor that he has miscalculated and should discontinue his attack. Thirdly, it rests on a flexibility in options for response that would prevent the Soviet Union from predicting with confidence NATO's response to a specific act of aggression, and lead it to conclude that an unacceptable degree of risk would be involved in any act of aggression, regardless of its nature, place or timing.
In short, for deterrence to be maintained by NATO's purely defensive alliance, a potential aggressor must be sure that NATO has the political will to respond to aggression, sure that NATO has the military capability to respond to aggression, and unsure precisely as to what form that military response will take.
It is against that background that I want to turn to the threat posed by Soviet and other Warsaw pact follow-on forces and the follow-on-forces attack concept that is currently under consideration in NATO to meet that threat.
As is well known, the Warsaw pact's capability to consolidate any significant territorial gains in the conventional phase of hostilities would be critically, if not wholly, dependent on its ability to mobilise sufficient second echelon forces and move them forward before the arrival of large-scale NATO, and in particular American, reinforcements.
For the Soviets, the first 10 to 15 days would be critical. In that period, the Warsaw pact would be able to mobilise up to 35 divisions in the western military districts of the USSR for operations against central Europe, plus 10 lower category divisions in Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Those would form the follow-on forces to the 57 divisions that are at high states of readiness and ready to move in the first echelons, including Soviet and other Warsaw pact forces stationed in East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. Large numbers of fixed wing aircraft and helicopters from the western military districts might also be committed in that first 10 to 15 days.
First United States reinforcements will arrive quickly by air. Unlike the Warsaw pact, which can bring up reinforcements across its own territory, a significant part of allied reinforcements would need to cross the Atlantic. Our ability to destroy and disrupt Warsaw pact follow-on forces is, therefore, of great importance in maintaining the credibility and effectiveness of our conventional deterrence—an aspect of our defence posture I understood Opposition Members to favour.
There is no doubt that in recent years the Warsaw pact has been strengthening its second echelon forces substantially. For example, many divisions have re-equipped with the T72 and T80 tanks, the most modern in the Soviet inventory. Self-propelled artillery is steadily replacing towed artillery and the total number of guns in formations has been significantly increased. New tactical battlefield missiles with greater accuracy have replaced older types. The adding of infantry units to tank formations has greatly increased the latter's flexibility and combat effectiveness. Such increases in capability are in line with the general upgrading of all Warsaw pact forces and are

1387
designed to ensure that Warsaw pact follow-on forces are no less capable than the leading echelons when they are committed to battle.
It is not surprising, therefore—and it is wholly consistent with NATO's defensive posture and its existing strategy of forward defence and flexible response—that NATO should be paying attention to Warsaw pact follow-on forces and should be developing its response to that particular aspect of the threat. The Government intend to play a full and constructive part in that process.
The hon. Lady seems to be under the misapprehension that there is some radical new departure in NATO devising means of combating the threat from Warsaw pact second echelon forces. That is most certainly not the case. NATO has long possessed the conventional capability to strike deep into enemy territory if attacked. Its tactical planning has long provided for the interdiction of enemy airfields and the disruption of his second echelon forces and other high value targets.
If the Alliance is not developing a new strategy what is it doing by way of the follow-on force attack concept? What the Alliance is doing, and has indeed been striving to do for many years, is to improve its conventional capability and to achieve a more effective implementation of its existing strategy of flexible response.
What is new is that the exploitation of emerging technology now in prospect over the next decade might enable the Alliance to increase its conventional capability and to do so at an affordable cost. Emerging technology can be applied in all theatres of war—at sea, on land, and in the air. The United Kingdom already has much high technology in its forward equipment programmes for all three services. Some of it was mentioned during the Army debate last week.
Much has been made of the possibility of using this technology to enhance NATO's deep-strike capability and to enable NATO forces to undertake interdiction missions at greater range and with more chance of success. However, we should not be unduly diverted or mesmerised by the deep-strike options that technology might or might not provide. Interdiction of second echelon or follow-on forces is only one facet—albeit the most frequently quoted—of new technologies and of the tactics to accompany them. As I have explained to the House, it is not a new idea; but it is a very difficult mission.
I shall outline some of the problems and the issues with which NATO is grappling. Deep strike by means of conventional weapons is likely to be an expensive business. For example, an ability to strike mobile second echelon targets would involve very advanced and costly surveillance and target acquisition systems which could be of limited effectiveness.
1388
Moreover, while there is advantage in striking deep, NATO's top priority must continue to be adequate defence against first echelon attack. This must have first call on available resources. There is little merit in destroying Warsaw pact follow-on forces if NATO forces can not hold the first echelon.
Emerging technology is not a panacea for all NATO's problems. Indeed, it could be positively damaging were it to lead to the diversion of funds from other critical areas and the loss of other vital elements of deterrence. We need to consider carefully therefore the rate of introduction of new technology and the balance between the quality and the quantity of the new equipment we can afford.
We must also keep a continuous watch on the implications for arms control negotiations of the introduction of new types of conventional, as well as nuclear weapons, in Europe.
These are some of the problems that we and NATO collectively face in determining priorities for sensible and affordable exploitation of emerging technology. New technologies provide an opportunity for evolving tactics. We must establish clear tactical concepts which we can translate into equipment priorities to ensure that we strengthen rather than weaken overall deterrence.
NATO is now actively engaged on that process. The NATO military experts are developing a conceptual framework against which we can determine our priorities for the exploitation of emerging technology. They are also preparing a series of long-term planning guidelines to facilitate that process.
NATO's machinery provides for full consultation and discussion between the allies on the development of defence planning, including specific and agreed procedures for dealing with FOFA and other long-term planning guidelines. FOFA is still under consideration as part of that established consultative process.
What the House can be assured, however, is that we would be failing in our responsibility to maintain the effectiveness of conventional deterrence if we simply ignored the growing threat posed by Warsaw pact second echelon forces. We have not ignored that threat in the past and we should not do so now. There is therefore nothing novel in the consideration that NATO is currently giving to this matter. It represents no change whatever in NATO's wholly defensive posture.
By developing a counter to the signficant offensive capability of Warsaw pact second echelon forces we are simply strengthening deterrence and helping to safeguard the peace with freedom that. Western Europe has enjoyed for nearly 40 years.
Message to attend the Lords Commissioners:
The House went:—and, having returned:

Royal Assent
11 pm
Mr. Speaker: I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Roads (Scotland) Act 1984

2. Building Act 1984

3. Foster Children (Scotland) Act 1984

4. Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act 1984

5. Rent (Scotland) Act 1984

6. Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act 1984

7. Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984

8. Norwich City Council Act 1984

9. Warwick District Council Act 1984

10. London Transport Act 1984

11. Kingston upon Hull Act 1984

12. Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1984

Prorogation

  Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech
  Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the High Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command. For greater accuracy, I have obtained a copy and directed that the terms of the Speech be printed in the Votes and Proceedings. Copies are being made available in the Vote Office.
  The Gracious Speech was as follows:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visits of His Highness the Amir of Bahrain in April and the President of the French Republic and Madame Mitterrand last week.
  We look back with much pleasure to the visits we have made over the past year. As Head of the Commonwealth I was in New Delhi on the occasion of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November. We paid State Visits to Kenya, Bangladesh and India in November and Jordan in March. Our thoughts are with the people of India today following the tragedy of Mrs. Gandhi's assassination. We visited France in June, to attend the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of D-Day. We were in Canada in September and October for the bicentenary celebrations of New Brunswick and Ontario, and to visit Manitoba.
  My Government welcomed the independence of Saint Christopher and Nevis, Brunei's resumption of full responsibility for its own external relations, and the decision of both countries to join the Commonwealth.
  My Government have sustained Britain's contribution to Western defence, playing an active part in the Atlantic Alliance. They welcomed Lord Carrington's appointment as its Secretary-General. In the absence of an arms control agreement, my Government fulfilled their undertaking to begin the deployment of cruise missiles by the end of 1983.
  My Government, with the United Kingdom's allies, have worked vigorously for balanced and verifiable arms control and disarmament and have sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They fully supported the United States' efforts to achieve nuclear arms reductions and their readiness to resume the negotiations suspended by the Soviet Union.
  My Government agreed with other Member States on a fair sharing of the European Community's budget burden and on control of Community spending. They have made proposals for new Community policies.
  My Government were hosts to the London Economic Summit in June and welcome its conclusions.
  My Government have continued fully to discharge their obligations to the people of the Falkland Islands, while seeking more normal relations between this country and Argentina. They have conducted talks with China on the future of Hong Kong and published the text of a draft agreement. They have been helping with the conversion of the Royal Navy Dockyard in Gibraltar to commercial operation.
  My Government have continued to support efforts to restore the independent and non-aligned status of Afghanistan and to settle the tragic conflict between Iran and Iraq. They have welcomed moves to reduce tension in

  1391
  Southern Africa, and continue to support peaceful change there and the early independence of Namibia. They supported United Nations efforts to settle the Cyprus question.

  Members of the House of Commons
  I thank you for the provision which you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  My Government have maintained the policies necessary to reduce inflation and sustain economic recovery. Inflation remains low and the output of the nation continues to increase. Steps have been taken to increase incentives and to improve the climate for enterprise, the creation of wealth, and adaptability and efficiency in industry and commerce. Measures have been taken to help the unemployed into jobs, to launch a comprehensive foundation training scheme for young people starting working life, and to improve vocational education and adult training.
  In order to promote economic efficiency and growth, my Government have continued their policies of exposing state-owned businesses to competition and returning them to the private sector where appropriate. Legislation has been passed to end British Telecom's exclusive privilege of running telecommunications systems, to establish arrangements for the licensing and regulation of telecommunications systems, and to prepare the way for the sale of British Telecom's shares. An Act has been passed to enable the introduction of private finance into the Royal Ordnance Factories. The disposal of oil assets of the British Gas Corporation has been successfully completed.
  Legislation has been passed to provide for reforms in the tax system, especially for companies, in the interest of greater economic efficiency, to encourage the further development of United Kingdom oil and gas resources by abolishing royalties for certain new fields, and to provide a framework for the development of cable programme services and direct broadcasting by satellite. An Act has been passed to ensure continued funding for the Cooperative Development Agency and to introduce a new scheme of Regional Development grants.
  Legislation has been passed to give trade union members greater democratic control over their unions.
  An Act has been passed to protect ratepayers by limiting rate increases by high-spending local authorities, and to provide reserve powers for general limitation of rates. Legislation has been passed making interim arrangements for the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on the obolition of those authorities.
  Acts have been passed to extend the right of public sector tenants to buy their homes, to reform the system of building control in England and Wales, and to assist purchasers of public sector houses which have proved to be defective. Legislation has been passed to make more farming tenancies available in England and Wales, and to make other improvements in the law relating to agricultural tenancies.
  An Act has been passed transferring control of London Transport from the Greater London Council to the Government.
  Legislation has been passed to modernise and clarify the law of England and Wales governing the investigation of crime and evidence in criminal proceedings, to strengthen the ties between the police and the community there and to extend powers l'o prevent acts of terrorism and increase safeguards for people subject to such powers.
  An Act has been passed to introduce important new safeguards for individuals about whom information is held on computers.
  Legislation has been passed to improve family law and its administration in England and Wales, to clarify the liability of occupiers of premises to persons other than their visitors and to amend the law concerning limitation of actions.
  My Government has continued to work for higher standards in education, announcing proposals on the school curriculum, examinations and increasing the influence of parents over their children's schooling. Legislation has been passed to enable grants to be paid to local education authorities in England and Wales for improvements and innovations.
  Legislation has been passed to replace noncontributory invalidity pensions with a severe disablement allowance. My Government has also embarked on a series of fundamental reviews of the social security system, seeking to ensure that this large programme operates effectively and in ways suited to present day needs.
  My Government has taken further action to ensure that patients receive the best value for money spent on the National Health Service.
  My Government has encouraged Northern Ireland's elected representatives to seek arrangements, acceptable across the community, whereby responsibilities can be returned to local administration. A high priority has been given to the maintenance of law and order and support for the Northern Ireland economy.
  For Scotland, measures have been passed to extend the rights of public sector tenants, and to improve the legislation governing rating and valuation, promotion of tourism overseas, roads and inshore fisheries.
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you.
  Thereafter a Commission for proroguing Parliament was read, after which the Lord Chancellor said:
  My Lords and Members of the House of Commons
  By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read we do, in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Tuesday the sixth day of November, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday the sixth day of November next.
  End of the First Session (opened on 15 June 1983) of the Forty-Ninth Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Thirty-Third Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.

WALES
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Homes Insulation
  Homes Insulation
  Integrated Operations
  Integrated Operations
  Regional Policy
  Regional Policy
  Forestry Commission
  Forestry Commission
  Fluoridation
  Fluoridation
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
PRIME MINISTER
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Secondary Education
  Secondary Education
  Security
  Security
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Government Information
  Government Information
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner
  Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration and Health Service Commissioner
  Parliamentary Questions
  Parliamentary Questions
ATTORNEY-GENERAL
  Legal Aid
  Legal Aid
  Lay Magistrates
  Lay Magistrates
  Reading Material (Departmental Expenditure)
  Reading Material (Departmental Expenditure)
  Solicitors (24-hour Duty Scheme)
  Solicitors (24-hour Duty Scheme)
  Administration of Justice Act 1982
  Administration of Justice Act 1982
  Conveyancing Committee
  Conveyancing Committee
  Mr. Clive Ponting (Trial)
  Mr. Clive Ponting (Trial)
SOLICITOR-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  Salmon and Trout
  Salmon and Trout
  Negotiated Pleas
  Negotiated Pleas
  Picketing
  Picketing
  Diligence (Report)
  Diligence (Report)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Privilege
  Privilege
  Select Committees
  Select Committees
ENERGY
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Sizewell Inquiry
  Sizewell Inquiry
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration
  Immigration
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Prison Statistics
  Prison Statistics
  City of London (Leaflets)
  City of London (Leaflets)
  Licensing Hours
  Licensing Hours
  Children (Criminal Proceedings)
  Children (Criminal Proceedings)
  Religious Cults
  Religious Cults
  Metropolitan Police (Manpower)
  Metropolitan Police (Manpower)
  Foreign Security Personnel
  Foreign Security Personnel
  Dog Fighting
  Dog Fighting
  Police (Training)
  Police (Training)
  Television Detector Vans
  Television Detector Vans
  Broadcasting
  Broadcasting
  Animals (Experiments)
  Animals (Experiments)
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Neighbourhood Watch Schemes
  Death Penalty
  Death Penalty
  Holloway Prison
  Holloway Prison
  Committees of Inquiry
  Committees of Inquiry
  Cruelty to Animals
  Cruelty to Animals
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Equal Opportunities Commission
  Criminal Records
  Criminal Records
  Police (Riot Equipment)
  Police (Riot Equipment)
  Crossbows
  Crossbows
  Prisons (Industries and Farms)
  Prisons (Industries and Farms)
  Weapons (Records)
  Weapons (Records)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  World Disaster Emergency Service
  World Disaster Emergency Service
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  International Fund for Agricultural Development
  Food Aid
  Food Aid
  UNESCO
  UNESCO
  Development Aid
  Development Aid
  Central America
  Central America
  Lomé Convention
  Lomé Convention
  Grenada (Ministerial Visit)
  Grenada (Ministerial Visit)
  El Salvador
  El Salvador
  Aid Trade Provision
  Aid Trade Provision
  Disaster Unit
  Disaster Unit
  Overseas Aid Terms
  Overseas Aid Terms
EMPLOYMENT
  Wages (Deductions)
  Wages (Deductions)
  Truck Acts
  Truck Acts
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Earnings Statistics
  Earnings Statistics
  Ex-Fishermen (Hull)
  Ex-Fishermen (Hull)
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Tractors
  Tractors
  Farm Workers (Insurance)
  Farm Workers (Insurance)
  Farm Workers (Fatal Accidents)
  Farm Workers (Fatal Accidents)
  Wages Councils
  Wages Councils
  Youth Training Scheme
  Youth Training Scheme
  Community Programme
  Community Programme
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Higher Education (Staff)
  Higher Education (Staff)
  Reading Material (Departmental Expenditure)
  Reading Material (Departmental Expenditure)
  Open University
  Open University
  Higher Education
  Higher Education
  Scottish Universities (Intake)
  Scottish Universities (Intake)
  Books (VAT)
  Books (VAT)
  Deaf and Blind Children (Specialist Teachers)
  Deaf and Blind Children (Specialist Teachers)
  Schools (Ministerial Visits)
  Schools (Ministerial Visits)
  Corporal Punishment
  Corporal Punishment
  Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers
  Advisory Committee on the Supply and Education of Teachers
  Special Teachers
  Special Teachers
TRADE AND INDUSTRY
  Irish Republic (Manufacturing Industry)
  Irish Republic (Manufacturing Industry)
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Multi-fibre Arrangement
  Computer Industry (Jobs)
  Computer Industry (Jobs)
  Post Office Closures
  Post Office Closures
  Textiles and Clothing
  Textiles and Clothing
  Imports
  Imports
  High Technology Products
  High Technology Products
  Computer Sales
  Computer Sales
  COCOM
  COCOM
  Motor Car Selective Distribution
  Motor Car Selective Distribution
  United States (Technology Transfer)
  United States (Technology Transfer)
  Weighing Machines
  Weighing Machines
  Electronic Goods
  Electronic Goods
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Steel
  Steel
  British Steel Corporation
  British Steel Corporation
  Information Technology (Skills Shortage)
  Information Technology (Skills Shortage)
  Industrial Research and Development
  Industrial Research and Development
  Securities Industry
  Securities Industry
  Financial Services Industry
  Financial Services Industry
  "Self Regulation for Life Assurance"
  "Self Regulation for Life Assurance"
  Hospital Video Recorders (Copyright Law)
  Hospital Video Recorders (Copyright Law)
  Tourism (Consumer Protection)
  Tourism (Consumer Protection)
  Scottish Knitwear (Promotion Scheme)
  Scottish Knitwear (Promotion Scheme)
  European Commission (Economic and Social Committee)
  European Commission (Economic and Social Committee)
  Investor Protection (Report)
  Investor Protection (Report)
  Integrated Operations
  Integrated Operations
  EC (Regional Policy)
  EC (Regional Policy)
  Libya
  Libya
  Dry Dock. Facilities
  Dry Dock. Facilities
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
  British Telecom
  British Telecom
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Leg Irons (Exports)
  Leg Irons (Exports)
  Cinemas
  Cinemas
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Loan Guarantee Scheme
  Leather
  Leather
  London Taxis (Design)
  London Taxis (Design)
  Leeward Islands (HS748 Aircraft)
  Leeward Islands (HS748 Aircraft)
  Information Technology
  Information Technology
  Eastern Europe
  Eastern Europe
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  Turks and Caicos Islands
  St. Helena
  St. Helena
  Montserrat
  Montserrat
  Gibraltar
  Gibraltar
  Cayman Islands
  Cayman Islands
  British Virgin Islands
  British Virgin Islands
  Military Equipment (Definition)
  Military Equipment (Definition)
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Gurkha Garrison (Hong Kong)
  Gurkha Garrison (Hong Kong)
  Hong Kong (Members' Visit)
  Hong Kong (Members' Visit)
  Diplomatic Bags
  Diplomatic Bags
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands
  Falkland Islands Company
  Falkland Islands Company
  Western European Union
  Western European Union
  South Africa
  South Africa
  War Graves (Hong Kong)
  War Graves (Hong Kong)
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  European-Central American Summit
  European-Central American Summit
  Belize (Ministerial Visit)
  Belize (Ministerial Visit)
  Nicaragua
  Nicaragua
  Small Missions
  Small Missions
  Argentina
  Argentina
  Ethiopia
  Ethiopia
ENVIRONMENT
  Local Government
  Local Government
  Inner City Partnership Scheme
  Inner City Partnership Scheme
  Domestic Rating
  Domestic Rating
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Asbestos
  Asbestos
  Commission for the New Towns
  Commission for the New Towns
  Homes (Insulation)
  Homes (Insulation)
  Blight
  Blight
  Town and Country Planning Act 1971
  Town and Country Planning Act 1971
  London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  London Rate Equalisation Scheme
  Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984
  Local Government (Interim Provisions) Act 1984
  Local Government Reform
  Local Government Reform
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  Voluntary Organisations (Grants)
  London Planning Commission
  London Planning Commission
  Block Grant
  Block Grant
  City of Westminster
  City of Westminster
  Ecclesiastical Buildings
  Ecclesiastical Buildings
  Departmental Staff (Statistics)
  Departmental Staff (Statistics)
  Council House Sales
  Council House Sales
  Old Persons (Need)
  Old Persons (Need)
  Islington (Ratecapping)
  Islington (Ratecapping)
  Local Authority Staff (Redundancies)
  Local Authority Staff (Redundancies)
  Rates Act 1984
  Rates Act 1984
  Home Improvement Grant (Newcastle)
  Home Improvement Grant (Newcastle)
  London Metropolitan Green Belt
  London Metropolitan Green Belt
  Home Loans Scheme (West Midlands)
  Home Loans Scheme (West Midlands)
  Common Land
  Common Land
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Nature Conservancy Council)
  Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981 (Nature Conservancy Council)
  Departmental Advisers
  Departmental Advisers
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Local Authority Expenditure
  Water Authorities (Meetings)
  Water Authorities (Meetings)
  Nature Conservancy Council (Grant-in-aid)
  Nature Conservancy Council (Grant-in-aid)
  Stansted Airport
  Stansted Airport
  Bison Wall Frame Buildings
  Bison Wall Frame Buildings
SCOTLAND
  Unemployment
  Unemployment
  Housing (Newtongrange)
  Housing (Newtongrange)
  Labour Statistics
  Labour Statistics
  Leukaemia (Black Report)
  Leukaemia (Black Report)
  Illegitimacy
  Illegitimacy
  Economic Situation
  Economic Situation
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Highlands and Islands Development Board
  Youth Unemployment
  Youth Unemployment
  Cycle Tracks
  Cycle Tracks
  Elderly Persons (Employment)
  Elderly Persons (Employment)
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Homes Insulation Scheme
  Cavity Wall Insulation
  Cavity Wall Insulation
  Maritime Industries
  Maritime Industries
  Manpower Services Commission
  Manpower Services Commission
  Clinical Psychologists
  Clinical Psychologists
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Hospitals
  Psychiatric Nurses
  Psychiatric Nurses
  Hospitals (Salmonella)
  Hospitals (Salmonella)
  National Farmers Union
  National Farmers Union
  Cereals (Intervention Stocks)
  Cereals (Intervention Stocks)
  Abattoirs (Ritual Slaughter)
  Abattoirs (Ritual Slaughter)
  Commissioner for Local Administration (Report)
  Commissioner for Local Administration (Report)
  Peterhead Prison
  Peterhead Prison
  Employment
  Employment
  Hill Farming
  Hill Farming
  Police (Training)
  Police (Training)
  Hospitals (Fee-paying Beds)
  Hospitals (Fee-paying Beds)
  Craiglockhart
  Craiglockhart
  Pesticides (DDT)
  Pesticides (DDT)
  Forestry Grant Scheme
  Forestry Grant Scheme
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Doctors and Nurses
  Doctors and Nurses
  Renal Dialysis
  Renal Dialysis
  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Convention of Scottish Local Authorities
  Redundancies (Ayr)
  Redundancies (Ayr)
  Crime Prevention Panels
  Crime Prevention Panels
  Strathy Bogs, Sutherland
  Strathy Bogs, Sutherland
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Sites of Special Scientific Interest
  Scottish Consumer Council
  Scottish Consumer Council
THE ARTS
  South Bank (GLC Property)
  South Bank (GLC Property)
  South Bank Board
  South Bank Board
  English National Opera
  English National Opera
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Imports by Post (VAT)
  Imports by Post (VAT)
  Pension Schemes
  Pension Schemes
  Alvey Directorate
  Alvey Directorate
  Partnerships (Taxation)
  Partnerships (Taxation)
  Books (VAT)
  Books (VAT)
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Unemployment and Economic Revival
  Unemployment and Economic Revival
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Coal Industry Dispute
  Coal Industry Dispute
  International Banking
  International Banking
  Building Societies
  Building Societies
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970
  Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1970
  Treaty of Rome (VAT)
  Treaty of Rome (VAT)
  Civil Service
  Civil Service
  Libya
  Libya
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Public Purchasing Policy Guidelines
  Public Purchasing Policy Guidelines
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Vehicle Excise Duty
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  EC (Own Resources)
  EC (Own Resources)
  Listed Buildings (VAT)
  Listed Buildings (VAT)
  United States (Export Administration Act)
  United States (Export Administration Act)
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Mortgage Interest Tax Relief
  Departmental Advisers
  Departmental Advisers
  Sumburgill Airport
  Sumburgill Airport
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Community Relations Act 1973
  Community Relations Act 1973
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Gaelic Athletic Association
  Plastic Bullets
  Plastic Bullets
  Fatalities (Statistics)
  Fatalities (Statistics)
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Classified Information
  Classified Information
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Secure Psychiatric Units
  Health Regions (Doctors)
  Health Regions (Doctors)
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Newcastle Computer Dispute
  Parliamentary Answers (Corrections)
  Parliamentary Answers (Corrections)
  Aerial Crop Spraying
  Aerial Crop Spraying
  Population Statistics
  Population Statistics
  NHS (Therapeutic Services)
  NHS (Therapeutic Services)
  Drug and Solvent Abuse
  Drug and Solvent Abuse
  Mortality Rate (Market Harborough)
  Mortality Rate (Market Harborough)
  Maternity Units
  Maternity Units
  Perinatal Mortality
  Perinatal Mortality
  Social Security Reviews
  Social Security Reviews
  Drug Rehabilitation Centre (Waltham Forest)
  Drug Rehabilitation Centre (Waltham Forest)
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Hospital Waiting Lists
  Epidural Injections
  Epidural Injections
  Anti-alcoholism Programmes
  Anti-alcoholism Programmes
  Unemployed Persons (Death Rates)
  Unemployed Persons (Death Rates)
  Natural Childbirth
  Natural Childbirth
  Wrightington Hospital, Lancashire (Children's Ward)
  Wrightington Hospital, Lancashire (Children's Ward)
  Reading Material (Departmental Expenditure)
  Reading Material (Departmental Expenditure)
  Regional and District Health Authorities(Appointments)
  Regional and District Health Authorities(Appointments)
  Wandsworth AHA
  Wandsworth AHA
  Abortions
  Abortions
  Housing Benefit
  Housing Benefit
  Orthopaedic Surgery (Liverpool)
  Orthopaedic Surgery (Liverpool)
  Cancer Patients (Liverpool)
  Cancer Patients (Liverpool)
  Hip Replacements (Liverpool)
  Hip Replacements (Liverpool)
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Hospitals (Salmonella Infections)
  Hospitals (Salmonella Infections)
  Seat Belts
  Seat Belts
  Chiropody Students
  Chiropody Students
  Misuse of Drugs
  Misuse of Drugs
  Obstetric and Neonatal Care
  Obstetric and Neonatal Care
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  Hospital Beds (Liverpool)
  Hospital Beds (Liverpool)
  Health Employees (Liverpool)
  Health Employees (Liverpool)
  Health Authority Financing
  Health Authority Financing
  Age Addition
  Age Addition
  Farm Workers (Insurance)
  Farm Workers (Insurance)
  Heating Allowances
  Heating Allowances
  Deaf Discrimination
  Deaf Discrimination
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Departmental Staff
  Departmental Staff
  Single Payments
  Single Payments
  Supplementary Benefit
  Supplementary Benefit
  Family Income Supplement
  Family Income Supplement
  Cervical Cytology
  Cervical Cytology
  Benefit Claims
  Benefit Claims
  NHS (Contractual Arrangements)
  NHS (Contractual Arrangements)
  NHS (Surplus Land)
  NHS (Surplus Land)
  Hip Replacement Surgery
  Hip Replacement Surgery
  Attendance Allowance
  Attendance Allowance
  Disabled Persons (Benefits)
  Disabled Persons (Benefits)
  Nursing Homes
  Nursing Homes
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Orthopaedic Operations
  Orthopaedic Operations
  Lorazepam
  Lorazepam
TRANSPORT
  Singapore International Airlines
  Singapore International Airlines
  Manchester International Airport
  Manchester International Airport
  Manchester and Stansted Airports
  Manchester and Stansted Airports
  Third London Airport
  Third London Airport
  Railway Accident, Cheshire (Report)
  Railway Accident, Cheshire (Report)
  Travel Firms
  Travel Firms
  Tube Stations (Commuter Parking)
  Tube Stations (Commuter Parking)
  Roads (Greater London)
  Roads (Greater London)
  Scottish Lowland Airports
  Scottish Lowland Airports
  >Transport Supplementary Grant
  >Transport Supplementary Grant
  Road Accident Statistics
  Road Accident Statistics
  Airline Fares
  Airline Fares
  M4 Motorway (Service Stations)
  M4 Motorway (Service Stations)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Veterinary Medicinal Products
  Veterinary Medicinal Products
  Imported Food Supplies (Mining Dispute)
  Imported Food Supplies (Mining Dispute)
  EEC Wine Supplies
  EEC Wine Supplies
  Cereals (Exports)
  Cereals (Exports)
  Agriculture and Horticulture
  Agriculture and Horticulture
  Wheat and Barley
  Wheat and Barley
  Milk Quotas
  Milk Quotas
  Care of Horses (Staff Wages)
  Care of Horses (Staff Wages)
  Norway Pout
  Norway Pout
DEFENCE
  Operation Lionheart.
  Operation Lionheart.
  Ash and Pirbright Ranges (Civilian Use)
  Ash and Pirbright Ranges (Civilian Use)
  Trident
  Trident
  Nuclear Tests
  Nuclear Tests
  Hong Kong
  Hong Kong
  Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  Crown Proceedings Act 1947
  "Another Story: Women and the Falklands War"
  "Another Story: Women and the Falklands War"
  Airland Battle Plans
  Airland Battle Plans
  Falkland Islands (Hospital Facilities)
  Falkland Islands (Hospital Facilities)
  Naval Apprentice Jonathan Mills
  Naval Apprentice Jonathan Mills
  Gordon Barracks, Aberdeen
  Gordon Barracks, Aberdeen
  Defence Contracts
  Defence Contracts
  Army Applicants (Rejections)
  Army Applicants (Rejections)
  Turkey
  Turkey
  Radioactive Materials (Burghfield)
  Radioactive Materials (Burghfield)
Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Personal Statement: The Lord Trefgarne
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Armed Forces (Lord Trefgarne): My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a personal statement.
I very much regret that I inadvertently misled your Lordships last night in replying to the Unstarred Question of the noble Baroness, Lady Burton of Coventry, on airline competition. I told your Lordships that airline tickets to the United States, sold on the basis of lower unapproved winter fares, were not valid and passengers would have to buy new tickets at the higher approved fares. I now understand that Ministers decided yesterday that these tickets bought before 18th October, when the Government decided not to approve the lower fares, will, after all, remain valid. I was not aware of this decision when I spoke as I did last evening, and I apologise to your Lordships unreservedly.

BBC and Party Conference Coverage
2.31 p.m.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the circumstances in which the BBC decided to dispense with the services of Mr. David Dimbleby as a reporter at this year's party conferences; and whether these circumstances cause the Government any concern.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Lord Elton): My Lords, it is not for the Government to comment on the contractual relationship between the BBC and a particular individual.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that Answer, but only moderately. Is it not ironic that the Government should say that they cannot intervene in the relations between the BBC and its employees, whereas the case of Mr. David Dimbleby indicates very clearly that there are other people who can interfere in this way? Is it not outrageous that the BBC should have been dictated to on the question of which reporters it should send to cover party conferences? Would it not have been proper for the Director General of the BBC to tell those who said that Mr. Dimbleby was not acceptable that in that case they would not report the conferences at all? Is this not an outrageous case of interference with the freedom of the press?
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Government's employment Acts provide civil remedies in a case such as this, but it is for those whose businesses are affected to decide when it would be appropriate to invoke them, and not for the Government to direct them. The only other reply I would make to the noble Lord is to remind him that the BBC was prepared to go to the High Court to get an injunction against the disruption of the Budget programmes, which is a related issue.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, can the Minister say whether the person mentioned in the Question has had anything taken up with the BBC on his behalf by a trade union or professional organisation apropos his complaint as voiced by the noble Lord?
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am in a difficult position in that it is not the Government's responsibility to conduct the relations of the BBC with somebody with whom it has a contractual relationship.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, will my noble friend bear in mind that when trade unions interfere with editorial freedom in the printing of a newspaper there is generally an announcement of that fact? Fortunately, it has been drawn attention to in this House. I wonder whether some publicity ought not be given by the BBC when its editorial freedom is challenged by what amounts to secondary blacking.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I am sure that that is a view of which the BBC will take note when it is published.
Lord Chalfont: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that he has not really answered my Question? My Question was: are the Government aware of the circumstances, and, if so, do they cause the Government any concern? I am not suggesting that the Government should have intervened or directed in any way. My question is: does the fact that a journalist has been deprived of the right to pursue his profession because of the pressure of a political organisation cause the Government any concern? Will the noble Lord please answer that question?
Lord Elton: My Lords, specifically, the Government are aware of the circumstances. As to the way in which the corporation handled those circumstances, I have to repeat that that is a matter for the corporation.

Air Route Structure
2.35 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 whether, in view of the answer given on 14th June (col. 1252), they are able to give further details of the progress made on the review by the European Air Navigation Planning Group of the air route structure.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, we understand that the European Air Navigation Planning Group's

515
provisional plan for improvements in route alignment is likely to be endorsed by the full ICAO Council by April next year. However, in advance of ICAO's formal approval the United Kingdom, France, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Republic of Ireland and Spain have already established new routes reflecting operators' requirements.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, is the Minister aware that after what must seem interminable Questions it is rather nice to end the Session in thanking the noble Lord for the help that he has given on this matter? But having said that, would the Minister not agree that it seems an interminable time since this matter was referred to the International Civil Aviation Organisation? If I am correct, I believe it was referred in May; and does the noble Lord recall that in June he told me that they had still not had time to discuss the matter? I understand that they are meeting in Montreal at the present moment. Can the noble Lord say whether waiting until next year means that the routes affected will not be in a cost-saving position as it has not actually become law?
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, no, that is not so. I am happy to be able to say that a number of improvements along the lines proposed by the planning group are being brought into effect straightaway. For example, a Dublin-London route has been established; a Dublin-Cherbourg peninsula route has been established; and also a Dublin-Santiago route has been established, all of which shorten the original routings and will provide economies for airlines as a result.
Baroness Burton of Coventry: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will be kind enough to let me know next year when this has finally been settled, so that we might have a Question down and end the matter once and for all.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I shall be happy to ensure that the noble Baroness is kept fully informed.

Water: Waste by Leakage
2.37 p.m.
Lord Molson: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they accept that between 25–30 per cent, of water, valued at £45 million, is being wasted annually by leakage; and if so, what steps are being taken to remedy this before the next drought, and whether Exchequer assistance will be given.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the percentage and value of water put into supply which is unaccounted for, principally because of leakage, vary widely from place to place. A survey in 1977 put this figure at approximately 24 per cent. for the United Kingdom as a whole. However, in some areas the figure can be much higher.
516
Water authorities and companies have adopted policies for detecting and controlling leakage which concentrate effort on places where the value of the water saved justifies the costs incurred. Recently-developed equipment to prevent excess pressures in water mains is proving to be particularly successful in reducing leakage. This is now coming into wide use.
Lord Molson: My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that Answer, which as far as it goes seems to be encouraging, may I ask him two relevant supplementary questions? Was it known before the beginning of the drought that there was this serious problem of leakage from the mains and from water pipes? Secondly, since the whole financial policy of the water authorities is strictly controlled by the Secretary of State, can we be assured that water authorities will be allowed sufficient freedom in obtaining money to carry out the necessary repairs to these mains? Do the Government agree that it is preferable for money to be spent on maintaining the essential infrastructure of the country rather than for it to be spent on unemployment?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, there are about 180,000 miles of undertakers' mains, and a similar length of supply pipes in the ownership of consumers in England and Wales. Therefore, there will always be a certain amount of leakage. What one has to ascertain is at what point it ceases to become cost-effective to repair this leakage. As to my noble friend's question on the budget of water authorities, yes, the budget is approved in each case by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State; and for those procedures which the water authorities themselves wish to carry out there is sufficient money.
My noble friend's last point was about the relative cost of improving the water mains system of this country vis-a-vis paying unemployment benefit. I do not think that the two are relative because if extra manpower were to be used on this it would rapidly become a non-cost-effective situation so that I think it would be a short-term saving on unemployment, even assuming that the people on the unemployed registers were qualified to carry out the work in the first place.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that his answers to the very serious and important questions put to him by the noble Lord, Lord Molson, were thoroughly unsatisfactory? Is the noble Lord aware that it is vitally necessary at this time, not only in relief of unemployment but on its strict financial, economic cost-effective basis, for the Government to pull their finger out and see that a proper investment is made in this very important part of the nation's infrastructure?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, your Lordships' Select Committee on Science and Technology in 1982 reported on the future of the water industry and took up in some detail this question of water leakage. I would refer the noble Lord to what they say and to what was the Government's response. The Government have been in contact with the water authorities to set under way new and improved measures to reduce water leakage and these are being

517
taken forward. So in the noble Lord's phrase, I do not think that it is a question of the Government not pulling their finger out.
Lord Tordoff: My Lords, is it not more a question of the Government putting their finger in rather than pulling it out?
Lord Maude of Stratford-upon-Avon: My Lords, while this system is obviously a pretty uneconomic way of transporting water, is it really true to say that all this water is being wasted? Apart from burst water mains in built-up areas where water is lost through storm drains, surely the leakage from underground pipes is absorbed into the ground and goes to replenish the water table?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I wish that that were entirely so. But of course there is an uptake by plants; and it finds its way into rivers and so down into the sea. It also finds its way into ponds and it is lost through evaporation.
Lord Dean of Beswick: My Lords, does not the Minister agree that the interests of the water authorities would be far better served by opening up their meetings to the press, the public and the media instead of insisting upon meeting in secret and in camera as they do at present?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, that is a totally different question. However, even if I agreed, I would have to say that there is now a perfect mechanism for the press to get any information they require out of the water authorities.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the water authorities in the past few years have most impressively developed techniques for surveying the mains water supplies without digging up the roads? They use various methods such as radar screens, and so on; and they have television cameras actually placed in the mains. Thus they have been able to work out techniques for repairing and re-lining mains in situ, which is greatly to the benefit of the economy for they do not have to dig up and replace the system. Massive progress has been made and the water authorities should be given some credit for the progress that they have made in this fashion. While it is true that they could make even more progress if they had the money to enable them to carry out more service and repairs, they have achieved a very great deal in this particular respect.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. He is quite right. The Water Research Centre has been at the centre of producing the new machines such as the leak/noise correlator to which my noble friend has referred.
Lord Mishcon: My Lords, have not the Government a rather bad record in controlling leakages?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, it depends upon whether they are H20 or other materials.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, in view of the heat in the supplementary question put from the Front Bench opposite, are we to understand that that leakage has only taken place over the past five years?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am sorry but my noble friend has totally lost me.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: My Lords, may I put my supplementary question again? Has the leakage which has been admitted on all sides taken place only during the period of the Conservative administration?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for spelling out his supplementary question. No, my Lords, leakage has always gone on and always will go on.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Government's failure to invest more in water resources accounted for by problems of liquidity?
Lord Leatherland: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in his original Answer, he used the expression "non-effective cost situation"? Can he please tell me what it means?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in my terminology, non-effective cost is something that, if you spend it, does not actually do any good.

Coal Mining Industry: Future Development
2.47 p.m.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will establish a specialist committee of geological and mining engineers to ascertain the future of British coal mines.
The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Lord Gray of Contin): My Lords, the National Coal Board, which is statutorily responsible for the efficient development of the coal mining industry of this country, has made positive and constructive proposals for the industry's future. These proposals have been accepted by the industry's trade unions with the exception of the National Union of Mineworkers. It is the view of many miners themselves that the NUM should also now accept those proposals.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that quite irrelevant reply? The fact of the matter is that there is a most massive strike going on at this very moment which any sensible person would want to see come to an end. That was the purpose of my Question, and not in any way (would the noble Lord agree?) do I wish to apportion blame in one way or the other. But with an independent committee that was answerable neither to the NUM or NACODS nor to the National Coal Board, their findings would give encouragement to miners and, indeed, to the specialists in the National Coal Board. What I am talking

519
about, and what I am asking the Minister to be serious about, is the future of a vital part of British industry; namely, its coal reserves and coal supplies.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I can assure the noble Lord that I have never been more serious about anything; but the National Coal Board did make clear to the conciliation service and the mining unions its readiness to give full weight to the advice of an independent advisory body appointed to consider disputed proposals under the colliery review procedure. But it would be completely unreasonable for anybody to expect the board to relinquish its responsibility for managing the coal industry. The staff of the National Coal Board are expert in the geological and mining engineering questions which affect the coal industry, and they are dealing with them on a day-to-day basis.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, does my noble friend's Question not have added relevance in that he wants an independent body to study these matters, bearing in mind the document marked "Secret" which was issued by the north-east area today, which is referred to in the national newspapers and which in fact projects a run-down of the coal industry in the north-east with a loss of 5,500 jobs by 1988 and another 12,000 by the 1990s? Does that not show that while the NACODS negotiations were going on there were already secret plans going ahead to close down, or virtually to close down, the north-east area; and was that not really treachery?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am really amazed at a parliamentarian with the experience of the noble Lord making a statement of that sort from the Dispatch Box. Mr. MacGregor, as chairman, has made the miners the best offer in the industry's history: a generous pay award, a guaranteed job for those wishing to stay in the industry, generous assistance for those transferring to other jobs or leaving the industry, massive investment in the coal industry's future, and an enterprise scheme to help bring new jobs to mining areas. If Mr. Scargill had the real interests of his miners at heart he would accept the board's remarkably good offer, as other mining unions have already done, and stop scare-mongering.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that every tonne of coal mined in this country costs the taxpayer £60, in other words, £3,000 million a year and in fact it could be imported at £30 a tonne?—not that I would advise that, but I should just like to point it out. If only Mr. Scargill would behave himself and allow this procedure of closing uneconomic mines to go through we would then probably have a viable coal industry which would save, as I said, the taxpayer £3,000 million a year.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for his observations, which of course are accurate, but it is no part of the Government's intention to do other than give wholehearted support to the coal industry; and indeed the steps which my honourable and right honourable friends have taken since 1979 have wholly committed them to this. It is
520
at times difficult, when the National Coal Board finds that it has to negotiate with somebody who to all intents and purposes is more interested in the political outcome of the dispute than in the real interests of his members.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister agree that the form of the Question, quite rightly, in no way seeks to canvass the merits of the miners' dispute and that the Question is a serious one? Would he agree that the future of the mines is dependent upon productivity, price, demand and also upon a predictable supply?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, yes, I could not disagree with anything that my noble friend has said. I think his assessment of the situation is accurate.
Baroness Gaitskell: My Lords, is the Minister aware that Mr. MacGregor has never been generous to the miners from the word "Go" and we cannot expect things from him?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I respect the view of the noble Baroness of course, but I think that if she will do her research and read precisely what has been put on offer to the miners, she will find that the statement which I have made this afternoon is absolutely correct.
Lord Renton: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that many coal-faces have been damaged—some of them perhaps permanently, all of them temporarily—by flooding, by underground fires and by a falling in of underground roadways and that all of these damaged coal-faces will cost a great deal of money to put into order again? Is this a factor which, so far as he is aware, is being borne in mind in the further negotiations with regard to this strike?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think my noble friend will realise that those factors are well known to both sides who are negotiating. The actual up-to-date figures are that 20 producing faces have already been lost and a further 84 faces are causing serious concern at collieries throughout the British coalfields. This is a very serious situation and one which many working miners will be appalled about when they realise the potential consequences. I am sure that everybody on this side, and I am sure on both sides, hopes that the negotiations which are taking place today can be concluded satisfactorily and that Mr. Scargill will appreciate the benefit of what he is being offered, set aside his political views, and settle on the facts.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, with reference to the Question on the Order Paper, would the noble Lord agree that we already have an independent source of authority, the Institute of Geological Sciences? Would he further agree that where it and the coal board do not always see eye to eye with regard to reserves, as mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, it would be quite impossible to find any third body so much more authoritative than either of them that its ajudication could be accepted?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I think I have made it absolutely clear that the National Coal Board is

521
prepared to give full weight to the advice of an independent advisory body appointed to consider disputed proposals under the colliery review procedures; but I think also we must realise that the National Coal Board is statutorily responsible for the management of coalfields, and for it to devolve this power would be quite wrong. It has fully indicated that it is agreeable to taking due note of any recommendation, but the final decision must be for those who manage.
Lord Molloy: My Lords, may I say that the real purpose of my Question was this? At some time this awful dispute will end. What we have to do is to find something which is not there yet which could prevent this situation from ever happening again. Arbitrators and referees do not really count. My proposal was that there should be geologists and mining engineers, not on the side of the NCB, who have the right to govern and run the pits, and not on the side of the National Union of Mineworkers, who have the right to look after their members, but who with their experience as geologists and mining engineers could quite easily make a fantastic contribution to prevent anything like this from happening again. May I say this to the Minister. We had the coal industry examination and final report in 1974, we had the Plan for Coal in 1977, and we have now had established a miscellaneous one hundred and one set of Ministers. Nothing seems to be resolving this. All I would plead and ask is this——
Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord Molloy: My Lords, all I would ask is this: will the Government give consideration to my recommendation to end the dispute and to prevent it from ever happening again?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, so far every move which has taken place towards a solution—every move, every concession—has been made by the National Coal Board. So far there is no evidence whatsoever that Mr. Scargill is prepared to concede one iota. Therefore, I reiterate to the noble Lord that what he asks for in his Question the National Coal Board is prepared to some degree to accede to. It is prepared to take due note of advice of a body such as the noble Lord suggests. But I would reiterate that the ultimate management must be in the hands of those who manage—and that is the National Coal Board.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, would not my noble friend agree that the questions of the noble Lord opposite are a marvellous example of the way in which hope continues to triumph over experience, in that he evidently believes that some special wisdom might emanate from a specialist committee, while all experience teaches that such bodies only confuse counsel?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I take note of the comments of my noble friend but, to stick as closely as I can to the terms of the noble Lord's Question, I have indicated that the coal board would be prepared to take on board the view of any such body but that theirs must be the ultimate decision.
Lord Paget of Northampton: My Lords, is not the trouble here that we have had terms offered which could, and almost certainly would, have been accepted if they had not come from sources which have made themselves utterly distrusted, and that the kind of answers we have been getting from the Minister simply increases that distrust and makes acceptance less and less likely?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I would remind the noble Lord that one union has already negotiated and reached a settlement on terms which it considers to be fair to both sides. If the National Union of Mineworkers would adopt a similar approach the whole question of the strike would be resolved today.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, is the noble Lord the Minister aware that he and many other people would be well advised to take personalities out of this? Is he further aware that instead of making reference to "Scargill" and "MacGregor" it would be far better to refer to the NUM and the National Coal Board in this dispute?
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am afraid that the attitude of Mr. Scargill in this dispute, and particularly of some of those from whom he has sought counsel, makes it very difficult to keep personalities out of this.
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after—
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way?
Lord Denham: My Lords, I prefer not to.
Noble Lords: Order!
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I should like to ask one further supplementary question. The House will have listened with interest to what the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, has said, but will he answer this question? Will he confirm that while negotiations were going on with NACODS a secret document was in preparation, and was about to be published, which would reduce the number of men in the north-east coalfields by 12,000? Will he confirm that?
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, before my noble friend replies, may I ask him whether he is aware that if the Government Chief Whip has advice to give it is usually within the courtesies of this House to hearit?

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, at a convenient moment after 3.30 this afternoon my noble friend the Leader of the House will, with the leave of the House, repeat a Statement that is to be made in another place on Mrs. Gandhi.
It may also be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that, subject to the progress of business, Parliament will be prorogued at approximately 10.30 this evening.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, if I have offended against the procedures of this House then of course I unreservedly apologise to the House.

Worcester City Council Bill [H.L.]
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, I apologise for wearying your Lordships with two more Motions, which are similar to those I have been moving in recent days, to allow these Private Bills to continue their passage through Parliament in the next Session.
I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon in this Session, in order to proceed with the Bill in the next Session of Parliament, notice of their intention to do so having been deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments;
That such Bill shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on or before the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed thereto, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;
That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament, be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply, in the next Session of Parliament, to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Alexandra Park and Palace Bill
Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That this House do concur with the orders made by the Commons set out in their message of 29th October.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and it was ordered that a message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith.

Business
Lord Denham: My Lords, with the leave of the House, and with apologies for having omitted it from my earlier business statement, I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I announce that the noble Lord, Lord Somers, has decided not to ask his Unstarred Question at the end of business today.

Human Fertilisation: Warnock Report
3.4 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Lord Glenarthur) rose to move, That this House takes note of the report of the Committee of inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the Warnock Report) (Cmnd. 9314).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, 1978 saw the birth in this county of a child described as the world's first test-tube baby. For some couples this was a major breakthrough because it offered the only method by which they might have a child which would be genetically their own. Alongside the wonder this caused and the hopes it raised, there grew understandable concern and some disquiet about where this new technology might lead. There then also grew a belief that the issues were wider than those of medical ethics; so wide, in fact, that they should be subject to the scrutiny of society as a whole. So it was that in 1982 the Government established this inquiry whose report is before us today. The Official Report for 9th July 1982 reports a request for such a measure from the noble Lady, Lady Saltoun. I am glad to see that she is in her place today.
Let me say a few words about the committee of inquiry. It was chaired by Dame Mary Warnock, and its membership reflected a wide range of lay, professional and religious interests. The terms of reference given to it were to consider what policies and safeguards should be applied to recent and potential developments in human fertilisation and embryology, and to make recommendations. This the inquiry has now done. The Government welcome the clarity of the report, as I think do most who have read it, and the balanced way in which the challenges posed by the new treatments and associated research have been presented. I should like to record the Government's sincere appreciation to Dame Mary and to her team for the care and concern which they brought to this formidable task. They produced a report of major importance.
The Warnock report concerns the social, ethical and legal implications of developments in human reproduction. These are complex and sensitive matters. As the foreword to the report says:
"it would be idle to pretend that there is not a wide diversity in moral feelings, whether these arise from religious, philosophical or humanist beliefs. What is common … is that people generally want some principles or other to govern the development and use of the new techniques. There must be some barriers that are not to be crossed, some limits fixed, beyond which people must not be allowed to go".
The foreword goes on to say:
"We realise that some people may think that we have set the limits, or have suggested that the barriers be erected, in the wrong places. But at least we hope that we have stated clearly what we think should be done, and exposed, as far as possible, the reasoning that lay behind our recommendations".
The Government published the committee's report without delay because we considered it of the utmost importance to make the discussion it contains, and its recommendations, widely available. At the same time, we sent it to a wide range of interested organisations

525
for comment by the end of the year. We hope all those organisations, and members of the general public, who wish to comment will make their views known to us.
We believe it would have been wrong to rush ahead with hasty decisions about how to take forward the recommendations contained in the report. We felt that a period of consultation was required in order to consider it fully. In moving this Motion, your Lordships will understand that it is not my purpose to announce decisions today. But it is appropriate that the views of your Lordships should be taken account of in this consultative process. The list of speakers is impressive, and we shall all benefit from the wise counsels which will be given from the Bishops' Benches and from noble Lords experienced in law, in medicine and the sciences, and in the many other matters which bear deeply on our society. At the end of the debate I shall of course respond where I can to points that will have been raised.
We have been presented with more than 60 recommendations for legislative or administrative change. I will highlight only the key proposals. These are, that there should be a statutory body to license and inspect all infertility services where the new techniques are used, and the use of human embryos in research. This body would also provide on-going advice to Government about future developments and ensure that criteria for good practice in infertility services were implemented. Secondly, that in addition to control by the proposed statutory body the use of human embryos in research must be strictly regulated by law. In particular, there should be an absolute limit of 14 days after fertilisation after which embryos may not be further developed; and it should be made a criminal offence to undertake certain types of research and procedures; for example, the transfer of a human embryo to the uterus of another species. Then that surrogate motherhood treatment, whether provided by agencies or individual doctors, should be banned; and that the legal status and interests of the children born as a result of AID or IVF should be secured. In particular, the AID child should be legitimised.
There is no doubt that many of the issues in this report will arouse strong and widely differing opinions. Indeed, among the public at large they are already doing so. There will not be a consensus view on all recommendations. The members of the committee were divided in their view on certain aspects of research and on surrogacy. It is for this reason that the Government have set a period for public debate and for consultation with interested organisations, which will continue until the end of this year. We are already considering the report very closely. We shall take careful account of all the views expressed, including those of your Lordships, before we reach decisions. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House takes note of the Report of the Committee of Inquiry into Human Fertilisation and Embryology (the Warnock Report) (Cmnd. 9314).—(Lord Glenarthur.)
3.10 p.m.
Lord Ennals: My Lords, at the start of this very important debate, let me make it quite clear that though I am speaking from the Opposition Front Bench, nothing that I say is other than my own
526
personal view. There is no party line, nor should there be at this stage of the debate on a subject raising such profound moral and ethical issues, and I am sure that the noble Lord the Minister was quite right to say that his task is to listen and that he will do so. The number of Members of your Lordships' House who are to speak today is an indication of the very widespread interest. However, we cannot escape the fact—and the committee presided over the Dame Mary Warnock believes this—that some decisions are urgently needed; of course after careful consideration. The Government themselves will have to make up their minds and introduce legislation for consideration by both Houses.
Before coming to the report, I want to say that the subject is one that has interested me personally over a number of years as a result of continuing involvement with the National Association for the Childless. Those who are fortunate enough to know the joys of having the presence of children in the home, and of seeing their children grow into mature, and in my case—and I am certain that it applies to many other noble Lords—outstandingly able adults, should not ignore for one moment the frustration and sense of deprivation of those couples who want to have children, but who, through reasons of infertility, are unable to do so.
In fact, the right to bear children is one of those human rights written into the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights. Some people do not realise that about 10 per cent. of marriages in the United Kingdom are still childless after 10 years and only a small proportion of those are childless by their own wish. The vast majority of childless couples long for a child or children and are denied them through no fault of their own. It is for them a source of profound sadness, often carrying with it the implications of inadequacy. It is not surprising therefore that, as a result of the remarkable medical skills of Mr. Patrick Steptoe and Dr. Robert Edwards, the birth of the first test-tube baby in July 1978, as referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, was not only hailed as a truly remarkable achievement but it held out new hope to infertile couples.
As the Warnock report on human fertilisation states in its very first paragraph:
"The technique, long sought, at last successful, opened up new horizons in the alleviation of infertility and in the science of embryology. It was now possible to observe the very earliest stages of human development, and with these discoveries came the hope of remedying defects at this very early stage. However there were also anxieties. There was a sense that events were moving too fast for their implications to be assimilated. Society's views on the new techniques were divided between pride in the technological achievement, pleasure at the new-found means to relieve, at least for some, the unhappiness of infertility, and unease at the apparently uncontrolled advance of science, bringing with it new possibilities for manipulating the early stages of human development".
I had an opportunity of discussing these issues with Mr. Steptoe and Dr. Edwards at a conference of the National Association for the Childless, and subsequently with Dame Mary Warnock after the report was published. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to Dame Mary, as chairman of the committee, and to the laymen, doctors, scientists and theologians who served on the committee. In general, and repeating that I am speaking personally, I find the arguments persuasive and the conclusions sound.

527
It is of more than passing interest that the Central Ethical Committee of the BMA in their report in 1983 reached almost identical conclusions. Of the Warnock Committee's report, they said on 18th July this year:
"This is a brilliant report which records the anxieties many people feel about the work carried out by doctors at the frontiers of medicine. The conclusions will provide sensible and compassionate guidance for the introduction of laws so that we can achieve the greatest benefits from the techniques available with as few of the undesirable consequences as possible."
So after careful thought and weighing up the natural concerns, such as those that will undoubtedly be expressed by a number of your Lordships today, but conscious also of the great joy that may be provided for some eager and loving couples now denied the God-given gift of children, I conclude that a statutory authority to license test-tube baby research and treatment, to control research on human embryos and to licence other treatment for infertility should be set up as soon as is reasonably possible. Research on human embryos should be limited to 14 days after fertilisation, and beyond that should be a criminal offence. The sale or purchase of human embryos, semen and eggs should be permitted only under licence from the authority. Research would have to be licensed, project by project, and legal changes should be introduced to make children bom by artificial insemination or by egg or embryo donation legitimate. Remarkably, the committee agreed unanimously on 63 recommendations, with all of which I personally—and I repeat again, personally—also agree.
Perhaps the most controversial issue is that of surrogate motherhood, on which I also share the doubts expressed not only by the committee itself but by the founder of the National Association for the Childless, Mr. Peter Houghton. It poses many problems. The first is whether it is right for one woman to donate her baby to another. If a money transaction takes place, then a sale has effectively taken place and the surrogate womb has been used for gain. I suspect that most people will feel that there is something deeply wrong about a process of this kind, particularly if money is involved. It appears to be to do with the kind of value that we place on human life; for example, not treating it as a mere commodity. Others argue that for the surrogate to expose herself to the experience of loss after a successful pregnancy is deeply unwise. Still others accuse the childless couple of selfish exploitation of other women just to have a baby of their own. In other words, what is required to obtain the baby by this means is too great when measured against the prospect of childlessness.
Have the childless couple understood that they themselves will be exposed to grief, loss and humiliation in the quite natural and possible event that the experience of pregnancy and child birth may persuade the mother to retain the child? If a money transaction is involved, do they realise that they would have no enforceable contract and could not recover it? Moreover, the surrogate mother might die during the pregnancy, or the child might be born disabled and be rejected by the couple. On this issue, too, I support strongly the conclusion of the majority of the committee—there was of course a minority
528
report—that surrogate motherhood agencies should be banned. As the Warnock Committee says:
"There must be some barriers that are not to be crossed, some limits fixed".
The report has attempted to produce a coherent set of proposals for how public policy rather than individual conscience should respond to a range of developments in which many people will not wish to participate but which others find entirely acceptable. For a balanced approach, upon which there will be deep debate not only in your Lordships' House but in another place and throughout the country, certainly among those of religious belief, I believe that this report has provided the basis for precisely the kind of ethical, moral and legal discussion which needs to take place. For this we are greatly in debt to Dame Mary Warnock and her committee.
3.22 p.m.
Lord Winstanley: My Lords, as has already been said, we are debating a matter which raises questions of immense moral, ethical, religious and philosophical significance but not, I hope, for the moment at least, of party political significance. It therefore follows that, like the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, in what I say today in this debate I am not expressing a party line. My noble friends are entirely free to hold their own opinions and to express them, if they so choose.
In general terms, we on these Benches have always believed that the search for knowledge—of ourselves and of the world in which we live—should, where possible, be assisted and should not needlessly be obstructed. We also believe that people should be free to do anything that they wish to do, provided that what they do does not impinge on the safety, rights or freedom of others. But in the context of this report, who are the "others"? Is the human embryo before implantation to rank as one of the others, with the entitlement to rights and protection which legal recognition would necessarily imply? That is the kind of question which Dame Mary Warnock and her colleagues invite us to consider, though not necessarily to answer.
In our House we are not obliged to answer unanswerable questions, nor are we obliged here and now to judge between the merits of two extreme and opposing groups who believe that they already know the answers with absolute certainty: the one group which says, and will continue to say, that anything goes and the other group which insists, and will doubtless go on insisting, that nothing at all should be done.
Judging from the admirable and wholly appropriately brief speech of the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, this debate is not for the purpose of coming to finite conclusions. It is an occasion for careful thought, for ventilating our thoughts and for listening carefully to, and considering the thoughts of, others. In my opinion, both professionally and as a doctor, I believe that we would be very unwise to try to legislate precipitately in an area in which the rate of technological change is now so very rapid that any new legislation, by the time it reaches the statute book, might inevitably become out of date and even be overtaken by events.

529
Just think, as we have already been reminded by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals, and the noble Lord, Lord Glenarthur, for a moment of the complexity of the matters which Dame Mary asks us to consider: AIH, which is now fairly generally regarded as acceptable; AID, which is much more controversial; egg donation, which is highly controversial, and embryo donation and surrogacy which are rather more than controversial. The right of a human being born by these means to have some ultimate right to a knowledge of his or her genetic inheritance is a very important matter which needs to be considered, as is the use of human embryos in research.
The remote and, to me, alarming possibility of parthenogenesis and of the virgin birth, which is what parthenogenesis really is, may take place naturally, but we have to consider whether it should be artificially assisted to take place. There is the possibility of cloning and even the horrifying possibility of trans-species fertilisation and the gestation of human embryos in other species—matters which no one in his right mind would regard as acceptable and which should be forbidden.
All that I have said is not merely to demonstrate that I have read and studied the report with immense care, but to illustrate, as others have already illustrated, the immense complexity of the subject with which we have to deal.
Briefly, why do we have to deal with it at all? What is the point of work of this kind and what benefits could possibly flow to mankind from all this work? Let me spend a moment upon giving my answers to those questions. First, the relief of infertility and subfertility is a very important matter, but in a world in which the human population, in global terms, is now growing at a rate of 8,000 an hour—perhaps another Wolverhampton by the time this debate is over—surely we should think carefully before adding needlessly to that population.
I am bound to say that while I recognise the burden of childlessness and the right of a couple to be assisted to have a child, I am not enamoured of a technology which can now give six or seven children to a couple at one fell swoop. The incidental and accidental production of multiple pregnancies needs to be very carefully watched. On the other hand, some of the research into human fertilisation which is now being carried out and which is referred to in the report may later prove helpful in preventing pregnancy for those couples who wish to prevent it but who are opposed, on religious grounds or other kinds of fastidiousness, to mechanical or other methods and who now rely upon the so-called safe period. I am sure your Lordships know what some doctors call those who prefer to use the safe period method of contraception. We call them parents. We believe that this research could prove beneficial in that particular direction.
Let me turn briefly to the increasing prevalence in our society of genetically transmitted diseases. In a sense, modern civilisation has taken evolution, Darwinism—the survival of the fittest—by the scruff of the neck and put it into reverse. We rightly make sure not only that the least fit survive, but that they grow up and multiply. The net result is a steady increase in the incidence of a number of genetically transmitted
530
diseases. Genetic counselling can, and indeed does, assist considerably, but we need more knowledge. It is in part to gain more knowledge that this work is taking place. If we had more knowledge of this kind, genetic counselling could do a great deal more. It should, in my view, be allowed and assisted to continue.
Looking for a moment at the more grotesque possibilities in the remote future of eugenic techniques to improve the innate quality of mankind, which depends rather more upon genetic than upon environmental factors, we are on very dangerous ground indeed. But it cannot be denied that upon any impartial examination of the world today the human experiment does not seem to have been an outstanding success.
There is a widespread and rather naive assumption that as long as time keeps passing, humanity will inevitably get better and better. In my view, that assumption is not wholly supported by the facts. Personally, I entertain hopes that some day we may even be superseded and replaced by a better and more agreeable species—but I have no doubt that some would regard that as a form of heresy. If a genetically-transmitted quality such as aggression could be bred out of us, that might be no bad thing—but we must not start trying to behave or think as if we were God. We are a very long way indeed from that stage of development.
Let us proceed rapidly to set up the recommended statutory authority to regulate and watch over all these worrying matters, and let us restrict work in this field to those licensed by the authority to undertake such work and to do so within the very sensible guidelines laid down in the report. In other words, I am endorsing the view already expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ennals. All that would require minimal legislation.
On certain of the other matters, let us proceed cautiously and without haste. The law in this field is already in something of a muddle. We have a legal point of viability of a human foetus and all the consequences that flow therefrom. We now have a measure of legal protection for the human embryo in vivo, and we must now proceed in some way to protect the human embryo which is not in vivo. In addition, we must consider very carefully the legal rights of the child that is born as a result of these new techniques. I am less concerned about the rights of fully consenting adults—be they husbands or wives, fathers or mothers, or third parties. I believe that the majority report has got those things just about right.
Finally, some words of thanks from all noble Lords on these Benches to Dame Mary Warnock and all her colleagues and helpers for an invaluable, wise, and very perceptive review of a field of medical science about which opinions differ widely and will continue to differ widely. I grow a little tired of the fact that whenever a Royal Commission or a committee of inquiry, which may have sat for something like five years, publishes its report, the leader writers of the press—and sometimes, Front Bench spokesmen on both sides of both Houses of Parliament—are able to offer us all the answers instantaneously. One wonders why anyone bothered to appoint a Royal Commission or a committee of inquiry at all. The answer is that we must think a great deal more.

531
I personally can see no prospect of total unanimity in Parliament or outside it on these many matters. For the moment therefore let us proceed slowly, think further and more deeply, and refrain from jumping in with legislation to ban things until we are much more sure of what we are doing.

Mrs. Gandhi: Assassination
3.33 p.m.
The Lord President of the Council (Viscount Whitelaw): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat a Statement that is being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister about Mrs. Gandhi. The Statement is as follows:
"As the House will be aware, Mrs. Gandhi was assassinated in Delhi today. I am sure that honourable Members on all sides of the House will be equally appalled at this tragic news. I am sure too that the whole House will wish to join in expressing to Mrs. Gandhi's family, and to the Government and people of India our profound grief and our sympathy.
"This despicable act has robbed India of a great and courageous leader. Daughter of Pandit Nehru, one of the pioneers of India's independence, she led her country for a total of 16 years as Prime Minister, a period which saw India's emergence as an industrial power as well as a major influence in world affairs. Her death has also robbed the Commonwealth of a statesman of outstanding stature and experience. She chaired the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in November last year with dignity, authority and charm.
"We shall all feel the loss of her wise counsel and her deep humanity—the more so because we knew her not only as a statesman but as a friend of this country. I understand, although it is not yet confirmed officially, that Mrs. Gandhi's son, Rajiv Gandhi, whom we know well and for whom we have both affection and respect, has been sworn in as the new Indian Prime Minister. We wish him well at this difficult hour in his country's history.
"Only a few days ago, Mrs. Gandhi sent me a message in which she said, 'All terrorism and violence are condemnable and contemptible'. The murder of a democratic leader is an attack on democracy itself. We utterly condemn this savage and treacherous crime. Let there be no doubt that acts of terrorism will only strengthen the resolve of free peoples that those who resort to violence shall never prevail".
My Lords, that concludes the Statement.
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Prime Minister's admirable Statement. We join him in sending our greatest sympathy to Mrs. Gandhi's family and to the Government and people of India on their great and terrible loss. Those of us who have known Mrs. Gandhi will have felt a sense of personal loss today. All of us will have felt diminished by her
532
death. She was dedicated, unostentatious, and a lady of great courage. She strove to hold the Indian subcontinent together and to weld it into a single nation—and she sustained it as the world's largest parliamentary democracy.
As the Prime Minister's Statement said, Mrs. Gandhi was a friend of this country. Her chairmanship over the Commonwealth conference last year was a measure of her support of the Commonwealth, where she was held in the highest esteem. She was also leader of the third force in the world. Her death is indeed a world tragedy.
We join with the Prime Minister in wishing Mrs. Gandhi's son and her successor well. No country has more historic links with India than our own and we feel a deep sense of sympathy and understanding with its people today. We, too, join with the Prime Minister in condemning the savage and treacherous crime which killed Mrs. Gandhi. Our resolve to combat terrorism and violence will be strengthened by this dreadful experience.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I shall try—though I know I will fail—to express something of the deep sadness and shock that overwhelms every one of us on these Benches. This act of blind violence has come at a time when we need no reminding in this country that this madness is abroad and that no free society can defend itself completely against it. This act of violence has happened in a country of deep and ancient civilisation, where every man and woman has before them the knowledge that whereas violence has never persuaded anybody, determined non-violence has succeeded in moving mountains.
We send to the family of this great leader and great lady our deepest sympathy. We send to her son not only our sympathy but also our profound wishes that he will be successful in the onerous task that he is now undertaking, and—above all—that the violence which has taken place will not generate further violence. We thank the Leader of the House for repeating the Prime Minister's Statement, with every word of which we agree—and we echo its sentiments completely. But the noble Viscount must know that this Statement is one which we all deeply desired never—but never—to hear.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and the noble Lord, Lord Diamond, for what they have said. They have expressed most eloquently the feelings of, I believe, the whole House and the unity of the whole House at this moment. There is nothing that can add to their words and it would be wrong of me to attempt to do it better than they have because they have done it so magnificently for all of us.
Perhaps I may just say that I agreed so much with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, when he referred to the personal loss that many of us who knew Mrs. Gandhi feel at this time. There are many noble Lords in this House who knew Mrs. Gandhi better than I did, but from my knowledge of her I certainly feel that loss myself.
The Lord Archbishop of Canterbury: My Lords, I should like to add my voice in support of the whole of

533
what has been said by the Leader of the House in repeating the Statement made by the Prime Minister. I should like to record from these Benches my horror and dismay at the assassination of a much respected Commonwealth Prime Minister.
While herself leading one of the world's largest nations, Mrs. Gandhi also campaigned ceaselessly for the security and development of many smaller and less powerful nations. As chairman of the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in New Delhi last winter, she gave the lead in drafting the Goa declaration, which calls for action to reduce tension in the world. Mrs. Gandhi's stature in the Commonwealth was matched only by the regard felt for her by the people of her country. Her place will not easily be filled.
I know that Christians everywhere will join with me not just in expressing respect for a great and humane stateswoman and not just in expressing outrage at the apparent triumph of violence for the moment, but also in offering sympathy and prayers for the family, for all the people of India at this time, and for all the Indian communities in this country.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am most grateful to the most reverend Primate for what he has said and I am sure it will be felt in all parts of the House that he has given expression from those Benches in a way that is most fitting for this particular occasion. Perhaps I may say to him personally that it is much to his credit that he has managed, among many engagements, to fit in time to come and pay that tribute in the House today.
Lord Sherfield: My Lords, on behalf of all noble Lords on these Benches I should like to add my thanks to the noble Viscount the Leader of the House for repeating the Statement and to associate ourselves with the sentiments of shock and disgust at this dastardly act which has deprived India of its leader at a critical time. We, too, express our deep sympathy with Mrs. Gandhi's family and with the Indian Government and people at this fateful moment in their history.
Like many other noble Lords, I have indelible memories of meeting this courageous and indomitable woman. I met her for the first time 25 years ago in New Delhi when she was supporting, and acting as hostess for, her father. So I, too, like so many noble Lords, have a sense of personal loss. We can only hope that the shock of this disaster will help to bring the peoples of India closer together and that the ranks will close to preserve and strengthen the democratic institutions of that great nation.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord for adding his voice on behalf of the Cross-Benches, thereby indicating the complete unity of this House in what has been said today.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, having worked over many years with the Indian Prime Minister I find it difficult to speak, but I feel I must. I had known Indira Gandhi since she was a university student in this country. I had close association with her father, the first Prime Minister of India. I was critical of her,
534
during her first period of office, for her repression of the opposition, but since then I have had unbounded admiration for the service which she has rendered to world harmony and peace.
I regard the series of speeches which she delivered on international affairs as the noblest made by any statesman in the world. It was a marvellous achievement that at the meeting of the non-aligned conference, representing more than half the population of the world, her leadership got them to adopt disarmament and development as their first two objectives.
Last August Mrs. Gandhi invited me to India to attend the anniversary celebrations of Indian independence and we had one hour's talk about the problems of peace in the world. She was thought to be hard and she could be tough, but during that hour there was in her personality a concern for human beings, and a compassion. I admit that my admiration for her grew into affection. It is not only India which has lost a great leader; the world has lost a great leader who was striving for a world order in which there will be harmony and peace.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, it is almost impertinent for someone such as myself to refer to anything that the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, says on this subject. We all in this House recognise him as one who over many years has been a great friend of India, a great friend of her people and a great friend of her various leaders, including Mrs. Gandhi. That adds great weight to his words today and I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to have heard from him on this occasion.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: My Lords, having worked over many years in Commonwealth circles with Mr. Nehru and then with Mrs. Gandhi, I should like to add my own words of revulsion at this horrible crime which, as the Prime Minister said, has deprived India of its great leader and the Commonwealth of an outstanding personality.
I should like to join also in the messages of sympathy and understanding that go from this House to the Indian people and the Indian Government; in particular, to Mrs. Gandhi's son who assumes enormous responsibilities at this tragic time. We must pray for peace in that great country.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I know that his words, coming from one who has done so much for the affairs of this country, for the world, and so much for the Commonwealth, will be heard with very great pleasure and understanding in India. I am extremely grateful to him for having come here this afternoon to add them to what has been said.
Baroness White: My Lords, I should like to add a brief word. Mrs. Gandhi was an undergraduate and, subsequently, with our own Prime Minister, an honorary fellow of Somvervile College, Oxford. I think one of her moments of great pride was when the University of Oxford conferred upon her an honorary doctorate of civil law. I remember distinctly the ceremony in the Sheldonian and the feminine touch

535
which was there, in spite of the statesmanlike poise with which she greeted the occasion. She had inquired most carefully as to the precise shade of scarlet of the doctors' gowns so that her beautiful sari should match exactly.
Viscount Whitelaw: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness, who speaks of another aspect of Mrs. Gandhi's life which again adds to our occasion.

Human Fertilisation: Warnock Report
3.50 p.m.
Debate resumed.
The Marquess of Reading: My Lords, in the shadow of this appalling event, I beg the indulgence of the House to make my maiden speech. My apprehension at addressing your Lordships is outweighed by the importance that I attach to this debate. I shall try to be brief and to the point. Briefly, I want to concentrate on the moral status of the embryo. The manipulation of human embryos, especially for experimental purposes, depends for its moral validity on the nature of the human embryo itself. Clearly, if the embryo is not a human person with the right to life, such manipulations are ethically justified.
The Warnock Committee allows the use of embryos for experimentation at least up until the fourteenth day after fertilisation. Although the report denies the embryo the status of a human person or human being, nowhere does it define what a human person or a human being is. Nearly everyone accepts the biological fact that the embryo is a human being. After the fertilisation process has been successfully completed, we have a genetically distinct individual which may continue its path of development to maturity. In the whole human life cycle there is no moment of comparable significance to that of fertilisation. However, some have argued that not every human being is a human person and that the embryo, by reason of its immaturity, is not a human person with a right to life.
Broadly speaking, beliefs are divided between two models of human personhood. Personhood is either something that we achieve some time after fertilisation or it is something with which we are endowed from fertilisation. Those who say that personhood is achieved—for example, at the fourteenth day, or some time later—define personhood in functional terms. An individual is a person when it has achieved a certain IQ, has the ability to feel pain, to feel concern for others, to communicate, to be able to relate to others, and so on. For example, Joseph Fletcher, the eminent American ethicist, has suggested 15 positive criteria for human personhood. Absence of any one of the 15 criteria would mean that the individual was not a person.
The difficulty with this sort of assessment of when an individual is a person is considerable. Who is to decide what the criteria are and how they are to be applied? The definition of personhood is essentially functional. What happens to those individuals who through accident, illness or old age lose one or more of the
536
functions held to be necessary for personhood? May we kill them, too? If personhood is something which is achieved, it is also something which can be lost. Are we really satisfied that human worth is no more than functional?
If we reject the achievement model of personhood, we are left with the idea that an individual is a person by endowment; that is, every single human being has intrinsic worth and therefore has basic human rights. Since the right to life precedes all other rights, it follows that embryonic human beings should have protection in law.
Some have argued that the existence of liberal abortion laws has already decided the issue against the moral status of the human embryo. We already abort foetuses of much greater maturity than the human embryo, so why not be consistent and allow that the embryo is not a person? The fact is that the United Kingdom does not have abortion on demand in its law, whatever the practice; and in any case the issue of abortion arises only when a woman is pregnant and there is a perceived conflict of rights between the woman and the foetus. That conflict may be resolved by giving greater or lesser weight to the rights and interests of the competing individuals.
However, to make a human embryo in the laboratory is to make a completely isolated human being. The embryonic human being represents no risk to anyone. The only justification being used to experiment with it and kill it is to serve the interests of medical science. We should not allow any born individual who could not give informed consent to be subjected to experimentation; and we would not in any case allow experiments on individuals if they would certainly die as a result of the experiment. The existence of liberal abortion laws in no way affects the calculated manufacture of human persons to be used as objects of experiments.
The whole of British law has been traditionally influenced by the Christian religion. That faith upholds the sanctity of every single human life. The principle of the sanctity of life may be perceived by reason alone. It is the corner-stone of the natural law, without which all morality would be a matter of opinion. The principle is also upheld in the Christian faith. For example, the psalmist says:
"For you have created my inward parts:
You knit me together in my mother's womb.
You knew my soul and my bones were not hidden from you:
When I was formed in secret and woven in the depths of the earth".
Clearly the Old Testament writer ascribes personhood to the developing embryo without the benefit of the contemporary scientific knowledge of the individuality of the foetus. The embryo is referred to in personal terms rather than as a bundle of protoplasm and blood.
This is taken a step further in the New Testament. Not only does John the Baptist leap in the womb of Elizabeth when Elizabeth is visited by the pregnant Mary, but that which is conceived in the womb of Mary is identified as the Lord right from the beginning.
Therefore, in conclusion, human life, created in the image and likeness of God, has intrinsic value irrespective of its maturity or the development of

537
functional skills. Thus embryonic human beings are the same person that they will be when they are older and more developed. Put another way, if we examine an adult person under a microscope we do not see all that is to be known of that person. We are animated individuals from the time of fertilisation. Our essential identity is always becoming known, but it is there right from the beginning.
It seems paradoxical for the report to claim that the embryo deserves some protection on the one hand, and to recommend, on the other, that a human embryo may be sold—and I quote from paragraph 13.13:
"a complete prohibition on the purchase or sale of such material would be inappropriate. A balance has to be struck and therefore we recommend that the sale or purchase of human gametes or embryos should be permitted only under licence from, and subject to, conditions prescribed by the licensing body and therefore unauthorised sale or purchase should be made a criminal offence".
But, nevertheless, it says that they should be permitted to be sold.
Secondly, the report says that a human embryo may be frozen:
"We recommend a maximum of ten years for storage of embryos after which time the right to use or disposal should pass to the storage authority".
Nevertheless, it says that a human embryo may be frozen.
Finally it says that a human embryo may be experimented upon up to 14 days after fertilisation. It says:
"legislation should provide that research may be carried out on an embryo resulting from in vitro fertilisation, whatever its provenance, up to the end of the fourteenth day after fertilisation, but subject to all other restrictions as may be imposed by the licensing body".
So, finally, to create, in the laboratory, isolated human beings for the purpose of experimentation, or to use so-called "spare" embryos for that purpose, represents a blatant disregard for the civil rights of those human beings, as well as endorsing the principle that we can be justified in defining some human persons as non-persons in order to use them for our own interests.
4 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: My Lords, it falls to me to have the privilege of congratulating the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on the incisive and important speech which he has just made. I am sure we look forward to hearing him very often in this House. As we have heard, very many welcome this report, which represents the desire of public policy makers to consider the implications of the developments of new technologies for ethics, for law, and for social position. Some of these matters are well established. The development of research which has led to the successful use of in vitro fertilisation has raised many questions, some of which are legal questions and have already been referred to in this debate.
The subject falls into two natural sections. First of all one looks at the therapy which is concerned with this. We are dealing here with the use of these technologies in order to help those who are involuntarily childless to have a family. The Church has to make it clear that its commitment to marriage and the integrity of the family means that it does not
538
see these services being appropriate for anyone other than couples who are involuntarily childless or couples for whom there are specific medical reasons why it would be unwise for them to have children by the normal means, as, for example, in cases of a serious risk of genetic defect in the children so produced.
I should think we hardly need reminding—but nevertheless I remind the House—of the intense stress and pain caused to couples when they discover that for some reason or another they cannot have children of their own. Of course, in times past a resolution of this problem could be found through adoption. But that is less possible today. There is a great reduction in the number of babies available for adoption.
One of the reasons why we need to stress the importance of the provision of professional counselling, about which we have already heard, as part of a publicly provided service, is that couples often need help in working on their reactions if they are by these means to enter into the family experience in an open and truthful way. Such is the nature of some of these technologies that secrecy and deceit can be encouraged and children can be left in ignorance of where they have come from. This problem has already arisen in many cases with adopted children. Secrets in the family are often dangerous and flow from difficulties in accepting the fact of infertility. Nevertheless, I think that we all must naturally feel increasing hesitancy, the further removed are the practices from the natural means of procreation.
AIH—that is artificial insemination with semen supplied by the husband—is now very widely used. It has operated successfully for many years. It would seem that most people see little difficulty in accepting this method. After all, it is an aid to fertilisation and not an interference with the natural order involving a third person.
AID brings much stronger disagreements. Those who believe that any use of donated material is in principle a breach of the bond between union and procreation in marriage will reject AID. Many others do not agree with this approach. They accept it because it does provide for couples that they may have their own children. They believe that couples need the help of professional counselling. They believe that, where necessary, children should have access to information about their origins, but should not have access to the names of the donors. There are already procedures for this in cases of adoption. Certainly donors should not be paid but only reimbursed for expenses. Certainly semen should not be bought or sold and not more than 10 children should be fathered by one donor.
Egg donation in vitro takes the matter a step further, although we recognise that this involves mothers in bearing children with whom they have no genetic link at all. Many people will find it morally distasteful. Much research needs to be done into the needs of the families involved in this way. Embryo donation in circumstances where the woman cannot produce an egg and the man is infertile means that the embryo donated to the mother has no genetic link with either one of the couple. Many people will feel that this has crossed the moral boundary, that it is unacceptable and that they are not able to agree with it. This is a matter of judgment but they feel that there are real

539
moral difficulties in producing children who have no kind of genetic relationship to the couple who are to parent them. I must say that I share this view.
Dame Mary Warnock herself says in her report that surrogacy should be outlawed. It has not yet been widely established in the United Kingdom, but surely this is something upon which the Government could and should act quickly in order to prevent it becoming established. Womb leasing, as it has been called, is surrogacy for a fee. The introduction of a payment and a contract which is unenforceable in law—since all contracts concerning the unborn are unenforceable—is wholly unacceptable and it undermines the dignity of women, of childbearing and of the family.
There is, then, a range of moral responses in these various approaches, which the Church of England, for instance, has to face. There will be wide, though not total, agreement in the rightness of AIH for infertile couples and the wrongness of surrogacy. Between these positions there are the differing judgments on the other ways. However, it appears that Anglican sources and other sources are, with increasing knowledge and reflection, developing their view of these things. It is notable that a number of leading moral theologians of all denominations have found themselves able to accept some of these practices as responsible ways in which childless couples may be helped to have a family of their own—which must remain the main criterion. The report says that public policy needs to agree the minimum requirement for a tolerable society. We believe it to be right, recognising that there will be those who would wish to draw a stricter line. It is for Her Majesty's Government to see that responsible and public provision is made for these matters.
So we turn to research. We have noted, and this has already often been mentioned, that research cannot be permitted on live human embryos after 14 days. This is a majority recommendation. However, there are two dissenting notes. One is against research on live embryos. The other is against the production of embryos for research, the willingness to permit research on embryos produced for IVF and which are spare. Apparently one needs spare embryos for implantation in IVF.
The argument for the 14-day limit is that individuation is not complete until 14 days. I am told that up to that point for example the embryo may split and form twins. The point has been made and must be made often that the moral response depends on the answer given to the big question of when human life is to be given the protection which we afford to all human beings. Some would say from implantation, and that the embryo has the right of protection from that point because it should have the benefit of doubt about its status. This is, I think, what the Roman Catholics believe, and it is supported by many Anglican thinkers. Others, accepting that human life is worthy of respect, are not willing to afford it full protection until, in a meaningful way, it has achieved status as an individual. Individuation, as I have said, marks a useful point in delineating this.
Up to this point, accepting that respect for human life should be evidenced in not allowing research except for purposes to do with the alleviation of the
540
problems of infertility and genetic disorder, research for these purposes surely may be accepted. Here again Anglicans are not altogether agreed. Responsible theological opinion is divided. Some Anglicans will therefore object to all research that threatens the life of the embryo. Others will accept research for agreed purposes. We know, in spite of good intentions, how difficult it is for public bodies to control such activities. We are not confident that the licensing body will be able to do this and certainly feel that its power and authority need first establishing in the public mind.
It is possible easily to imagine powerful interest groups wanting to use human embryos for research on a wide scale and perhaps for trivial purposes. This is a real fear. Drug companies, for example, certainly are not trivial. But they are powerful bodies and might prove difficult to control. Further, there is a moral difference between the use of spare embryos produced to help in solving problems of childlessness through infertility; and, on the other hand, specifically creating embryos for the sole purpose of research.
Christians, among others, view with considerable caution and unease the idea of using human embryos for research purposes. We value and respect all life and especially human life made in the image of God. There are some of us however who believe that, in its earliest stages, before individuation is complete, human life may not have the same protection as we afford individuals. Therefore, some are able to support research using human embryos up to the 14-day limit suggested. Others believe that we may not do that. Our belief forbids any assault of any kind on the life of an embryo. All of us however are opposed to research for other than strictest purposes to deal with problems of infertility and within strict and enforceable boundaries of control. I have considerable sympathy with the dissenting note in the report, signed by Canon Dyson and others, which is opposed to the production of embryos for research purposes altogether. In the light of the considerable unease of the committee on research, evidenced by the two dissenting voices, signed between them by seven of the 16 members of the committee, it makes one wonder whether there is enough of a consensus here to proceed along the lines of the majority recommendation.
Turning briefly to social provision, it is essential—the point has been made a number of times—that a strong, independent body monitoring this area and setting professional and ethical standards of practice, must be set up. I believe that it should report annually and publicly and be seen to be independent in its procedures. We have been warned against hasty legislation; but I would have thought that there is need for action by Her Majesty's Government in the following areas: in outlawing surrogacy and banning forthwith the sale of semen; in making babies born as a result of donation legitimate; in establishing the licensing body to begin to exercise control through the setting and enforcing of standards for agencies both in therapy and research; in providing adequate resources to enable professional counselling as a constituent part of the service, and for research into the needs of families brought into being by the use of these technologies and especially the special needs of children born through AID or IVF technology.

541
A last word: it is apparent that the conclusions of the Government will need to be strictly hedged around in order that proper respect is paid to human life at every level. But supremely, I remind your Lordships again, our concern is for childless families, that they may be enabled to experience a full and rich family life. This must be the will of all of us in this Chamber, as I am certain that it is the will of God.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Denning: My Lords, perhaps I may first join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Reading on his speech. It reminded me, in its clarity and force, of those which I have heard from his distinguished ancestry in this House. I hope that we may often hear him.
The Government did well to ask Dame Mary Warnock and her companions to study this most important question—socially, one of the most important questions of our time—on which there is at the moment no law and no restriction whatever. Medical scientists and medical men can do as they like with what I believe are human beings. There is no regulation at all. Buy or sell, kill, freeze and the like; medical men do as they like without any control. These are dangers to our society.
I should like to deal with the issue in two parts, first as a lawyer. There is no law on these matters at the moment. It is too modern. No lawyers have had to deal with it. Ask the simple question, "To whom does an embryo belong?" Let me remind your Lordships what the embryo is. The medical men take the semen from the male, they take the eggs from the female, and they mingle them together in vitro, as it is called, which, put into English, means they are put into a glass or a test tube. Then, unless they have an immediate use for them, unless there is a woman immediately at hand for the embryo to be put into her womb, they freeze them. They can freeze them for years and then thaw them out and put them into a woman, maybe years hence, when the man who has given the sperm is long since dead. Is that compatible with human dignity?
The law will have to deal with it. Parliament will have to deal with it. But how long will it take? It will take a long debate. It will require very serious consideration by the medical profession; indeed, by all the professions. Meanwhile, the judges may have to deal with it and pronounce upon the law as they find it to be.
So, as a lawyer, I would ask this question: Who owns that human embryo when it is fertilised in the test tube? This is what the committee says:
"Until now the law has never had to consider the existence of embryos outside the mother's uterus. The existence of such embryos raises potentially difficult problems as to ownership".
This is important.
"The concept of ownership of human embryos seems to us to be undesirable. We recommend that legislation be enacted to ensure there is no right of ownership in a human embryo".
If the judges have to decide this now, this would be the alternative before them. Are we to regard that embryo as a thing? Is the male semen and the female egg each a thing in the ownership of one or the other? Then, when they are mixed together, are they things? If they are things, I would answer your Lordships by saying
542
that they are in the joint ownership of the man and the woman; it is joint ownership. If they are in the joint ownership of the man and the woman, no one can destroy them, no one can do anything with them without the consent of the other. No person can experiment with them or freeze them. They are in the joint ownership of both. They may consent; I do not know. But that would be the position if they are regarded as things.
I would agree with the committee that they are not to be regarded as things. I have read the scientific evidence, and from the moment of fertilisation, when the male and female cells come together and are conceived, there is a different, new being—a living being. Is it a thing? God forbid! It is not a thing; it is a combination of male and female life to produce a new life. When we see that, it is the beginning of a child. The law has already pronounced that after about three or four months the infant in the womb at that stage, when it quickens—this goes back as far as Blackstone—is a being which will be protected by the law and can recover its own damages and the like; that is when it is three or four months old.
The law will have to pronounce on what is the position before that time. It has never had to pronounce on it before. I would suggest that the only logical point at which the law could start is that the child, the human being, starts at the moment of conception and fertilisation. From that point onwards there is a gradual development in its environment. So I would hold—and I would hope the judges would hold—that from that moment there is a living, human being which is entitled to protection just as much as the law protects a child. The committee recommends that the law should give protection to the embryo. If there is no legislation, I would suggest that it does so already, by holding that that is a human being from the moment of fertilisation, and the law should protect it just as it already protects a child. If it does protect it in this way, it cannot be sold or bought, it cannot be destroyed, it cannot be experimented upon for research or the like.
If I may do so, I should like to say that that should be the law, as I would believe it to be if there is no legislation. I should like to see legislation to deal with this point. There is a horrible thought in my mind. Just think of the position if this being is thawed out 10 or 12 years later and the child is then born to a parent or parents who are dead. To my mind it is inconceivable, horrible. So much for this problem of when human life begins. To my mind it begins at the moment of fertilisation. So much for the law.
This committee's report needs careful examination to see what the implications are. Let there be a statutory authority; that is very good. There must be, because there is no law upon it at the moment. There must be a statutory authority to regulate these matters. But how dangerous it is! There is a cardinal principle running through this report. I am not dealing with the case when it is husband and wife themselves whose cells are mingled and they produce a child by mechanical means. No one would quarrel with that. It is done by artificial insemination, by putting the husband's semen into the wife's uterus. I would suggest there is no objection whatever to mechanical means as between husband and wife to see that they have their own child. No one should object to that.

543
The problem comes when a third person is introduced. The cardinal principle running through this report is that there should be anonymity. The report says the committee were agreed that there was a need to maintain the absolute anonymity of the donor. Let me describe to your Lordships the procedure which is contemplated and which will be legalised if these recommendations go through. Let us, my Lords, envisage a situation where a man is invited to give his semen to procreate a child. The clinic finds it difficult to find men who are ready to donate semen in this way. That is not surprising. The clinic often has to pay a fee for it. Perhaps it is medical students or strangers off the street. Pay a fee, if you please!
The man goes to the clinic; perhaps he is paid his fee, or at least his expenses; they agree there. Then he gives his semen by masturbation. They collect it in a tube. They take his name and description. They examine him medically to see whether or not he has any inherited disease. When he has passed all those tests they collect the semen and put it in the test tube. If they do not need it at once, they will freeze it and put it into the semen bank, ready for use whenever any suitable occasion should arise, perhaps five, 10 or 12 years later. The man may go out of that clinic and be killed in a road accident, or die the next day, long before the semen is used. To me, it is horrible to think that his semen could be used to procreate a child after he is dead. It is bringing a man to life again in order that he may procreate a child. That is what happens when the man goes. "Be careful", they say. "Don't let any particulars of him be known; give him a number". There is no photograph of him, or anything like that. The description is kept in safe custody. There is just a number for him with the semen bank.
Then take the woman. She, no doubt, badly wants a child, but cannot have one by her husband. She goes to the clinic and says. "Please, will you help cure my infertility?" She would like to know the nature of the man; she would like to see his photograph; she would like to see whether he is tall or short, ugly or plain, or whatever it may be. But, oh, no! Nothing of that must be told. She must not be allowed to know the identity of the man in the least. Apparently she can be told, according to this report, whether he is black or white, but that is about all. She must not be allowed to discover his identity in the least; that is what the report recommends.
This principle of anonymity is so that neither the man nor the woman can know who the other is or be able to identify them in the least. What they recommend is that when a child is born of this mingling—to the woman and the second man, the stranger; not her husband—in those circumstances that child should, by law, be made to be the legitimate child of the husband and the woman and that this unknown father should disappear into the blue, rid of all his responsibilities to his child.
The law has never before allowed a man to escape from his responsibilities to a child of which he is the father. But this law would enable him to do so. He will allow his semen to be taken on the basis of "Oh no, I don't want the responsibilities of being a father. No thank you. I'll take the money as a fee, but I don't want to take on those responsibilities".
544
Those are the terms upon which he will allow his semen to be taken. The unfortunate woman has to put up with the medical man selecting the most suitable semen or man for her to have a child by. In my view this anonymity is becoming very repulsive, especially when the semen can be thawed out years later and brought back to life and children can be born to people who are dead.
The report seems to be rather sympathetic to widows. A woman's husband may die, but if his semen had been collected it could be used to beget a child after he has died. In my view that is horrible. It is horrible that a man should be able to procreate a child after his death and bring himself to life again for that purpose.
I am stressing these matters to show what the licensing entails. But just think what it will mean if it is allowed to go. We shall have a man whose semen may be used to procreate a child long after he himself is dead. He may procreate dozens and dozens of children by different women. It is recommended that there be a limit of 10. The man may go to many clinics and I suppose that his semen may be collected if they pay a fee. There could be dozens of children walking about the streets with the same fair features as the father but no one will know who is the father. Those are some of the social consequences which will result from the anonymity principle. In my view it is a horrible thought that an unknown man should be the father of a child and no one would be able to trace him or know anything about him whatsoever.
The licensing system as envisaged by the Warnock Committee is potentially most dangerous to our society. I do not mind maintaining, as far as one can, the true relationship of husband and wife in the institution of marriage. But the concept of artificial insemination by the donor or the like is something which I believe the Archbishop was against in 1948, but I do not know what right reverend Prelates will think about it. However, I hope that, as a result of all our discussions this danger which would affect our society will not be loosed upon us.
However, those are just the social considerations. The great value of the committee's report is that it gives us the material for debate. I am sure that in both this House and the other place the matter will be most seriously debated.
In my view medical science is outstripping itself, because it has not sufficient regard for the great ethical, moral and religious structures which underlie our society. It must be regulated by a proper licensing authority and regulated in the proper way. I hope that in due course this House, along with the other place, will be able to pass the appropriate legislation.
4.35 p.m.
Lord Coleraine: My Lords, I should like to join with the noble and learned Lord and the right reverend Prelate in extending a very warm welcome to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Reading. I noted how he drew authority from the Old Testament and from early incidents in the New Testament in words which I found moving and personally convincing. I hope that we may hear from him again on many occasions.

545
I should like this evening to inquire into, and perhaps throw a little light on, the reasoning lying behind the conclusion in paragraph 17 of Chapter 11 of the report that:
"the embryo of the human species ought to have a special status",
with a view to expressing my own disquiet at the recommendation that experimentation should be allowed in the 14 days after conception of the embryo in vitro.
It seems to me to be very pertinent to inquire why the majority of the committee—the nine who did not sign either Expressions of Dissent B or C—felt that the human embryo should have this special status. I find it very difficult to see from the report why the majority were prepared to allow the human embryo this privilege. That being so, I can see little to persuade me that the majority sincerely intend more than lip service to this special status. My reading of the report leads me to the firm conclusion that the majority see this lip service as the best means of turning aside the undoubted horror with which most people view genetic engineering and all the other possibilities opened up and now opening up for so long as experimentation on the human embryo conceived in vitro is permitted.
As to the exact nature of the special status to be afforded to the human embryo, the report, having in paragraph 17 of Chapter 11 recommended,
"that the embryo of the human species should be afforded some protection in law",
immediately in paragraph 18 of Chapter 11 goes on to offer the following proposition:
"That protection should exist does not entail that this protection may not be waived in certain specific circumstances".
What type of legal protection, 1 ask, is this? What type of special status have they in mind?
The best answer that I can give, after a careful reading of the report, is to invite your Lordships to consider for a moment what the research scientist, desiring to achieve advance in treatment and medical knowledge, will be prohibited by statute from doing to the human embryo conceived in vitro if the majority of the committee have their way. He will not be able to carry out research on the embryo after 14 days after conception (plus any period of up to 10 years in cold storage within those 14 days). That is the only absolute right of the embryo to be embodied in statute and not to depend on the judgment of the research scientist or the licensing authority. The period of 14 days seems to me to be of interest, and I think that a few moments may be well spent in conjecturing why the majority chose this period or, indeed, any period. I say "conjecturing" advisedly because I can find no clear, certain argument in the report.
There would appear from the report to have been a wide measure of agreement among the bodies giving evidence in support of experimentation that at some stage in the development of the embryo experimentation should cease. The views range from, at the short end, a number of unnamed groups submitting that no embryo should be used for research after the beginning of its implantation stage (which I take to mean about five days after conception) to, at the long end, an unidentified utilitarian expression of opinion that research should be permitted until the embryo is
546
capable of feeling pain; that is to say, until 22 or 23 days after conception by one view, or longer by another.
In between these views are the named organisations—the British Medical Association, the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists, the Medical Research Council and the Royal College of Physicians. They all propose closing dates for experimentation more or less consistent with the recommendation of the Warnock Committee's majority.
What is curious is that, with the possible exception of the unnamed proponent of the utilitarian argument in the report, not one argument is attributed to any of the organisations, neither as to why they think that there should be a time limit, nor as to why the time limit should be the limit proposed. Nor is there any trace of argument that a significantly longer period for experimentation should be allowed following the example of the Abortion Act. It seems to me to be clear beyond reasonable doubt that one consideration, and one consideration only, guided the majority of the committee. The evidence is to be found at the end of paragraph 11.19 of Chapter 11. There it states:
"However we agreed that this was an area in which some precise decision must be taken, in order to allay public anxiety."
My Lords, "to allay public anxiety"—that says it all.
Is it not apparent that the majority favour a much longer period for experimentation, and view 14 days as the most that public opinion can be persuaded to accept at this moment, and at the same time regard it as the necessary foot in the door, opening it in fact if not in law to unlimited research? That is what it would prove to be—an open invitation to pass through an open door. It might be difficult to police a total ban on the creation and keeping alive of human embryos for purposes other than implantation. It would be well nigh impossible to monitor the work of research scientists to ensure that they do not exceed a 14-days' maximum.
In my view the humanist, whether or not religious, should view human life as unique in this world, and unless and until the contrary is proved as unique in the universe. I hope that my noble friend will consider the view that there should be a moratorium on all experimentation with a human embryo in line with dissenting voice B until legislation can be introduced.
4.43 p.m.
Lord Soper: My Lords, I add my felicitations to those already offered to the noble Marquess on his maiden speech. If he will allow me to say so, it was well presented and well documented, and I hope as the House does that we shall hear him speak with equal force and cogency many times in the future.
I find myself faced with problems which can perhaps best be expressed in the setting of a world so fundamentally different from that in which many of the moral principles to which I want to adhere first began to take their place. The nuclear age has vastly increased our power to destroy to an apocryphal degree. The scientific age in which we live has marvellously increased our power to do all sorts of things that our fathers were totally unable even to contemplate. If I may refer to it, I thought that the

547
strength and purchase of the television programme "Sea of Faith", under the direction of Don Cupitt, was to stress the way in which responsibility has so far changed as to rest so much more upon human beings, and that obedience to God, which once was the simple way of acknowledging one's own impotence, has now given place to a world in which so many of the things previously ascribed to God's omnipotent power are now within our competence if we so desire to make use of them. It is in that that the problem of morality, so clearly enunciated in the introduction to this particular document, seems to me to be of particular value. I naturally try to face this from the standpoint of the faith which I hold, but I find myself in considerable difficulty in relating what is supposed to be Christian morality to this new situation. Let me illustrate this aspect. Let us suppose I start by saying, "The Bible says, and I must obey what it says". For instance, I find in the Old Testament a savage doctrine about homosexuality, which is totally unfair, unreal and, in my judgment, un-Christian. I turn to the New Testament and I find in the Gospels practically nothing on this variegated theme, for various obvious reasons. Therefore, I have to find my morality, at least in specific terms, in the processes of the Christian Church.
The Christian Church very largely has laid down its principles with regard to sexual morality in terms of a conception which is now completely out of date and quite wrong. It was traditionally assumed that man was the giver of the seed of life, which was implanted, embedded, in the cradle which woman provided, and therefore no-one need look very much further for the discrepancy between the value attached to the cradle and the value attached to the baby in that cradle. In my judgment this goes a long way to explain the kind of morality which was geared to the superiority of man and the docile acceptance of a cradle authority on the part of woman. We know that that is untrue. Therefore, if we are to process the deliberations of countless arguments that are to be found in this particular document, we have to work out, first, somewhat arbitrarily, what we believe to be the essence of the moral case.
I would submit that there are two basic principles. One is compassion and the other is the framework of the family as the desirable paramenter in which life should be nurtured, and indeed in which life should be protected. There is a third principle—and I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, for making it—that there is no morality which can be acclaimed as 100 per cent. There is an inevitable area of compromise in whatever we do on this planet, and that area of compromise has already been widely accepted by those who, although they subscribe to the sanctity of life, nevertheless believe that it is tolerable—and morally tolerable in cases of war—to take life almost indiscriminately.
It seems to me that there is no way in which one can do good in one area without, to some extent, invading the liberty or indeed the happiness of other groups. I therefore have to make a distinction between the happiness that can be offered to family and the harm that can be done to a potential life. Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that we do not use words like
548
"baby", "child" and "living creature" with great clarity; after all, a flower is alive and so is a beetle. But that is by way of argument which I do not want to deploy in any sense of being argumentative for the sake of scoring a point.
More importantly, as a minister of Christianity (very imperfectly for many years), I have had to weigh many times the good that can be done to a family against the harm that might be done particularly to forms of life which, whatever their potential sanctity at a certain stage, in my judgment are not to be compared with the value of those who are fully adult and looking forward to the blessings that can be offered through many of these modern methods of assisting nature and indeed of making possible that which natural processes do not make possible.
Therefore, with those principles in mind, I venture to apply myself to the various questions that are asked and answered in this document. I find no ethical difficulty in AIH. If we are to assist in medical ways to help people to bear children, then AIH—that is, artificial insemination by the husband—seems to me to be perfectly acceptable and right. I have no difficulty there at all.
On the question of the donor in artificial insemination and particularly the in vitro method, there are innumerable difficulties, and many of them have been ventilated with considerable care this afternoon. I accept them. I regard some of them as prohibitive. I think others are tolerable. In general terms, on the question of AID I would apply the principles of compassion; the provision of happiness to people who otherwise would not enjoy it; and, above all, the retention of the principle of the family—that is to say, the existence of the relationship between mother and father and child which in some cases is not prevented when it is artificially stimulated.
It is when I come to the question of surrogacy that I find myself in the greatest of difficulties. If there is the slightest taint of commercialism about it, I want nothing to do with it; I cannot. But, on the other hand, it seems to me that there is a question here which ultimately is an extension and not a contradiction of what goes before. I agree with the document that the same principles that apply to AID and to in vitro fertilisation apply to the question of surrogacy. What I do not believe and cannot tolerate for one moment is the idea that there should be a bank of anonymous semen which would be available at any time to satisfy the whims or desires of those who do not wish to go through the agonies or the raptures of pregnancy, but for various reasons are anxious to have a child.
I am not particularly impressed by the argument that one must not indulge in any research on one of the spare embryos which necessarily will be produced in this way. It is clear to me that there is no greater moral value in saying that we must just allow the spare embryos to die, or to say that we can indeed make use of them for future culture or for future ways of delivering them ourselves from these particularly difficult and complex problems.
I welcome this document. It will not go away. I welcome the fact that there is a sense in which modern knowledge is irreversible. We have to deal with a situation in which we are increasingly able to do

549
things, and if we can, with compassion and, I believe, within the general parameter of the family, seek to do them, then on balance I believe they can be reconciled with the Christian faith.
One last word. I am attracted by the English translation of in vitro, which of course is "in a glass", and I reflect upon the 13th chapter of Corinthians, in which Paul, talking about compassion, says:
"now we see through glass, darkly".
Indeed we do.
May I say a little about the possible future? When we reach the stage of sex selection we shall be in a very different kind of world as when we reach the stage, which surely is coming—and whatever is suggested or prohibited, it will be done—when we are able to select particular qualities which could be handed down. I am reflecting in this regard on, after all, what is one of the considerations in the contemporary situation which considers that future. Let me put it in the form of an analogy. It is impossible to play snooker if, to use the Gilbertian phrase, one has
"a cloth untrue
With a twisted cue,
And elliptical billiard balls".
The game of snooker is totally prohibited if one has not the right instruments with which to play. But the game of life is not totally prevented, and its happiness and joy are not totally prevented, if we assume that the contemporary aspects of pleasure and contemporary ways of fulfilment are the only ways in which life may be fulfilled. That is not true.
When I think of many a woman who has dedicated her life to the care of her parents and of many a would-be family which has been built not on the natural process of mother and father but on the fatherhood and motherhood of large institutions and those who care for the worldwide family, then I am persuaded that, though it is in a far distant future, the very parameters of motherhood and fatherhood within the family are not necessarily the end to which humanity may come.
This is a wild dream in one sense, but it is not so remote when we consider now the capacities we have to rise above the material world in which we live and, by the instruments which the scientists can give us, to aspire to a more spiritual life in which one day, perhaps, the very concept of what we are considering in this document becomes something which has passed away in a different kind of spirituality. It is a long way off, but it is something which I believe has to be taken into account if we are to face this new world, as I believe we must, in the spirit of Jesus Christ and, above all, in his words, that more things he has to tell us but we are not ready to hear them yet.
I commend this report. I believe we shall make many mistakes if we follow many of the suggestions that it propounds; but I believe it ushers in for us the kind of responsibilities which cannot be avoided, and that only when they are faced will we become truly mature.
4.56 p.m.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, this report highlights far wider long-term issues. I say "highlights" because the issues involved are highly emotional, but
550
they pale into relative insignificance compared with the long-term possibilities of affecting human reproduction and its genetic coding. Anyone who has looked into the immense progress which has been made in recommitant genetic engineering in the last 20 years should be impressed by what has been achieved and sceptical of dismissing future possibilities as science fiction.
Already by these means we have been able to synthesise insulin, growth hormone and Interferon; but, much more importantly, it is theoretically possible by these means to make permanent cures for well-known blood diseases, such as sickle cell anaemia and haemophilia, by replacing defective body cells by new cells genetically engineered in a test tube. It is also possible to produce new bacteriological organisms which could be lethally effective beyond anything at present known. Just as with the matters considered in this report, each step forward can be justified by the medical benefits provided or likely to result from further research. But—I repeat, "but"—without doubt such future benefits will also give our society and the world abilities which cannot possibly be controlled in our very imperfect society.
To take a simple example, the control of the sex of children will undoubtedly be possible in the not very distant future. In the Western countries this probably would not matter, but in the developing countries a male child is all-important. Looking further into the future, cloning is likely to be possible. Cloning means that any number of identical individuals can be produced. Rather further ahead is the possibility of genetically engineering the human chromosome and producing individuals with specific characteristics. This has already been done, rather fortuitously, with white mice; and some Peers may already have seen an account of this in the New Scientist.
My Lords, we are on a very slippery slope, as we can see from the Warnock report. Firstly, we agreed to AIH—that is, artificial insemination by the husband—where there were problems with normal fertilisation with intercourse. Then there was AID, artificial insemination by a donor; then in vitro fertilisation by donated female eggs; and then surrogate mothers, with commercial overtones. There is no difficulty in maintaining sperm banks, and soon the same will apply to female eggs. There is, therefore, the temptation of breeding for results. Let us remember the Nazis' rather pathetic attempts to do so in a different way. Some can argue that the needs of couples, and, in particular, women who want children, should be paramount. I discount this. In my view the effect on the children so conceived is much more important, and the needs of society—and think of China!—are at least as important as a couple's desire for children.
In reaching any conclusion as to what should be done ethical and religious views are important, but (dare I say it?) these views are sometimes only emotional views disguised under a more acceptable umbrella. Yes, I suppose that in the end it is what in life we think is worthwhile and important that matters. Having said all this, what are my own personal views? For several years I should have liked to prevent further research in this biological field. Clearly, this is not practical policy. Even if we did this to our commercial

551
disadvantage in Britain, others, elsewhere, would carry on. Science for science's sake, regardless of its consequences, still carries weight. Pragmatically, I believe that we should do all that we can to deal with what I believe is a developing menace to our civilisation as we know it today.
It follows that in general terms I support this report and its recommendations. I do not wish to comment on the details of the report, but I would say that I do not think that it should be watered down or very much changed except where some of its recommendations may prove impractical. But personally, of course, I should like to see it tightened up a great deal more, particularly in some of the ways that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has indicated.
5.3 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Norwich: My Lords, it is significant that 27 of your Lordships have felt that on this last day of the Session this is a matter of such major national, social, religious and family importance that you should ask to speak. I believe it is a good thing that Her Majesty's Government have given us the opportunity of having this first, quite unhurried and serious discussion about many of these issues, so that we can begin at least to see where the vital issues within this report are to be found. I myself feel that at the stage of which we are at the moment—when, for instance, we on these Benches have not yet discussed this matter in the General Synod or in the diocesan synods; and, anyway, from these Benches it is right that we should speak from our own convictions but state a Church view if a Church view is given—we should remind ourselves and each other that human beings are a unique creation of God, and that the creator and giver of all life has done us the honour and given us the trust of making us human beings in His world with the responsibility for being vice-regents of His creation, as set out in the early chapters of the Genesis story. Therefore we have a major responsibility for our own world and for the human race.
I should like to say one thing about the family aspect of the Warnock report and a second thing about the experimental and research aspect of the Warnock report. I shall begin with the family. I have tried to see why, as I read slowly through the report, I began to find myself in a situation of dis-ease about the report. I think it was first of all because I did not find any clearly defined moral principles built upon the ancient Judaeo-Christian traditions of moral principles of our nation. The light seemed to flicker back and forth. All of us were delighted to find that in relation to the chilling thought of the implanting of human ova in the uterus of an animal, in this report it was advised that that should not take place. That was a comfort. The fact that the Warnock report firmly grasped the nettle of the surrogate mother situation—apart from a couple of the members dissenting—again was a firm point of encouragement. The light seemed to be clear there. But otherwise there seemed to be a certain movement of moral principle throughout, and that, I think, is where I found dis-ease about it.
I ask your Lordships, if you will, to turn to page 10, Chapter two, paragraph 2.5, as a sharp example of this
552
in relation to the family. It is headed "Eligibility for treatment." It reads:
"It is sometimes suggested that infertility treatment should be available only to married couples …"
Then the report begins to be ambivalent on the family moral issue. It goes on to say:
"While we are vitally aware of the need to protect these interests—
that is, the interests of the married couples and any child born as a result, as is mentioned earlier—
"we are not prepared to recommend that access to treatment should be based exclusively on the legal status of marriage".
Then we begin to move off towards the view of treatment in relation not to marriage but to other areas of sexual relationships.
Let us remind ourselves that not only in the churches of this land do we speak about marriage being a relationship of one man and one woman for life, but also in the registry offices of our country we speak of ideal marriage being of one man and one woman to the exclusion of others for life. Yet this report seems not to grasp the uncomfortable moral results of that actual English position. So it moves quite easily from AIH to AID.
I am so glad that a number of your Lordships have referred—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, did so with his usual careful precision—to the only statement of the Church of England which is still clear. This, of course, is the statement in the Archbishop of Canterbury's report on artificial insemination in 1948. There, the Archbishop himself is accepting AIH, which personally I not only accept but believe to be a most helpful way of helping all those within the nuclear family—the mother who desires her husband's child, the husband who desires that his wife should bear his child, and the unborn child of that potential parenthood unit. Here I believe we have a great deal to thank the medical profession for as regards their research, their patience and their treatment of couples, because everyone in that particular nuclear family is thus helped and the family is held together.
On the other hand, in 1948 the Archbishop was so highly critical of artificial insemination by donor that he recommended it should be made a criminal offence. No doubt the Church of England, the Roman Catholic Church and those of the Jewish faith will be discussing this in their representative assemblies in the coming months, and in some ways I believe it is a good thing that we should have the opportunity of discussing this as individuals before there are too many clearly defined positions. But I do believe that the business of the family needs watching very carefully in this particular report. And so the report moves to AID.
I believe, myself, that this raises major moral problems, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has reminded us, because here a third party enters that nuclear relationship of husband and wife. Here problems arise, whether (one might say) morally, of potential adultery; or legally, of inheritance of the person concerned; or socially (because we know so much more about family relationships today), the problem of that mother knowing that she has received the life of another man who is anonymous, thus making it possible for her to bear a child, and her relationship with her husband, who knows he has not

553
been able to help his wife in that common activity of parenthood, and the child growing up in the years to come not fully having the assurance that he is owned, loved and supported by two natural parents. It is an entirely different situation from the fostering situation.
Those of us who either have had foster children in our homes for a period of years or have had adoption in our families know that this is a very beautiful thing. Your Lordships will know the story of the two children at school. One said, and said proudly, "I was adopted: you see, my parents chose me". That is a beautiful thing, and a right and proper thing. I think that the moral implications of AID should have been looked at very much more deeply in this report; and, if so, then obviously that which goes after it, which is egg donation and embryo donation. I shall not comment on them because they are further down this fast-moving stream.
I will turn for a moment to the research aspect of the report, and I believe this is the moment to remind your Lordships that in the Mori poll which the Order of Christian Unity set up in July—and nearly 2,000 people took part in it, so it represented a good cross-section of people—there is a certain gut reaction in the nation against one or two of the more controversial recommendations of Warnock. Of those who were invited to comment on Warnock, 57 per cent. felt that surrogate motherhood should not be allowed; but 75 per cent. felt that human embryos for research should not be created for research purposes as such, and 85 per cent. felt that experiments on human embryos were not right. This is, I think, a gut reaction in the early moments of Warnock.
I think we in our House have a duty to try to understand what fairly ordinary, run-of-the-mill people think about moral issues, because quite often they get it right. I give one example involving a letter from a woman. I will not name the hospital concerned but I could let the noble Lord the Minister have it afterwards if he so wishes. Speaking of that particular hospital, she says:
"men and women who come for sterilisation or hysterectomy operations are asked the day before if they would mind an injection and the removal of eggs for experimental purposes. It reads like the Nazi experiments".
There is something repugnant, I believe, about seeking to push forward at such speed scientific experimentation in this way at the very time the Warnock report is seeking (though I do not always feel that I agree with all their views) to find how this area of reseach can be dealt with and, to my mind, very rightly saying that we should ask the Government to set up a licensing programme which would actually monitor and take care of these things.
However, in the light of this particular early MORI poll for the Order of Christian Unity, I believe we should press the Government for a moratorium now, because the speed of research is going so fast that I believe we are moving towards a Pandora's box which, when opened, will not be shut and the opening of which will be not just for the moral hurt but for the family hurt of many people in many families in our country.
Therefore, I trust that the area of research will be very critically viewed by Her Majesty's Government. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, spoke in
554
his usual precise, steady and very compelling way when he said this afternoon that a different new living being comes at conception: the beginning of a child. He continued:
"Human life starts at the moment of conception".
Warnock argues that, but if Warnock is wrong and if human life does start at conception, then what do we make of this rather strange phrase in Warnock when it says, as though seeking to be ambivalent—and I have great sympathy with Warnock because they have had to face the greatest possible problems—at page 63, in paragraph 11.17:
"We recommend that the embryo of the human species should be afforded some protection in law."
That little embryo is either going to have total protection in law or "some" protection in law, which means, in effect (and I wish I could find a better phrase), that it has "had it" so far as I can see, because to offer it some protection in law when it is totally indefensible in itself is a polite way of saying that some will be finished and some allowed.
Therefore, I simply ask Her Majesty's Government not to be afraid of facing the moral issue concerning conception, and whether conception is the beginning of a new person, as was argued so persuasively by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I know it is not now our custom to keep on thanking and congratulating every maiden speaker, but I break the rules and congratulate him, and apologise to your Lordships for so breaking the rules and rush on quickly before anyone actually objects. It was a great speech, and I hope we shall hear him again. I believe that his point, coming from a temporal Peer supporting the Christian view, is the greatest help to all of us. So many of us take a strongly religious view, Jewish or Christian, on these matters.
In conclusion, I simply say that I hope the Government will consider the question of the 14-day gap as one which they should be brave enough to look at very closely, because one of the professors of gynaecology who was speaking to us in one of the committee rooms of this House last week reminded us that there are ways of doing medical research other than researching on the first 14 days of an embryo. If there are other ways—I speak as a layman in these matters—they should be thoroughly and energetically pursued so that we may find other ways of helping people who face fertility and health problems.
I finish by quoting the Pope. I think that he said something very good here, and I am so broadminded that I like quoting the Pope when I agree with him. His Holiness John Paul II says:
"The world has largely lost respect for human life from the moment of conception. The world is weak in upholding the indissoluble unity of marriage. It fails to support the stability and holiness of family life. There is a crisis of truth and responsibility in human relationships. And so I support with all my heart those who recognise and defend the law of God which governs human life. We must never forget that every person, from the moment of conception to the last breath, is a unique child of God and has a right to life."
I believe that people of the Jewish faith, of the Church of England and Free Church faith, and of the Roman Catholic faith, and many thoughtful sensitive humanists searching for faith but not yet finding it, would echo those words and say to the Government, "Take especial care over the 14-day experimental period".
5.22 p.m.
Lord Rawlinson of Ewell: My Lords, I am very glad to follow the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and, as a Roman Catholic layman, may I say that I am very glad to be able to agree with everything he said. That should indicate my broadmindedness, too.
Very rarely in the 29 years in which I have been participating in debates in both Houses of Parliament have I personally approached a subject for debate with a greater sense of foreboding—fear for what men may be about. I find it almost beyond belief—although I am glad that the Government have made us able to do so—that this House has had to be called upon solemnly to debate the extraordinary matters which arise from this report. It is a sombre thought that such have been the developments in scientific knowledge, in techniques and in practices that we now debate a report about practices which will have supreme consequence to the future of the human race, and debate it at a time when we see pictures of or read about self-satisfied looking doctors announcing that they have given to a baby the heart of a baboon.
We are now asked to consider this study by 16 brave and responsible men and women on the use of powers which must affect the whole course of future life. Because, my Lords, this is no end—it is, of course, a beginning. For it is certain that the ability of the scientist, if permitted, to experiment with the essence of life will not stop here. It is too important a matter to be left to scientists.
Many noble Lords—my noble friends and noble Lords opposite—have, as it were, congratulated the makers of this report. I confess that I find it a strange report. I find it oddly defective—defective, as has been pointed out by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, because it has not considered properly the problem of law, one of the greatest and most important matters. One would have thought that a great deal of their attention would have been turned to it. What is the position of these embryos, these future children, in law? What are their rights? What right have these men and women to experiment with the embryos? Why did they not delve deeply into this if they were to do their task properly?
I find it also defective because it does not, as the right reverend Prelate has indicated, and as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, in his attractive and articulate maiden speech made clear, deal with the basic moral and ethical principle. For surely the question at the heart is, "What is the nature and status of the human being?" That is the heart of the matter. Scientists are now excitedly and daily delving into the very means and manner of fashioning life itself—the making of human beings.
The committee in its report uses quite often the phrases "potential human being" and "potential for human life". What does that mean? In itself the phrase begs the question about the whole mystery of human life when, as again has been said by many noble Lords who have already spoken, all evidence of modern genetics ought to ensure acceptance of the principle that human life begins at fertilisation. But apparently, no, in this report. So now there is a class of life to be labelled "potential human beings", produced out of spares, spare parts, like the kit of some kind of
556
industrial machine, to be used in experiment for research, to be stored, to be exchanged, to be sold—potential human beings; that is putting it in the words of the report. All this hideous process—it is a hideous process—is justified in the name of helping the infertile (unfortunate people, indeed, but only a percentage of the population) to achieve fertility. That is the excuse for the artificial manufacture of what will in years to come inevitably lead to a new race of human beings, the product of laboratories, that "Brave New World" about which we read 60 years ago when Aldous Huxley first conceived it in his novel. But for the time being these potential human beings who have been experimented upon are to be destroyed so that, incidentally, and ironically arising from this report, a new crime will be introduced into the criminal calendar. It is not, "Thou shalt not kill"; but "Thou shalt kill" the potential human being; and if you do not kill it you have committed a crime. That is what in this report these ladies and gentlemen are recommending. It is to such a degradation that we are carried by what I can only describe as these monstrous practices. All again, for the present—this is the present reason—in the name of helping infertile women.
What is the treatment of such women? It is the implantation, as I understand it, of something cultivated elsewhere. That implantation will lead to the woman impregnated ultimately giving birth to a human child, for semen alone, as we know, cannot do that for that woman. What is implanted? What is demanded?—nothing less than something alive, something living, which within that woman can grow until it is born, and after birth live independently of that woman. Is not that a living thing which is implanted? Of course it is; and, as it is alive, who has the right to play with it, to experiment with it, to destroy it? Who gives permission for any human being to deal with another human being in that way? Where is the law which permits this?
The process, as I understand it, is effected by women being induced to produce several ripe eggs. They can then be fertilised artificially, leading to the embryos being frozen, stored, bought, sold and destroyed after their 14 days. They are potential living things, human rats or rabbits, the creation of "spares", but alive. And with the aim of what?—of making the infertile fertile. Of course, infertility causes great grief and great heartache. Those who suffer it must be the object of sympathy and compassion. They have indeed a cross to bear throughout their lives which many do not have to bear. But is it good enough reason or excuse for others to play God? If society permits some of its members to treat human life in accordance with the proposals of this report, we move inexorably down a path which will lead to a monstrous society, ultimately, of fabricated creatures.
I follow, and agree with, those who dissented in Dissent B, but I go further. I reject this report. I am revolted by its proposals, which accept embryos as useful stuff for scientists to experiment on; proposals which clothe conduct, which I believe no man is entitled to do, in the trivial commonplace language of regulation, rule, Parliamentary Order in Council; proposals which I reject, because I believe that they are an affront to the Catholic and the whole Christian concept of life.
5.32 p.m.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, in addressing your Lordships this evening, I shall take my cue from the right reverend Prelate and Father Abbot the Bishop of Norwich and break the rules by congratulating the noble Marquess on a profound and thoughtful maiden speech, with the burden of which I agree. Whether one agrees with the majority report, with one of the minorities, or rejects it in toto, I am sure that we should all express our gratitude to Dame Mary Warnock and her colleagues for all the hard work and study that they have put in to marshalling what facts they have been able to collect and for presenting them to Parliament and the nation in a form which is, frankly, readable and which can be comprehended by the layman.
Since they were unable to come to a unanimous conclusion, I am sure that Dame Mary Warnock and her colleagues will not regard me as ungracious if I dissent from a number of conclusions that the majority come to, remembering that we here are not primarily moralists; we are legislators. So far as the Ten Commandments are concerned, the law has regard to only four of them. This does not invalidate the other six. It merely means that sin and crime are not closely correlated on the statute book.
For myself, I accept the Christian ideal of marriage with the unity of the family as the keystone of the social arch. But others think differently, and the law must cater for us all, whether we are Christians who marry in church, or free-thinkers who marry in a registry office. It has to decide between us, or invent a compromise. For my own part, I accept artificial insemination by the husband as a means of avoiding infertility, and I would accept in vitro fertilisation by the husband if there was a guarantee that surplus embryos faced with destruction would not be produced. But that is not the case at the moment, and so there is ony one means of avoiding infertility in this sense that, for my own part, I can accept. I am profoundly mistrustful of AID and surrogacy, but the law must cater for those who disagree with me and must make its choice.
I now want to turn to that aspect of the report which concerns me most. I am afraid it is the same aspect of it which so many of your Lordships have dealt with, but I want to present it in my own way. I refer to the status of the human embryo. I am not prepared to accept it as a potential human being. Even less am I prepared to accept it as merely a potential human being. The concept of potentiality in this context is far too broad to be of the least use.
According to the experiments of Professor Gurdon, at Oxford, which were referred to non-attributively in Chapter 12, paragraph 14, of the report, every living cell in my body and every living cell in your Lordships' bodies is a potential human being that can result from cloning it. Its differentiation into either a liver cell or a brain cell can be reversed. It can be sent back to the totipotency of an ovum implanted into ovarian cytoplasm, and from it a new individual can be regenerated.
If, because of that, you were to forbid experimentation with what was a potential human being, then you would have to forbid biopsy, cell culture and all sorts of harmless procedures which the
558
medical profession bring to our assistance. I can see no escape whatever from accepting a human embryo as a human being, a human individual, albeit in its totipotent starting position, very fragile and in need of protection in a uterine environment, but nonetheless human. There seems no alternative to that. To my mind, trying to draw a line at 14 days is quite unacceptable. You can only begin at the beginning. "What", I seem to hear someone thinking, "a pin's head of jelly a human individual? What nonsense." What is jelly?
I ask your Lordships to imagine a living cell blown up to the size of a football. Inside that football you would find something the size of a golf ball—the nucleus. Between the football and the golf ball would lie the cytoplasm, which contains the control process by which it differentiates and makes up its mind whether a bit of it is to be a liver cell, a muscle cell, a brain cell or whatever it may be.
What goes on in that nucleus? It contains about five miles of the finest spider's thread you can imagine in a state of constant motion, coiling and uncoiling itself without ever getting into a knot, containing along its length the coded specifications of one unique human being unlike any other; the miraculous device by which the creator propagates his creatures from generation to generation down the endless corridors of time. A pin's head of jelly, my Lords? No, it is a miracle.
It is from this point of view that I regard experiments on human embryos as altogether impermissible and seek a moratorium on experiments, in which I am in good company with the right reverend Prelate and others, so that we have time to think very deeply about this subject. It was for this reason that I added my name to those of other signatories to a petition to the Prime Minister asking for one. I hope we shall get it.
May I return to the generality of the situation in which we find ourselves. Many of our troubles today spring from the headlong pace of technological progress—and medicine, after all, is only a branch of technology, though a biological one—outdistancing our powers of social assimilation. We are always out of our depth. This new power is just one more example. Of course, infertility is a very sad condition, but do we have to be slaves to our greed for satisfaction and our impatience? Can we not wait until we know more about it, until we have thought out the implications of what we may be doing?
I ask your Lordships to remember the classic tragic cycle that has inspired so many playwrights and poets: Koros, conceit, hubris, the behaviour that provokes the Gods into inflicting us with ate, blindness to the consequences of our actions, which undoes us. Do we want to be undone? The gut feeling for what is impermissible is well illustrated in the Old Testament.
"Thou shalt not let thy cattle gender with a diverse kind. Thou shalt not sow thy field with mingled seed."
These examples may not be felicitous from the standpoint of plant and animal husbandry, but what is important is the feeling that they represent. It is the feeling that I have when I contemplate a human sperm penetrating a hamster ovum as a test of fertility. If that is the best we can do, let some other test be found, and let us mark time until it is.

559
If an embryo is a human being, destroying it is murder in a moral sense. Morally, abortion is murder. If it is not legally murder, it is because an Act of Parliament has enfranchised it. We should remember the New Testament criticism of Moses' permissivity over the question of divorce, "because of the hardness of men's hearts". It is because of the hardness of men's hearts and women's hearts that we have enfranchised abortion. Do not let us descend the slippery slope still further, eroding our values, weakened as they are already by the permissive society against which I have spoken so often.
What is its legacy? May I tell your Lordships what it has given us? It has given us two new venereal diseases, both incurable and one of them fatal. Did we foresee that when we allowed the liberal humanists to tempt us down their primrose path? What else are we not foreseeing now? Think of thalidomide. Did we foresee its legacy of deformed children and of tragic babies when our women took it as a safe relief from morning sickness in pregnancy? Once bitten, twice shy. Already, many hundreds of human embryos are on ice or in liquid nitrogen. These hundreds will grow into thousands while we sit and debate about it. These embryos have nowhere to go, no means of linking their production to their chance of implantation and no future save destruction.
Events are out-distancing this report. Only a moratorium can enable us to regain control before vested interests build up—vested interests in services and in prestige—and demand the maintenance of the status quo as it now is. Your Lordships know quite well that that is a mere euphemism for creeping advance. A moratorium is what we need and a moratorium we must have.
5.42 p.m.
The Marquess of Lothian: My Lords, I am very conscious of and grateful for the effort, time and work which has clearly been put by the members of Dame Mary Warnock's committee into producing a clear and informative report. I intend to be very brief; there are a great many speakers yet to be heard. Like other noble Lords, I shall confine my remarks to a single aspect of the report, the embryo.
I was very relieved to see how many members of the committee could not countenance the manufacture of human creatures purely for the purpose of vivisection to enable research to be carried out, which in itself may not prove in future to be beneficial to other human beings. Therefore I add my support to that of all those who find creation for the purpose of destruction totally repugnant. Among these, may I briefly quote the opinion of one of the world's foremost theologians and scientists, Professor Thomas Torrance.
Professor Torrance is a past winner of the Templeton Prize for his work on the relationship of science and morals. As many noble Lords know, he is a former Moderator of the Church of Scotland. He has recently written an assessment of morals, science and the law concerning test tube babies. I shall quote briefly what he says:
"The central issues are both scientific and moral. We are obliged to know things strictly in accordance with their natures, and to
560
behave towards things strictly in accordance with their natures, that is, both truly and rightly. This means that we cannot scientifically confuse science with technology and cannot morally confuse ends with means. Yet in both of these fundamental respects the Warnock Report appears to be seriously at fault".
Professor Torrance continues:
"Essential to the whole matter is the nature of the human embryo which, whatever it is, must be respected for what it is in itself and in its own right. There is no scientific doubt about the fact that from the moment of conception the human embryo is genetically complete and must be treated as such, as distinctively human, and not just as a mere biochemical episode or as equivalent to the fertilised egg of an animal or a bit of animal tissue. After all if the human embryo were neither human nor alive it would have no place in research on human beings. If the human embryo is genetically complete and distinctively human from the very beginning, then arguments allowing for scientific experiment or genetic manipulation after a certain period, seven, 14 days or whatever, are scientifically and morally specious. There is also a serious ambiguity about an argument from the premise that the embryo is 'potentially human', for the potentiality concerned is not that of becoming something else but of becoming what it essentially is".
I personally agree absolutely with that quotation. I believe it is something with which practically all religious denominations and faiths in the world would assent. That is why I strongly support the statement of dissent in the Warnock Report by four members of the committee particularly in this instance, because there were other dissenters on other matters. I refer to Mr. Baker, Professor Dyson, Mrs. Edwards and Dr. Wendy Greengross who dissented from the recommendation that research should be permitted on embryos brought into existence specifically for that purpose, or coming into existence as a result of other research.
This in itself shows that even in the minds of the Warnock Committee there is considerable doubt about the matter. Personally, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take the strongest notice of this point. When legislation is being considered for the future, I believe that such procedures should become a criminal offence.
5.47 p.m.
Lady Saltoun: My Lords, I too should like to congratulate Dame Mary Warnock and her committee on their report, which is clear, well printed, sensitive and beautifully written and therefore easy to read and understand. Her letter presenting it makes clear the immense difficulties which faced the committee in inquiring dispassionately and objectively into this highly emotive subject.
While agreeing with some of the committee's recommendations—for example, that a statutory body should be set up and that surrogate motherhood should be virtually banned—I have grave reservations about others. However, it is not the duty of Parliament, as I believe the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, mentioned, to order by legislation the private morals of individuals but to concern itself with protecting the defenceless. The report says:
"Questions about the distribution of resources within the world as a whole lie far outside our terms of reference".
But the allocation of resources in this country is not outwith Parliament's terms of reference. I think we have to consider how far the limited resources of the Department of Health and Social Security should be used to satisfy the very strong desire of childless couples for children, which is still a wish as opposed to a need. We have also to guard against the channelling

561
of all available resources into the provision of AID and in vitro techniques, which may be unacceptable to many childless couples, at the expense of further research into the screening of abnormalities and into other methods of treating infertility and the making of those methods widely available. We must also consider that those resources are the taxpayers' money and be wary of using it for purposes which may appear to be attractive but which may have evil results in the future, or which the general public may find unacceptable.
In Chapter 2 the report discusses eligibility for treatment, and the committee recommend that access to treatment should not be confined only to legally married couples. This seems to me quite wrong. While some unmarried couples may have a very stable relationship, most people enter into matrimony with a hope of permanency which does not so often characterise the relationship of those who merely cohabit—and it must always be easier to part where there is not the necessity to obtain a divorce.
Where the birth of a child is to be procured by artificial means, surely it is only right that the future welfare of that child should be subject to the gravest consideration. I should like to see treatment of whatever kind for infertility confined to legally married, childless couples—and never under any circumstances made available to lesbian or homosexual couples, or to single people. The fact that a single person can adopt a child is neither here nor there, because in those cases the child already exists and adoption is probably the best solution from his point of view. I firmly believe that the best background for any child is to have happily married parents; it would be entirely wrong to assist artificially the birth of children into any other kind of home.
Chapters 4 to 8 of the report are concerned with AID, egg donation, embryo donation and surrogate motherhood. I will not touch on the question of whether or not AID, egg donation or embryo donation constitutes adultery or not—that is the business of the bishops and the Churches. My concern is about the children, on whose behalf I have serious misgivings. Recommendation 27 on page 83 states:
"In relation to egg donation the principles of good practice we have already considered in relation to other techniques should apply, including … openness with the child about his genetic origins.".
How can one be "open" with a small child about what is, apart from anything else, a somewhat technical matter? My mind boggles at the prospect of having to explain to a six year old, say, that he was an AID child. Even if one succeeded, what then? Does one instruct him not to tell his pals? Or will he rush off and spread the news around the school playground and then get taunted by his friends? For taunted he would be—I can almost hear the taunts.
The committee complains of current attitudes, but one will not change attitudes by legislation. Where children have been told later on in their lives—when teenagers or fully grown up—some have found it very upsetting, as adopted children can do. This is one of the most serious arguments against this kind of treatment, and I really do not see how one can get around it.
I have another reason for my concern about AID
562
children, etc. As the chief of a very numerous clan, it is perhaps a concern of which I am more aware than some—although the noble Earl, Lord Lauderdale, and the noble Marquess, Lord Lothian, probably have similar experience. My concern is that such children are going to lack roots—certainly, half their roots. In the case of embryo donation children, they will lack all roots. For ever they will ask in vain, "Who was my father?" or, "Who was my mother?" or, "Who were my parents?"
I receive many letters from Frasers—most of them from abroad—of which the theme is, "Can you help me trace my forebears because I want to know how I fit into the family and where I come from?" For many people, the need to know their roots is very great and really matters; it is a question of identity, and it is important psychologically. I wonder whether it is right to produce by artificial means children who will never have any hope of receiving an answer to those questions.
Then there is the vital question of the legitimacy of the AID child. The committee recommend that the AID child should in law be treated as the legitimate child of its mother and her husband where they have both consented to the treatment. What about situations where inheritance of property, peerages or hereditary honours and positions is concerned? I am well aware that, down the centuries, many Peers have not, as one might say, been their father's sons—but that was accidental. Should male line hereditary honours be inherited by AID children, or female line ones through the implant of an egg from another woman, then it would be deliberate—and I do not think that would do.
The wishes of a sovereign regarding the descent of a peerage—or of the testator, now dead, regarding the ownership of his property—have long been regarded by law, if not by the Inland Revenue, as sacrosanct and not to be overset so long as it was possible to honour them. I believe that this must continue to be so. Apart from anything else, it would make for very bad blood between the child and his parents and the next heirs—in most cases, members of the family.
All in all, for the sake of the children concerned, I believe that AID, egg donation and embryo donation should not be legal, let alone available on the National Health. To be childless when one longs for children is indeed a grave misfortune but it is not one that should be alleviated at the expense of the children for selfish reasons. I am not persuaded that the children would not be disadvantaged in some way.
Otherwise I would say that the committee have, on the whole, dealt very fairly with the technique of in vitro fertilisation. But in Chapter 5, paragraph 14 states that among the 215 children born at the Bourn Hall Clinic, there have been no major congenital malformations. I should like to know what malformations there have been. because I do not consider that that statement is quite good enough—and any risk of deterioration while an embryo is in vitro is not good enough either. The effects of the artificial environment of the test tube on the resulting child in later life cannot be known, since the technique is in its infancy, and so are the children born by it. They are guinea pigs. I wonder whether that is right;. I do not think it is.

563
I come now to the vexed question of whether research on human embryos should be permitted at all or only up to a certain age. I do not know when the soul enters the body and I do not believe that anyone else knows, either—although plenty believe that they do. Until we know beyond all shadow of doubt, I think that the answer must be no to all experimentation on human embryos. The noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, and others, have called for a moratorium and I would support that. I believe that legislation to that effect should be introduced as soon as possible. If we leave that door open any longer we shall never get it shut again. We will be under constant pressure to open it wider, and we will not be able to resist the pressure to do so; it will merely be a matter of time.
And then, sooner than we realise—because of the speed of scientific development—we shall have experiments in inter-species breeding and genetic engineering with a view to creating a master race or a subservient race and so forth—not to mention a growing disregard for the sanctity of human life. Tempting as it is to say the ills of this world are such that no path which could lead to the alleviation of some of them should remain untrodden, there must be some roads down which we do not go.
The only thing I feel depressingly sure of is that we are now in a situation where, whatever we do is going to be wrong from some point of view. It is not a black and white situation—like in the nursery, where right was right and wrong was wrong and never the twain did meet. We are dealing here with shades of grey—and as our sight grows dimmer, it becomes more difficult to see which shade is the deeper.
By trying to illuminate this murky subject, Dame Mary Warnock has done us a very great service. The decisions, however, are ours. We must make them, and we must not accept the Committee's views if we do not believe that they are right.
5.57 p.m.
The Earl of Lauderdale: My Lords, despite the rules of this House, it really is impossible not to join in the congratulations which are due to the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, for his quite extraordinary and historic maiden speech. He spoke with faith; he spoke with courage; and he spoke with splendid precision. Having broken the rules, I shall now carry on.
By any measurement this is a very remarkable report, by a very remarkable assemblage of a remarkable variety of expertise. So two cheers anyway for the Department of Health and Social Services for grasping the nettle later rather than never. But it is prudent to consider the gigantic scale and sweep of the committee's subject. It is a range of frightening possibilities in artificial human reproduction—as scientists, unhampered by medical ethics, claim for this generation a Promethean power to determine the conditions of future human life; all this behind the mask of tackling human infertility.
The range reaches from one extreme to another. There is the virtual manufacture of children before even birth, denied the security of identifiable parents in homes of compassion and care.
564
Another extreme, to which the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, alluded, is the possibility of genetic manipulation to breed, for example—rather like Japanese bonzai trees—a race of tiny persons for high altitude flying and space travel. That is not my fancy. I quote from The Ethics of Genetic Control, published by Joseph Fletcher in New York in 1974, at page 155. A third extreme—because it is well to look at the extremes—is perhaps the generation of sub-human hybrids to do the human's dirty work.
With such a range of possibilities, was a simple departmental inquiry the right kind of body to tackle such matters, however eminent the personnel concerned—let alone, as seemed to be suggested by my noble friend in his opening speech, to carry on and go further? On any showing this was a disparate group, seemingly unlinked by any common background of traditional philosophy or ethics beyond a general pity for the childless couple.
When some 60 per cent. of Britain's 55 million people are baptised Christians, would it not have been prudent for the Government to consult their representatives with regard to membership of this committee? It may be that most baptised Christians go to church only two or three times in their lives: the first to be baptised, when they cannot prevent it and the next when they are buried, when they cannot prevent that, either.
Nevertheless, there is a gut feeling of Christianity among baptised Christians which surfaces, for example, at the Cenotaph ceremony every year and on other national occasions when, rather sheepishly they bring their Christianity into the open. Even if one allows that most of the 60 per cent.—more than 30 million—never go inside a church except at the beginning and end of their lives, more than two million did make their Communions in the Church of England last Christmas. Were their representatives consulted? Neither the Episcopate nor the General Synod's Board of Social Responsibility was asked to put names forward for this committee.
There are more than four million Roman Catholics in the United Kingdom. How many of those make their Communion regularly, I would not know. But there are more than four million of them. Was the hierarchy consulted? Cardinal Hume has made it quite plain that it was not. The Church of Scotland, in a country of five million people, has two million adherents. Was the Moderator or the General Assembly's Church and Nation Committee consulted? Not so. The Jewish community is, of course, much smaller. It numbers rather more than 400,000. But they have been an integral part of our nation's woof and weft since the sixteenth century. We owe them a very great deal of thanks, honour and respect for what they have given our society and our nation. Well, neither the Chief Rabbi nor the Board of Deputies, nor the Beth Din Court were consulted.
Of course, it has been stressed in certain quarters that there was a Roman Catholic on the committee—Professor Marshall—but he denies that he was there as a Roman Catholic. He accepted the position on the ground of his specialist experience. It is also true that there was a Jew on the committee—Dr. Greengross—but the Chief Rabbi denies that that was in any sense a representative position. Indeed, there

565
was an Anglican priest—Professor Dyson—but he speaks, and spoke, for no one but himself. He was not representative of the Church of England's Board of Social Responsibility. I have to say—because truth demands it—that there has been a slightly unpleasant whiff of deception which escaped from Whitehall when the committee membership was announced. Two leading newspapers—The Times and the Telegraph, which are in deadly competition—included in their account of the nomination of the committee this paragraph. It was the same in both papers:
"A team of 16 experts comprising lawyers, doctors, representatives of the Catholic, Jewish, and Muslim religions, lay people, and child care experts".
That can only have come from someone in Whitehall and I was rather surprised to notice that in opening the debate my noble friend referred to religious "interests" being on the committee. There were religious people, but they did not represent specifically any of the church organisations or interests from which they were drawn.
This was a hand-picked committee and it did some pretty careful hand-picking in its choice of no more than 20 witnesses out of the 300 who put in statements. It chose not more than 20 to be given an oral hearing. Granted that from the list of witnesses it is evident that many of the submissions will have covered the same ground. All the same, 15 per cent. is not a high percentage for oral study of the witnesses in depth.
The Committee took the time and trouble to visit Ulster. There its members saw witnesses from the Methodist and Presbyterian churches. They never went to Scotland. They got no nearer to evidence of the Church of Scotland's view than to confuse the Church of Scotland with the Church of England's Council for Social Responsibility. In the list of witnesses we are told that they took evidence from the Church of Scotland's Council for Social Responsibility, which does not exist. They never called one of Scotland's most notable experts in this field—Professor Ian Donald—the Regius Professor Emeritus of Midwifery at the University of Glasgow, let alone Professor Tom Torrance, who on any ground would claim attention, as my noble friend Lord Reading said, if only for winning the Templeton prize.
What now? The committee has served a purpose, of course, and with diligence. It served a purpose in setting out what I call a sort of ACAS approach: "Let us get the highest common factor, never mind the morals". Both the Church of England Board of Social Responsibility, I understand, and the Roman Catholic hierarchy have reports which are due out before Christmas and which your Lordships will wish to read in due course. Anyone interested has been invited to send in their views on the Warnock report to the Department of Health and Social Security.
I believe we now need two things. In the long term we need something more than the proposed licensing authority to monitor what goes on. Here again, I was rather alarmed to hear my noble friend the Minister refer, as I understood him, to the committee's "continued existence and activity", considering how unrepresentative it is, but I hope I misunderstood him. However, I am sure we need a continuing body to monitor the positon, but that must be either a Royal
566
Commission or a parliamentary Select Committee which will publish the evidence. We have no idea from the document now before us what the evidence was. The public needs to have the evidence and to study the arguments much more closely than, as I call it, the ACAS way it has been summarised in the report.
In the short term I agree with the majority opinion in the House this afternoon that it is urgent to get the licensing authority into being, or at any rate something like it. But it must be properly representative and authoritative. To treat the Warnock Committee as a licensing authority would simply be adding one fantasy to another. The licensing authority must be authoritative and the Churches must be seen to be properly represented on it. Without that it will not command respect. Unless this body is seen to be worthily representative, I can promise my friends on the Front Bench—they will probably be my enemies after this—that Parliament will give it a very, very rough passage indeed in both Houses.
The public will want some specific questions answered exactly. For example, how can we get sufficient numbers of sufficiently qualified scientific inspectors to differentiate between a 14-day and a 15-day embryo—and we need lots of them? How are we to find enough inspectors able to spot a more than two-celled stage of hybrid breeding? The public will want proper answers to those two questions. There are widespread, and I believe well-informed, fears lest trans-species fertilisation lead beyond embryonic growth to a mixed breed, converting the uniqueness of man into a bastardised freak. The public, I believe, will revolt against debasement of human generation to stud farming methods. I believe that the public is already showing signs of an instinctive resistance to the Brave New World's intrusion into this most private and sacred area of human experience.
6.12 p.m.
Lord Robertson of Oakridge: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for giving your Lordships' House the chance to debate the Warnock Report. There is a great deal in the report to be praised, and I should like particularly to thank the authors for the clarity with which they set out the problems and proposals. I should also like to pay tribute to those medical scientists who have developed medical techniques to relieve would-be parents of the wretched condition of infertility. The question which faces society now is how those techniques can be channelled into beneficial areas and avoid creating harmful results which could far outweigh the benefits.
In assessing the Warnock Report against this test, I believe it to be deficient on two counts. First, it does not put sufficient weight on the importance of a stable family background. Secondly, I believe that it fails fully to appreciate the unique status and value of human life—and may I say how much I admired the speech on that subject by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading?
To deal first with the family aspect, the report looks forward to the spread of AID, which by its very nature introduces a third party into the marriage who provides his sperm to enable the wife to have a child; or, if it is used on unmarried women (as Warnock is prepared to permit), it produces fatherless children. It

567
is thus one more way of increasing the already tragic number of one-parent families. Ought not our aim to be that every child should be born to a father and mother who are pledged to each other in lifelong, exclusive and permanent loyalty? The artificial insemination process should be used only between husband and wife. To do otherwise seems grossly unfair on the offspring.
Still on my first point, the report welcomes the technique of IVF and envisages its use well beyond its help to the childless, infertile couple. I submit that IVF should be used only in rare and exceptional cases, if at all. Ideally a child should be the result of a personal loving encounter between husband and wife. As such he or she may be regarded as a gift—a gift from God—and valued accordingly.
This leads me to my second point—the value of human life. The IVF child is radically different. He or she was commanded into existence by direct human action in the laboratory. His status is therefore that of a product—that is, something that we make and have at our disposal. Products are subject to quality control and if they fall short we can discard them. In this respect, the part of the report dealing with sex selection to me makes chilling reading. Once we allow that human beings are disposable, we are on very dangerous ground. We put at risk not only the unborn child but also the handicapped, the chronically ill and the elderly.
It follows that we must look very closely at the fact that IVF techniques allow the production of so-called spare embryos which will never be implanted in their mother's womb. Personally, I find the thought of a genetically complete human being being considered as spare to be totally abhorrent. The report actually contemplates the conclusion that, since the embryos are spare, we may do what we like with them. We may buy and sell them, freeze them (with consequences that at this stage we cannot foresee), experiment on them, test drugs on them and finally discard them—provided of course that all that is done in the first 14 days.
To treat a human embryo in this way is dehumanising and therefore totally against Christian principles. As a member of the Christian Church, I worship Jesus Christ, who was incarnate by the Holy Spirit and born of the Virgin Mary. He was a full human being from conception onwards, and both scripture and Christian tradition teach us to regard him as such. If that is the case with the representative man, such must also be the case with each one of us. For this reason I do not see that the Christian conscience can allow any treatment of an embryo that would not be acceptable if applied to the rest of the human race. It is comforting to know that according to the MORI poll carried out by the Order of Christian Unity these thoughts are shared by a majority of public opinion.
The situation is moving ahead very swiftly. It is vital that legislation is enacted without undue delay. I hope that in that legislation the interests of the embryo child are paramount. It is on this point that I would disagree most sharply with the views expressed by the right reverend Prelate the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford who seemed to give the treatment of infertility precedence
568
over the interests of the embryo child. The legislation should also recognise the importance of the family background. Furthermore, as recommended in Expression of Dissent B, experimentation on the embryo should not be permitted and the embryo should be afforded special protection in law. I support those who are proposing a two-year moratorium on embryo research to prevent matters getting out of hand while legislation is being enacted.
I end by reminding your Lordshps of the words of the psalmist on the value of humanity in God's sight. The psalmist said:
"When I consider thy heavens, the work of thy fingers, the moon and the stars, which thou hast ordained;
What is man, that thou art mindful of him?
and the Son of Man, that thou visitest him?
For thou hast made him a little lower than the angels, and hast crowned him with glory and honour".
Lord Ashbourne: My Lords, I should like to begin by saying how grateful I am to the noble Lord the Minister for putting down this Motion and thereby giving your Lordships an opportunity to debate this Warnock Report. I had intended to raise the subject in the debate on the Queen's Speech but I think it much better that we should have a separate debate on such an important subject which could have a material bearing on the lives of our children for generations to come.
Perhaps I might also apologise to the noble Lord the Minister for missing his opening speech, but I came directly from the casualty department of the Moorgate Hospital. An inconsiderate piece of grit lodged itself behind one of my eyelids, to my great discomfort. Had it not been for the great skill and speed of the doctors and nurses at that hospital I would probably have missed the whole debate. I hope the Minister will excuse the apparent discourtesy.
It seems to me that the key factor that society has to decide is what status should be afforded the embryo. In my view, the report deals with this somewhat inadequately. Paragraph 11.17 says:
"The status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation".
That is a weighty statement with which I entirely agree. But unfortunately the report then seems to change gear and continues, with no conviction:
"We recommend that the embryo of the human species should be afforded some protection in law".
I was interested to hear from the right reverend prelate the Bishop of Norwich, who is sitting in front of me, that that particular sentence stuck in his gullet, in the same way as it stuck in mine.
As your Lordships are aware, life is full of indicators. These indicators often show the thinking behind the written word. Taking the report as a whole there are a few sentences depicted in heavy print and one can only presume that the members of the committee regard these sentences as pivotal to the arguments being put forward.
On page 63 of the report we can see that what I would regard as the central issue, which is that,
"the status of the embryo is a matter of fundamental principle which should be enshrined in legislation"
is in normal print, and that the following sentence, which I would regard as of secondary importance,

569
namely, that the embryo should be afforded some protection, is in heavy print. It is of course for your Lordships to judge in these matters, but could it be that this misuse of emphasis reflects the shallow thinking of a committee sailing through uncharted waters but determined to muddle through in spite of the hazards which abound on every side?
I am going to mention only three of these hazards, namely, the sale of embryos, the freezing of embryos, and the experimentation with embryos for up to 14 days, although there are other matters in the report with which I profoundly disagree.
Paragraph 13.13 advocates the sale and purchase of human embryos, provided that they comply with the rules of the licensing body, which is likely to be an independent authority to monitor what goes on in the local area; a two-tier system of central and local administration. If so, is it not a significant abandonment of parliamentary responsibility to allow a specialist body to dictate in matters of basic human rights involving the creation or destruction of human life? In truth, are we not getting perilously close to the reintroduction of the slave market if we are to permit the purchase and sale of embryos, whatever the statutory licensing authority might or might not think?
Secondly, I am concerned about the possible long-term effects of freezing and storing an embryo. Paragraph 10.10 recommends a maximum, of 10 years for storage of embryos. If this proposal was to be supported by legislation, it would be the first time ever that a medical procedure has been made legal where there was no presumed benefit to the patient, in this case the embryo, to whom it was being done, and who continues to exist. Furthermore, we have no knowledge of what effect freezing may have on the child. Even the Warnock Committee admits to:
"the current ignorance of the possible effects of long storage".
In past times there have been a number of procedures which ultimately were found to have tragic effects. For example, children X-rayed in the womb developed leukaemia. Also some years ago women threatened with miscarriage were given oestrin; only when the children of these pregnancies reached early puberty did doctors discover that the oestrin given to the mothers had in some of these children caused cancer.
As the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, stated in his admirable maiden speech, the report recommends:
"Legislation should provide that research may be carried out on any embryo resulting from in vitro fertilisation, whatever its provenance, up to the end of the 14th day after fertilisation, but subject to all other restrictions as may be imposed by the licensing body".
To justify the use of a human embryo as a guinea pig, the committee suggests that it would enable the furtherance of research into inherited diseases and genetic disorders, such as Down's Syndrome.
My Lords, this is an emotive manoeuvre aimed at gaining public support as it would be virtually impossible for any scientist to achieve verifiable results within the 14-day limit, so far as either genetic diseases or the effects of drugs are concerned. The committee's 14-day limit is both artificial and arbitrary. As Mr. Patrick Steptoe commented in the Daily Telegraph on 11th October 1984:
570
"How can someone be a legitimate researcher for 14 days and then, one minute later, a criminal?"
Furthermore, Professor Lejeune, one of the world's leading geneticists, who discovered that Down's Syndrome was due to an error in the chromosomes, has demonstrated that work is being successfully carried out at a number of centres in different countries into genetic disorders and without the use of embryos. Furthermore, he is of the opinion that such experiments will not be required in the future.
I have spoken for long enough and I must try to come to a balanced conclusion speedily if I am not to weary your Lordships. I would not wish the House to think that I was against the whole of the report. Indeed, I wholeheartedly support recommendations Numbers 56, 57 and 58 proposing that surrogate motherhood should be made a criminal offence. However, the report takes little heed of the solidarity of the family, the centrality of marriage, and the sanctity of human life from conception.
New laboratory techniques are being developed almost weekly, so that early legislation is needed if clear principles are to be established for the guidance of scientists and doctors. Indeed, I understand that a two-year moratorium has been suggested to give time for the Government to decide the way forward, and I would certainly not be against this. It would be much better than stumbling into the minefield which we are otherwise in danger of doing. In view of this, I would like to end by asking the noble Lord the Minister what action the Government propose in the face of these remarkable and potentially dangerous developments.
6.29 p.m.
Lord McNair: My Lords, had we a Bill before us this afternoon and were this at Second Reading, I do not think I would have dared to talk about these highly technical matters. But we are only asked to take note of the Warnock Report. I hope that that opens the door wide enough to admit some observations of perhaps only peripheral relevance to the report.
However, it would be wretchedly churlish if I did not first pay my tribute to the exceptional and oh-so-welcome readability of this report. Ever since long ago I have completely failed to study and comprehend philosophy. I have held philosophers in very high regard, and I have found it always a pleasure to listen to them or read their writings, almost regardless of the subject matter. With some exceptions, of course, their very strict mental discipline seems to endow them with a lucidity, an honesty of language, which is very refreshing. Surely, all through this report one can discern the hand of a very notable philosopher. It examines conflicting views with respect. It owns up to doubts and it says, and says clearly, what it means. Politicians, social scientists and others, please note!
On reading the report, I was at first assailed by demographic doubts about whether infertility really is a problem in an over-populated world, to which my noble friend Lord Winstanley referred in his speech a long time ago now. However, these and other doubts are summarised in paragraph 2.3 and I find them convincingly refuted in 2.4. I do accept that infertility in women and in men is an affliction for which help should properly be given. But, nevertheless, I cannot recognise the right to have a baby as absolute.

571
This was brought home to me, and surely to many others, by a case about nine years ago which confronted several people with a peculiarly agonising dilemma. It concerned a girl in her early teens who was unlucky enough to be suffering from an incurable condition known as Soto's syndrome. This is a rare and obscure condition straight out of nature's dirty tricks department in which the victim has a severe degree of mental retardation, no hope of a mental age above eight or nine, combined with an unusual amount of sexual precocity. The inevitable outcome of this witches' brew of symptoms is not difficult to imagine.
In this case, the poor girl's distracted mother asked the doctors—because she recognised that she could not control or protect her daughter—to perform an operation for sterilisation. In this request she was supported by some psychologists and/or psychiatrists. The operation was due to take place when some social workers, from a different point of view, objected. It may have been these people who took the case into the public arena. Letters appeared in the newspapers, some supporting the mother, others defending the inalienable right of every human female to have babies, and so on. The controversy was eventually settled before a judge in chambers—the judge, incidentally, a female.
The learned judge heard counsel for the social workers, counsel for the psychologists and counsel for the mother and found, in her wisdom, that the operation for sterilisation should not take place. I make no criticism. I was not there. But it struck me that there was one very important voice that the judge never heard. No advocate spoke—how could he?—for the luckless baby who would inevitably be born to this pitiable girl who could never, in any but the most strictly obstetrical sense of the word, be a mother. That voice was silent.
From this case and from its wider implications, I formulated in my mind what I suggest ought to be regarded as a fundamental human right—the right not to be born to a life of predictable hell. If you think of life as a game of snakes and ladders, I suggest that where one can foresee clearly that it is going to be all snakes and never a ladder in sight, then an unborn human soul has the right to say, "No thanks. I pass. I'll sit this one out and wait for a slightly brighter horoscope". This human right, which a Roman lawyer could very succinctly describe as a jus non nascendi, a right not to be born, seems to be as fundamental as that other human right, usually assumed to be the most fundamental of all, the right not to be unlawfully killed. Ironically, the two of them share one grim characteristic. It is this. If you have been denied either of these human rights, there is no redress. Nothing can be done; it is too late. The tragic evidence of this can be seen all too often in the files of our social services, in our subnormality hospitals, in our prisons and even on our streets.
I am not suggesting, of course, that this human right could ever make its way into any convention or be covered by law. We have, I think, legislated for the right of an infant to sue post natally for damage sustained in utero, and I suspect that that is about as far back as the law can go. The only protection for this
572
human right not to be born when the odds are hopeless will have to be that we engrave it in our memories.
I conclude this summary of my possibly rather lateral thinking about Warnock by restating a general principle which is perhaps more strictly relevant to the substance of the report and which is, I think, now fairly widely accepted in theory, though not always carried out in practice. I would describe this as the principle of the priority of the youngest. This means that in any human imbroglio involving people of more than one generation, the point of view of the youngest participant is almost bound to be the most important. There are at least three reasons for this: first, the youngest is least able to speak for itself; second, it is almost certainly the most innocent and the least blameworthy; and third, being the youngest, it will have the longest span of time in which to put up with the consequences of any decision.
This is relevant to the problem of human infertility. I am far from unsympathetic to the plight of men or women who find that they cannot have the children they long for. I am fully in favour of them receiving what help the doctors and scientists can give them. But, just as no one in his senses would postulate the inalienable right of every child to have a puppy for Christmas, so I think that we have to stop short of recognising any absolute right to human procreation. We have to remember that every baby, every human embryo, is an adult in the making, a potential person, and must never be regarded as the pet or plaything or possession of its parents.
6.39 p.m.
Viscount Sidmouth: My Lords, in the foreword to their report, the Warnock Committee make a bow to the role of morality but conclude that
"matters of ultimate value are not susceptible of proof".
Nevertheless, at their own chosen level, they recognise the feelings expressed in the evidence and conclude that
"Barriers, it is generally agreed, must be set up",
I believe that it is convenient to consider this complex matter at that level because there is in public opinion, undoubtedly a deep-seated repugnance to IVF and all that it implies. This is fully borne out by the MORI poll commissioned by the Order of Christian Unity and carried out in July 1984, to which several noble Lords have already referred. This sound instinctive reaction should not be overruled by sentiment when it comes to considering where the legislative barriers should be placed.
If, as the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, suggested in his admirable maiden speech, we consider the law on abortion, may I say that I believe it was the situation arising when a pregnancy threatens the life of a mother that influenced Parliament to decide in her favour, through abortion. As I understand it, serious threats to life or health of this order are relatively rare, and clearly many abortions are being authorised where, at best, the only threat is the statistically small one inherent in going full-term to normal delivery.
In considering infertility, the committee rather questionably decided to ignore the question of whether the world really needs new and expensive methods of increased fertility and concentrates instead on the

573
position of the relatively small number of couples who want children but cannot have them in hitherto accepted ways. No doubt there is sympathy for such people and a desire to help them by AIH, for example, or even AID, although, as several noble Lords have made clear, there would be many (of whom I most emphatically am one) who would not regard the latter as morally justified.
But having identified this claim for what the committee call alleviating infertility, the report goes on to apply it, by extrapolation, to all the developments the committee were asked to consider—all the way, in fact, to trans-species fertilisation. I believe that in doing so they load more on to their argument than it can bear, because this process, in all its modes, is concerned with human embryos which may be used for experiments, for freezing, for being allowed to die or simply for being killed off. There is no question here of a mother's life being weighed against such things, and gratifying the wishes of a few infertile people is certainly not a justification for them. The report itself sets out cogently enough the arguments against using embryos for experiments—paragraphs 11.26 and 11.27—but then goes against its own logic and accepts by a majority that this is all right for up to 14 days. I submit that the case for IVF and its developments has not been made and that this is the point at which barriers should be placed.
To defend the lines they wish to see drawn, the committee propose to set up a licensing authority. With all the strategic passes already conceded, this body would have no chance at all of seriously influencing events. I have the good fortune to know a number of research scientists, and have no doubt that they are men of integrity. But the more dedicated they are to research the more firmly they believe that the only personal boundaries they recognise in their work are those currently limiting human knowledge itself. No doubt they would accept and conform to limitations imposed by society as a whole, preferably world-wide, but these must be clearly stated and firmly supported by law.
Many people are reminded by the research we are considering today of that which led to the building of the atomic bomb. This is not altogether fanciful, and, indeed, the repercussions for the human race may be just as far-reaching. It is worth recalling that the decision to proceed with that research was taken in the light of survival in a world war, and few people would wish to be faced with making the right choice in such circumstances. Certain it is that if the decision was being taken today it would be different. Moreover, if concerted action had been possible at a much earlier stage the chances of achieving, for example, the zero option proposed by the United States Government would be far better.
Once the genie is out of the bottle it is very difficult to put it back again. It is like the story of the Dutch boy who put his hand in the dyke. He is a national hero because he was present at the start of a potential disaster and had the courage and insight to take the right action at the right time. I believe that the Government should initiate legislation as soon as possible, even if it is of an interim nature, and should take all action open to them to obtain concerted action in Europe, and world-wide, to curb these dangerous and disruptive activities.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Tranmire: My Lords, at this stage of the debate there is a great danger of undue repetition. I just want to say to your Lordships that I am worried and troubled over this report. It is written with exceptional clarity. It deals in some detail with the medical and the legal issues, but it seems to neglect entirely the effect of the committee's recommendations on the child who is brought into the world by the techniques they recommend, and also the effect on the family in which that child is brought up.
I know that noble Lords have already touched on this, but for me it is a very worrying thing for a young child, at the start of his life, to be uncertain as to his parents and to be in a family whose only link may well be the link of some donors' bureau in an infertility clinic. I think that is a horrible idea that comes from this report. After all, the Christian, the Jewish and the Mohammedan religions all set and regard the family as the pillar of civilisation. Destroy that, and you destroy the civilisation, as the Chinese found a few years ago when they tried to experiment with the family.
For these reasons, I believe that it would be a grave mistake to legalise extra-marital fertilisation of embryos involving a spouse and a third party. To quote the words the report uses in another context:
"Once a foot is set on the 'slippery slope'… no end can be set to the dangers".
That applies equally to their recommendation on AID and on IVF, provided the spouse is not involved. Therefore, I would myself confine medical treatment to surgery where that is practicable, to AIH and to IVF, provided the spermatozoa of the husband were used.
I do not want to go into other detail. I agree with the great body of opinion expressed in this House about the unwisdom of the Warnock report's recommendations regarding research and experiment, and the more satisfactory alternative of the dissenting judgment B. I say just this. I hope I never live to see the day when the Seventh Commandment is amended with the addition of the words,
"unless sponsored by a panel doctor and licensed by an infertility quango".
6.50 p.m.
The Earl of Longford: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow and agree with my old house captain, but I shall be brief. The noble Lord was president of the debating society in our school many years ago and he insisted that no speaker should hold forth for more than a few minutes. Therefore, if anybody is likely to bring me to a close, it is him.
As the noble Lord has said, this subject has been thoroughly combed over this afternoon and that is one reason—apart from any others—for being brief. I should like to single out two speeches. I know that I am making a mistake here because there have been many very brilliant orators taking part in our debate. However, the maiden speech by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, was an extraordinary tour de force. Of course I remember his father and his grandfather. Things are rather moving on when I remember speakers mainly by reference to their grandfathers. I

575
did not know his great-grandfather although I might have known him because I was alive at the time, but I was not here. Anyway it was a great pleasure to hear someone from that distinguished family speaking so well.
Although the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich is not present, I ventured in an article I wrote some years ago about the House of Lords to say that he was the most attractive speaker that had ever been thrown up by the Bishop's Bench, and I think that he fully justified that compliment in his compelling speech this afternoon.
There is a habit nowadays of referring to reports by the name of the chairman. We talk of Beveridge, Wolfenden, or Robbins not meaning the person, but meaning their reports. I should be very sorry to have to refer to my much admired friend Dame Mary Warnock in such a way. I am afraid that I have some sharp criticisms to make of this report but they have mostly been voiced already. However, as one would expect from one of the most brilliant women of our time, perhaps the most brilliant woman I know outside my own family and of course outside this House—I must be careful here—and as one would expect of a Committee over which she presided, the report is highly educational and everyone must agree that it is extraordinarily lucid with the arguments not always quite fairly presented but still very clearly set out on both sides and on all points. Therefore, there is a great deal to be said for the report from that point of view.
I agreed very much with one large part of the emphasis of the report, that is, the insistence that these new extraordinary discoveries must be very carefully regulated. Everyone, including my acting Leader, my noble friend, Lord Ennals—who was very careful to explain that he was speaking only for himself—would agree with the principle of regulation. That seems to be a point on which we can all come together.
To put it quite bluntly, I am against the use of embryos for research. One might say, "You would be, wouldn't you?"—to use a phrase made fashionable by Miss Rice-Davies many years ago. Yes, that is true. But other people would be against other things which fall in the same area. I know very well a lady whose first child was an imbecile. The child lived until the age of 10 without ever being able to recognise her mother, and then she died. Is there anyone who does not have a bias against any attempts to experiment on that child? It might be said that the child would not notice anything that was going on and that experimentation could be useful for some future purpose and that other people might be assisted in the future. But we all draw the line somewhere—certainly Dame Mary Warnock and my noble friend Lord Ennals would draw the line—at experimenting on a living person, a person who has actually emerged into childhood.
The question is: do we draw the line at experimenting on these so-called embryos? On that point I really hardly need to add to what was said so very carefully and fully and with such humane and at the same time theological wisdom by the noble Marquess, Lord Reading. I need not go over that ground again.
576
I personally consider that Dame Mary Warnock and her committee have put one aspect of our conviction very clearly. The Committee say in Chapter 11, paragraph 11, that the main argument is that:
"the use of human embryos for research is morally wrong because of the very fact that they are human, and much of the evidence submitted to us strongly supports this".
That is my point of view and it was my point of view before I read the Warnock Report.
I am no scientist, but let me dwell for one moment on one point as regards which I feel that the committee has gone seriously wrong; at any rate, it has mis-stated the situation. I am referring to Chapter 11, paragraph 14 where it says:
"Those who are firmly opposed to research on human embryos recognise that a ban on their use may reduce the volume not only of pure research but also research in potentially beneficial areas".
Then it goes on to describe the areas. That really is simply not so. I am amazed that it has neglected a good deal of evidence that was submitted to it and which said exactly the opposite. I shall not stop to quote, but I shall just refer to the evidence submitted by the French scientist Professor Jerome Lejeune who is without doubt one of the world's greatest geneticists. He laid the utmost stress on the fact that this type of research conducted within our 14 days will be of very little value compared to research which can be conducted without violating, as I would say, the moral laws. So even on scientific grounds—and in that connection I would not dream of offering my opinion as being of much value—we must recognise that there is a great deal of highly expert opinion which is simply, on the face of it, ignored by the report.
I am afraid that I do not share the belief of my dear friend Lord Soper that in some extraordinary way science will provide new spiritual possibilities for the family. That, I am afraid, seems to me to be altogether too optimistic. But going beyond and outside science, I say that this is an appalling prospect. It is not just a question of what the Warnock Report says; it is not just that we are shocked by what is going on now: we are profoundly apprehensive about where it could lead in the future.
6.57 p.m.
Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I do not want to be the only Member of your Lordships' House not to congratulate the noble Marquess on his splendid and strong maiden speech. I had not intended to speak in this debate. I had not intended to come to London this week, as I had work to do in the North. It was the importance of this debate and report, and telephone calls from concerned people, which encouraged me to say a few words. This debate with such important Christian and moral issues has, I feel, been sprung on us so suddenly and with so little time to prepare. What I say today is my first reaction to the report.
I once watched a science fiction film about a man who was made in a laboratory. He escaped and did all kinds of terrible things. It makes me think: is this the start of something which could lead to a Hitler theory of only the perfect human beings being brought into our society? There is now a very large non-Christian population. Life to many no longer seems sacred. I blame a great deal of the present problems on the abortion of babies and on society for having let that

577
happen. I feel that it is a pity that not more females are speaking in this debate today.
There are many childless couples who have a profound longing to have a baby or to bring up children. Many of them in the past derived great joy from having adopted children. Now there is a shortage of babies for adoption. I believe that human life begins at fertilisation and that thereafter what is done should be done in the best interest of the living, growing human embryo.
The Roman Catholic teaching is quite clear and I should like to quote from what the Catholic Archbishops of Britain said in January 1980.
"It is Catholic teaching, supported by modern scientific knowledge, that from the time of conception there comes into existence a new life and a process of continuous growth begins. We accept as a sacred responsibility from God the need to respect and protect—from the time of conception—what has begun its human life.
Each such new life is the life not of a potential human being but of a human being with potential."
The advances in medical science are great. The temptations for experimentation on the human embryo could go far. Very often scientists work in narrow specialist fields. They might try to reach their goal without any regard to the embryo. How could 14 days be controlled, and what is the difference between day 1 and day 14, except that the embryo is more advanced?
When I was a patient at Stoke Mandeville hospital there was a Roman Catholic doctor who would ask young male patients who had broken their backs or their necks and who might like to father babies in the future if they would like some of their semen frozen while it was still active and fertile. This would later be injected into their wives. In cases like this, in vitro fertilisation could be of great help, as it could be to other married couples who needed help.
I am worried about Recommendation 16 of the report which says:
"The licensing body be asked to consider the need for follow-up studies of children born as a result of the new techniques, including consideration of the need for a centrally maintained register of such births."
This would be putting the children in a special guinea-pig category. Children, whoever they are, are individuals and unless they need special protection because of child abuse, I do not think that the children would want to be specially categorised. They would want to be treated the same as other children.
I believe that the further we get away from nature, the more problems we shall have. So far as I can gather both the report and the Church disagree with surrogate mothering; but so far as I can see in some special cases this might be in the best interests of the embryo. From a physiological point of view surrogate motherhood is very successful: a woman's womb does not usually reject an embryo from elsewhere. Many millions of children have been successfully brought up by wet nurses or nannies. This could be said to be an extension of that practice. That is just a woman's feeling as I know how protective women can be, though I appreciate that this could raise many problems.
I expect that this debate will stimulate all sorts of discussion outside your Lordship's House, but I hope that the result will be good.
7.4 p.m.
Lord Milverton: My Lords, what are we doing with life in our present day? This is the vitally important question in respect of human beings, as it is to a lesser degree in respect of other aspects of creation. How we treat ourselves will determine how we treat life. Disturbing and frightening aspects are placed before us in the Warnock Committee report. This report, together with other factors of modern life, must cause many men, women, boys and girls to think deeply about values in regard to human life. We must consider life not only when the child has been born, but we must value human life from the moment of conception, thinking of the potential of each unique unborn child. We are dealing with that which has the substance of all feeling and sensitivity—life. The material matter within our grasp and our control must never be regarded as existing for experimental and research purposes, for satisfying curiosity or human whims of any kind.
It is said and known that all forms of life can feel. Then could it not be that a human embryo may feel right from the beginning of its existence or, as the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, suggested, that even that apparently little nothing of the egg or sperm may also feel and have sensitivity? It is some of the material of life for the creation of unique human beings who, by the grace of God, have been so privileged.
I suggest that here lie some of the disturbing factors which we have to face at this time. For instance, in paragraphs 8.1 and 8.2 of Background Paper No. 150 surrogate motherhood may be right for some special cases, but on the whole surely it is quite inappropriate. The practice of superovulation has a strangeness, an unnaturalness, around the act. The different ways involved in donation by donors are also a door to the misuse of that which is used in the creation of life. The idea of freezing eggs and/or embryos is horrible, as is the idea that if spare embryos are not needed they can be destroyed, just chucked away, or used for research.
Children born by AID should be made legitimate and not remain illegitimate. The use of sperm banks is also an unwholesome step. The idea of many lives arising from a licensing body and its functions leaves one cold—dead cold. For instance, paragraph 22 of the section headed "Principles of provision" in this background paper is unnatural and cold. It reads:
"For the present, there should be a limit of ten children who can be fathered by one donor".
I think it is repulsive to ask a man to give his sperm for the creation of a child when that man will have nothing to do with that child when it comes into existence.
Paragraph 29 is dangerous. It says:
"The use of frozen semen in artificial insemination should continue".
As I understand it, this whole business of the freezing of potential life is horrible and nasty. Paragraph 31 is dangerous and unacceptable. It reads:
"There should be a maximum of ten years for the storage of embryos after which time the right to use or disposal should pass to the storage authority."
A storage authority for what will be a human life! What are we coming to?

579
If this is allowed to operate, some man or woman might say (as some have already thought of, and as some have already tried to do): "Let us breed the perfect human race".
Paragraph 43 deals with legal limits on research. Is this right? I do not think so. It reads:
"Legislation should provide that research may be carried out on an embryo resulting from in vitro fertilisation, whatever its provenance, up to the end of the fourteenth day after fertilisation, but subject to all other restrictions as may be imposed by the licensing body."
Life coming into existence by a licensing body? True life is to come into existence by love, and we must do all possible to help that to happen. Can the law be a safeguard in something that is so uncertain and complex? The most stringent safeguards by law are necessary if these ways are to grow, but far better to check these ways to guide them to far better, practical, wholesome ways. The ugliness of monetary payment comes into play with a value being put on an embryo or surrogate motherhood or the other ways and forms. What are we coming to, with money being one of the main factors for life coming into existence?
I hope Her Majesty's Government will take note of the Order of Christian Unity findings. I hope they will take note before formulating their view and look deeply, thoroughly and positively critically into the Warnock Committee report and at what has been said tonight, particularly by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, when he used the expression "a thing" which was mentioned in the Warnock report and also when he brought out the point of these anonymous people.
What are we coming to? Have we lost all sense, as some people have already said, of that which makes a family? Families are not made just by a man and woman living together. A family is made by a man and woman who live together in love, giving themselves to each other in love, helping each other in smooth and rough waters and at all times. I hope that the Government will also take note of what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Halsbury, who always has something very clear, true and succulent for us. Also, last but not least—I am afraid I did not realise that it was breaking a rule—I hope Her Majesty's Government will take good and proper note of the excellent speech of Lord Reading.
I agree with those who say that there ought to be a moratorium. We cannot allow what has already begun to continue without proper safeguards. I hope Her Majesty's Government will take note of those very prominent and able people who have said that there should be a moratorium. Her Majesty's Government must take note.
7.14 p.m.
Viscount Buckmaster: My Lords, I intend to detain your Lordships for a very few minutes only, but I must start by apologising to the Minister for the fact that I shall be obliged to miss his concluding speech, much to my great regret, through an unavoidable engagement. Like most of your Lordships who have spoken this evening I object very strongly to the Warnock Committee report, and its recommendations, on ethical and religious grounds. I do not
580
intend to speak on those grounds as they have been ably covered by so many of your Lordships. I should like to highlight an objection which has been voiced by many noble Lords; that is, the 14-day period. How is one to determine the 14-day period, and who is to distinguish between 14 and 40 days? Surely that is a grave defect in a report which should give guidance on a matter such as this.
My noble kinsman Lord Lauderdale spoke very effectively about the lack of consultation with the various religious bodies in this country. He mentioned the various Christian denominations, including the Methodists, and he mentioned the Jews. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that there are a million and a quarter Moslems in this country, many of whom are British subjects, and to them, as to us, such experimentation is utterly abhorrent.
There are graver implications. Your Lordships have been speaking with great effect about experimenting with embryos. Can we not expect, perhaps, that this will lead to juggling with genes? Is it not possible to envisage that in time to come people may be able to order their own children? Someone may say, "All right; I'll have two boys with blue eyes", or, "I will have two girls with golden hair". What a terrible thought! But, even worse, I saw in a paper the other day an advertisement for a gender blender. Can your Lordships imagine it? So, apart from all the horrible results of this experimentation, we may even have hermaphrodites with us.
It is appropriate to quote from The Doctor's Dilemma by George Bernard Shaw, in which he says:
"No man is allowed to put his mother in the stove because he desires to know how long an adult woman will survive the temperature of 500 degrees Fahrenheit; no matter how important or interesting that particular addition to the store of human knowledge may be".
7.17 p.m.
Lord Meston: My Lords, this has been a truly fascinating debate. I hope the lawyers have all avoided the temptation to say that these problems are medical, and that the scientists have avoided the temptation to say that these problems are all legal. But there is, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, pointed out, a legal vacuum. Your Lordships' debate has shown that there is no moral vacuum. In particular, the noble Marquess, the maiden speaker, demonstrated, with his clarity of thought and expression, what many of your Lordships clearly felt. My own recent experience of the same ordeal reinforces my congratulations to him.
We have to face the fact that science relating to infertility has raced ahead of the law. The law must catch up with the so-called reproduction revolution. Like the proverbial tortoise, it must win the race in the end.
The Warnock report has been described by one journalist as a triumph of common sense over theology. Many of your Lordships have castigated it as, in effect, amoral. I ask your Lordships to consider whether we can hold back the tide. It would be all too easy to say that we must stop the race here, but the fact is that the race will continue elsewhere, in particular in America and Australia, where these techniques are being developed daily. It will indeed be carried on in this country, but in secret.

581
To say that infertility is a problem is not to say that there is an absolute right to parenthood. I would echo the observation of my noble friend Lord McNair on that. Most of us would prefer to see parenthood as a privilege and a responsibility. But we must recognise the powerful wish for children not only in the naturally infertile, but also in the deliberate but prematurely infertile. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford has mentioned, this is aggravated by the shortage of children available for adoption. As a practitioner in family law, I can only vaguely convey to your Lordships the desperation which can enter into a contested adoption case or a contested custody or access dispute, particularly, if I may say so, when one of the parties has been sterilised.
But some of your Lordships have also mentioned another powerul urge and that of course must also be recognised. That is the powerful urge of the child as it enters adulthood to know its parental origins.
My Lords, the striking observation to my mind in the early stages of the report is that people want some limit. One asks oneself why. It is, presumably, first, to prevent genetic engineering. But it is also to prevent exploitation of the basic urge for children and exploitation of and by donors. And, indeed, one has to say that it is also to protect parents from themselves, from badly thought out private arrangements which can only create distress and sometimes disaster. But it is also, as many of your Lordships have said, ultimately to protect the end product, the child, whose interests must be paramount. The report recognises that controls cannot just be legislative and negative. There must also be medical and ethical controls and also the positive provision of services to assist the infertile.
I ask your Lordships to consider this. Excessive control, which some of your Lordships seem to favour, may well have the result of encouraging the provision of back-street services, as experience shows in another, not unrelated, area. Control requires definition and, of course??? there has to be a great deal of legal and moral line drawing. Because we are concerned with the living or the potentially living, definition has to be in terms of time, a beginning and an end. Many of your Lordships have agonised, as people do, over fixing a point at which life in the abstract begins. I hope that it is not a failure of my own intellect or my own inadequate Christian faith if I suggest that it is more helpful to consider when viability begins, rather than when life in abstract begins.
My Lords, so much for the beginning. One looks then at the end. One has to face the fact that controlling the production and use of sperm, egg and embryo for artificial and assisted reproduction must include the power to destroy the entities created and preserved for those purposes. That does not mean that one does not care about life or human beings in the abstract. On the contrary, I suggest that it shows that we do care about the life and the quality of life of the unique individual who can be produced and, indeed, of the quality of the life of the parents or caretakers of that unique child.
Warnock grasps the nettle and sets time limits. First of all, there is AIH, which creates no problem except when there is to be conception after the husband's death. Of course, the child is not conceived or born in
582
wedlock and is therefore illegitimate. The report proposes the automatic and immediate exclusion of the child for succession and inheritance purposes. I beg to question the need for that automatic and immediate exclusion. One must remember that this will have been a planned and wanted child of both parents. A great deal more thought, I would suggest, must go into post mortem AIH. Clearly, one wishes to discourage it simply for inheritance purposes. I venture to suggest that it should be tied in with a review of the law of illegitimacy which, as we all know, is under way.
As to AID, I venture to suggest that the Warnock report has got it right. It suggests anonymity, time limits on the keeping of sperm, the limiting of the number of donations by any one person and, of course, restricting payments to donors—all very necessary, though, if I may venture a note of levity, disappointing to those of us who may be looking for other gainful employment in the unhappy event of the abolition of your Lordships' House. The provision for automatic illegitimacy echoes a Bill which was introduced in another place in 1977 but, again, I would suggest that it ought to be looked at in the wider context of the law relating to legitimacy.
Many of your Lordships have been concerned, indeed, most of your Lordships have been concerned, with how long one should allow an embryo to remain—and I limit my observation to embryos produced for reproductive purposes—in suspended existence. I suspect that "suspended animation" is not the correct phrase. A doctor's dilemma has been quoted. A doctor who has had much to do with a unit in a university in Australia which apparently contains some 250 embryos frozen in a tank of liquid nitrogen has asked these questions if the parents die, or they separate, or they do not want their embryos, are they the doctor's responsibility? Can ownership of an embryo be transferred? Can an embryo inherit? Can consenting parents put out an embryo for adoption? Can they request that it be thawed out and left to die? Perhaps embryos have a right to the chance of life.
I suspect that many of your Lordships would be saying that that doctor's dilemma is of her own making. But, given that it exists, I would submit that the doctors are entitled to look to the law to provide the answers—and by the law I mean the legislators. Otherwise, it will not be too fanciful to see an argument ancillary to a divorce case as to the custody of an embryo; and it will not be fanciful to foresee grotesque inheritance problems. Assuming that your Lordships' House survives, your Lordships' descendants may be caused considerable consternation to be confronted with a newly-defrosted elder son from some previous generation.
My Lords, the Warnock report suggests a 10-year maximum for the preservation of embryos. I would only question the necessity or desirability of keeping them alive (to use that phrase neutrally) for so long. It was really only the noble Baroness, Lady Masham, who touched on the question of surrogacy. I think that your Lordships have all agreed that commercial arrangements must be outlawed but that private arrangements also should be discouraged. But I think that your Lordships should be aware that so-called domestic surrogacy can work well where a fertile sister provides a child for an infertile sister.

583
But, of course, it can go terribly wrong. There is one, and I think only one, case in the English law reports concerning this problem. A man married a lady who was unable to have further children. He became obsessed with the idea that he should have his own natural child, and embarked upon a plan to achieve that object. What in fact he did was to go to Bow Street Magistrates' Court, find someone who had apparently been in court for prostitution and offer her money to bear a child. She refused, but she did find a 19-year-old woman who was prepared to undertake the contract. Money changed hands and the pregnancy was commenced by artificial insemination with the man's sperm. During the pregnancy the almost inevitable happened: the woman changed her mind and decided to keep the child.
After the child's birth, the father—for indeed he was the father—started wardship proceedings to obtain the custody of the baby. He failed at first instance but the judge allowed him access to that child. The case went to the Court of Appeal, whose members expressed themselves forcefully against the whole arrangement, saying that no bond between the father and the child except the mere biological bond existed, there never having been any association between the father and mother except the sordid commercial bond. It had been a wholly artificial situation from the beginning. It should never have happened and no responsible adult should have allowed it to happen. But it had happened, and the court had to pick up the pieces. The best way is to let the mother lead as normal a life as possible with the child without interference from an obsessive father, who was still passionately anxious to get care and control of the child. The result was that he was refused access to the child indefinitely.
In the final analysis you cannot stop such arrangements: you can discourage them but you cannot stop them. If it is going to happen we have either to leave it to the courts to pick up the pieces or, as the minority in the report suggested, have some very limited regulation of such arrangements in special cases.
As many of your Lordships have said, you cannot divorce this question from the values of society and the values of a family life. One question I ask myself—I do not pretend to know the answer—is this. Society requires no qualification of natural parents for natural parenthood, but it requires quite stringent qualifications for adoption even when one of the adopters is a natural parent of the child. The anxiety is the interests of the child and to avoid distortion of family relationships. We must ask ourselves, if the surrogacy arrangements are to go ahead, what qualities we require of those who seek artificial assistance and who should make the value judgments involved.
Questions have been raised in this debate as to how representative the committee was and indeed how representative the evidence was. I happen to believe that your Lordships' House is one of the most representative forums in the country, but I do ask the Government to consider how representative are the views that have been heard today. The Warnock Report poses many questions and provides many answers. The tortoise of the law will have to tread carefully but its way has been well lit by this report.
584
The law should be a tortoise and not an ostrich, burying its head.
In closing I would simply say this. The noble Earl, Lord Longford, quoted Miss Rice-Davies and so I feel able to quote Miss Marilyn Monroe. Asked what did she think of sex? she said, "I think sex is here to stay". I think we have to face it: these techniques are here to stay.
7.35 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I do not propose to speak on behalf of these Benches except to congratulate the noble Marquess, Lord Reading, on his distinguished and forceful contribution. I have been asked by my noble friend Lord Ennals to apologise to the House for his absence, but he is obliged to keep another appointment.
On reading the pages of the Warnock Report, most of us find ourselves face to face with the immense advances made by scientists in very recent years, and that in a small but formative area of life. I would echo the sentiments of many Members when I say it seems to me that science is sometimes running well ahead of our capacity to perceive and think through the basic issues which it poses. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, has illustrated how science is also outstripping the law. Hence, I find myself among those who are anguished if not confused as to how we should be responding to the issues and the problems which are generated by some aspects of medical advancement.
In recent years organ transplantation has emphasised the difficulties of defining terms such as "life" and "death" in adults and children. But in relation to the human embryo we are again faced with a question: when does life begin? I agree that this is a question which, from my own point of view, cannot easily be answered in a simple fashion. The question can be refined and further refined; and eventually I found myself asking a question asked by one of the dissenters: at what stage of development should the status of a person be accorded to an embryo of the human species?
I do not propose to go over the ground, but, faced with that uncertainty and possibly by my own inadequate Christianity, I tend in the first place to look to my doctor for guidance, believing and hoping that his clinical judgment is tolerably sound. I agree that the issues are wider than those of medical ethics. But given my doctor's assurance, I would go along with a development in medicine if I know that it offers prospects of hope even if only to a few, and provided also that such development is acceptable to most sections of contemporary society. Those are my guidelines. They may be inadequate guidelines, but I find them helpful.
IVF is a considerable achievement and I do not think one can overestimate its importance. Sudden infertility is a cross for some people. But I do not accept that it is a cross which must be carried to the end of life if the doctor can offer help. I believe therefore that IVF is here to stay as a new clinical treatment to enable families to have a fuller life.
But your Lordships have spent many hours on a second question. Is it also to stay as a research tool to solve problems which are associated with infertility? I

585
believe there are deep differences of opinion in the country surrounding the use of the human embryo for research. It is an area of great controversy and I venture to suggest that that controversy has not really been reflected in the discussion over the past few hours. It is certainly reflected in the Warnock Report which could not reach a unanimous view about the use of the human embryo for research. We know—I shall not go over the ground—that the minority of the committee was opposed to the embryo being the subject of research. It has to be protected from conception either because it is a human person or because it has a high potential for being a human person. I also believe that there is a strong fear—that has emerged in the discussion this afternoon—that research may open up future possibilities and dangerous developments. One noble Lord referred to the present stage of research as being on a slippery slope. I respect that view but there is a majority opinion within the committee which, having regard to the contribution that can be made by scientific research, then allows research on a live human embryo.
We have not heard as much as we ought about the conditions which the Warnock Committee recommends for the research work. It is subject to two basic conditions; that it must be undertaken by practitioners or researchers licensed by the new statutory licensing authority; and that it must be undertaken on premises also licensed by the licensing authority and which are open to inspection by the authority's inspectorate. Consideration could be given to introducing additional safeguards to tighten up the control—for example, whether the information can be obtained in any other way. But the committee is clear in its view that 14 days after fertilisation research will end. It has given its reasons for drawing the line at the end of the 14th day and I am in no position to offer a judgment on the accuracy of the line. But to conduct research on the embryo after the 14th day would be a criminal offence. I believe that this reflects the concern of the committee to protect the embryo and its anxiety about where research could lead.
There are some who consider that the committee has been too relaxed in drawing the line at 14 days but there are practitioners and others who consider that a 14 day rule would be too restrictive in the light of future experience. I think the point must be made and must be recorded that some practitioners point to the fact which did not escape the attention of Warnock that research may be undertaken in this country, subject to certain conditions being observed, involving the pre-viable foetus at less than 140 days' gestation and which is prevented from attaining life wholly independently of the mother following termination of pregnancy. Warnock was not impressed with that precedent and recommends or suggests that any research which makes use of live embryos or foeti should be brought within the legislative framework proposed by it. The committee had to weigh the benefit of research involving the human embryo against the very real objections which have been generated. I happen to believe that it has maintained the right balance, provided that the conditions set out in the report are implemented and observed.
I now turn to the second issue which has concerned
586
your Lordships, that of surrogate pregnancy. Subject to a powerful dissenting opinion, the committee recommends the creation of two criminal offences for surrogate pregnancy. Here I share the view or the reservations of the two dissenters. I believe that there is some support for the dissenters from my noble friend Lord Soper, and the noble Baroness, Lady Masham. If we accept the role of the I VF donor, I find it difficult to see why there should be a fundamental objection to surrogacy, which is an extension of what has been accepted, provided it is carried on under stringent care and control. But I appreciate that there are widespread anxieties about surrogate pregnancy agencies and I believe that the public disquiet may have been influenced in part by the suggestion that improper financial transactions are involved. The risk of exploitation is not to be underestimated and that is why one agrees that the criminal law should be used to ensure that a financial consideration does no more than meet the necessary expenditure incurred by the surrogate mother.To a very small number of parents in very special or exceptional circumstances surrogacy could be the last resort, and for that reason the door should not be completely closed on it.
The committee noted what it described as a "haphazard organisation of services for the infertile". It found the services to be unsatisfactory and recommended that each health authority should review its facilities for the investigation and treatment of infertility and indeed that consideration be given to the inclusion of plans for improving the service as part of the next round of health authority strategic plans. However we were not told what level of spending is needed to provide adequate services for the infertile.
Here I come to another troubling question which has not been voiced during the past few hours. To give money to one area of medicine is often to withhold it from another. Therefore, where do we place IVF in our scale of priorities? What some of us cannot accept is that the NHS, already under pressure, already for example, failing to provide adequate treatment for cervical cancer, already failing to reach those most in need of it, should be further weakened in order to find the necessary expenditure. IVF illustrates very clearly the need that arises from time to time to provide additional money for the NHS to meet the demands made on it by scientific advance.
Finally, I return to the common ground. I think it is true to say that most of us wholeheartedly agree with the committee's main recommendation that there should be a central permanent statutory body, consisting of substantial lay representation and with a lay chairman, to regulate the service and the research that is to be undertaken. I am particularly pleased that there will be a substantial lay representation on the proposed authority. That is some safeguard. The licensing authority can also draw on the experience of the ethical committee which is monitoring and regulating research of foetus material.
I particularly wish to endorse the recommendation that the licensing authority should consider the need for follow-up studies of children born as a result of the new techniques. It may well be—and we have no grounds for believing otherwise—that the incidence of birth defects is not greater than normal. We have no known evidence for believing that the children will

587
suffer in any way from the nature of their conception. However, it would be very wise to consider the need for follow-up studies, as the committee recommends. So we are, with this report, on a new frontier. We can see that the scientists are breaking new ground and outstripping the law. The report identifies many of the problems and offers some solutions, and for that reason I believe it is a sound basis for discussion which it is to be hoped will lead to adequate and early legislation.
Viscount Hanworth: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, has he seriously considered and gone into the question of the children of surrogate parentage? Does he realise, even with adopted children, the emotional importance of trying to find out who were their parents, and so on? It does not matter to me, but it seems to matter emotionally to a lot of people. Has he really taken this into account in making his speech?
Lord Prys-Davies: No, my Lords. I would not claim that I have thoroughly understood or grasped the implications of each development that is identified in this report. I would not claim that I have that understanding. But I believe that we have a real problem and that surrogate pregnancy, donor embryos and donor semen can contribute towards a happy family life, which is the end we all seek.
7.55 p.m.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, when I spoke earlier, I said how much I looked forward to hearing the comments to be made this afternoon and I, for one, have not been disappointed. I have learned a great deal and I am grateful, as we all will be, to all those who have taken part in this stimulating debate for their constructive and very profound views, which of course the Government will study most carefully. It is not easy to wind-up a debate which has expressed those very profound views and, if I am unable to mention all those who have taken part, it in no way reflects upon the content of their speech; merely on the constraints of time.
But before I respond to some of the main points that have been made, I should like to join others of your Lordships who have congratulated my noble friend Lord Reading on a really excellent maiden speech. He spoke with very great clarity and feeling about one of the most fundamental issues before us—the nature of the human embryo—and he referred to the sanctity of life. He posed the question: when does it begin? In many ways, the questions he posed are unanswerable, certainly to everybody's satisfaction. But my noble friend rightly holds very strong feelings and I, too, look forward with keen anticipation to hearing future interventions from him.
In considering where to start to wind-up this debate, I thought that the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Soper, earlier on about the family were of particular importance. The noble Lord, who apologised to me because he could not be here now, with others, such as the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich and the noble Lord, Lord Robertson, placed in the forefront of our minds the many contexts in which
588
these matters must be considered. I should like to endorse wholeheartedly what they have said about the family. Among the interests to be considered in relation to the new techniques, those of the wider family must be as central as those of the individual couples and children concerned. I can assure your Lordships that this will be a fundamental dimension in the Government's thinking about the report.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale, in a powerful speech, made a number of points about the composition of the inquiry. He made a number of other points, too, which I shall study most carefully. But so far as the composition is concerned, as I have already indicated, the membership reflected a wide range of lay, professional and religious interests, although my noble friend argued over my use of the word "interests".
The range was, in fact, very broad. Apart from two gynaecologists, it included lawyers, a general practitioner, two members with experience in social work and counselling, and a theologian. While the members were not appointed solely on the basis of their religious views, they were taken into account and a range of religious backgrounds was reflected. The inquiry received evidence from all the main religious denominations in this country and it is this dimension to the work of the committee which is fundamental. I could give my noble friend even greater details about where the meetings took place, the number of submissions that were received and so on, but I shall certainly let him have them in writing.
The proposed statutory body to license and control the provision of services for infertility and to regulate research on human embryos is, I think, the report's central recommendation. Because of this, we have asked particularly for views to be expressed on it in the course of the consultation. We shall need to consider all views very carefully before arriving at a conclusion. The Government do not dispute the need for effective control of these methods, but it is important to bear in mind that controls already exist in the guidelines issued to research workers and clinicians.
The Medical Research Council issued guidelines for research workers in 1982, and the British Medical Association and the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists issued guidelines for clinicians in 1983. Existing activity is therefore already conducted within a very firm framework of guidance. In considering the question of control, we should remember that these first steps have already been taken.
As evidenced by many who have spoken in this debate, and by many other people and some of the Churches, research on human embryos is abhorrent and not permissible in any circumstances. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Norwich said, a majority of the Warnock Committee felt that some use was acceptable but only in most carefully controlled circumstances. Three members of the committee did not accept that research should be allowed in any circumstances, and added an expression of dissent to the main report on this point. I respect the deeply-held views of those of your Lordships who are of this opinion, and I have listened to and noted the points which have been made very carefully indeed; but I

589
should like for a moment to put the other side of the picture and say a little about the case for research.
There are potential benefits of research on human embryos. They fall into two main categories: first, to increase control of human fertility, both to improve it in the infertile and to develop better methods of contraception—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley—and, secondly, to detect and prevent human abnormalities. The technique of IVF in the form used and accepted today required years of research on human embryos. The success rate in terms of infants born following IVF is still low, and will remain so in the absence of further research. More research, therefore, is necessary to find the optimum conditions for fertilisation and growth of the human embryo.
I understand also that some congenital abnormalities, such as Downs syndrome and spina bifida are thought to originate either during sperm and egg development, at fertilisation or during the early development of the embryo. From a better understanding of the circumstances in which these disorders appear it may be possible to learn how to prevent them. Research on embryos may also lead to a better understanding of the development of chromosomal abnormalities. The techniques of genetic engineering, however alarming they might be to some, may in the future allow us to correct at an early stage of embryonic development the gene abnormalities responsible for some genetically determined diseases. Work of this kind, even with embryos of other species, has not yet progressed very far, but those of us who, like myself and, I am sure, others of your Lordships, have seen some of the tragic examples of sometimes distressingly severe mental and physical handicap, might see, way into the future, some advantages. One of the very desirable outcomes of research in the realms both of embryo nutrition and of genetic engineering is that it might lead to the need for fewer therapeutic abortions to be performed because of foetal deformity detected ante-natally.
Much has been said about the time limit on research. This is equally fundamental, and it is a difficult matter. Many sections of the public are understandably disturbed by reports of what scientists and doctors might do if there were to be no controls on the use of human embryos for research or, for that matter, for the treatment of infertility. As the report makes clear, the problem was an exceedingly difficult one for the committee to resolve, and members gave it a great deal of thought over an extended period. In the event, the committee recommended a legal limit of 14 days after which no research should be carried out on any embryo resulting from in vitro fertilisation.
Whatever one's views may be, and notwithstanding the views on the sanctity of life which have been expressed, it is important that even if life in some form has begun at fertilisation, which I do not dispute for a moment, I should set aside one popularly held view: that research is now being conducted on embryos of human physical form. True, genetic programming exists for the embryo to develop into human form, but, like the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, I am in no position to judge when human life starts. However, as I understand it, the 14-day point upon which our attention is focused is well before the beginning of the
590
central nervous system, although the latter, which some believe to be the key to the matter, begins to appear at about 20 days. I do not want to become involved in a very difficult argument, but the point I wish to make is that the obvious external features do not appear until much later; that is, at about 56 days.
There have been calls from some of your Lordships, which the Government note, for a moratorium on research. We appreciate the strength of feeling which lies behind those calls. We are also aware of the findings of the MORI opinion poll, to which reference has been made. I suggest, however, that a moratorium would be premature while we are still within the consultation period and while so many interests have yet to comment on the report. One also has to ask: what would happen at the end of a moratorium? I have explained some of the existing potential benefits of this research work and the controls within which researchers are working. At the moment, while noting what has been said, it is best, I believe, to leave it at that.
The Earl of Halsbury: My Lords, human embryos are piling up by the hundred while we are talking about it. Would the Minister care to comment on that point?
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I cannot comment upon the turn of phrase which the noble Earl uses. What is important is that the consultation process should be complete before we decide upon any of the suggestions which have been put forward today by the noble Earl and others.
My noble friend Lord Lauderdale raised another question on research: trans-species fertilisation. This matter was raised by other Members of your Lordships' House. I understand that this procedure is used in this country only as a diagnostic test at some centres which specialise in the investigation and treatment of male infertility. I understand that the only animals used in this test are hampsters, and that the embryos are not allowed to grow beyond the two-cell stage—one of the recommendations made in the report.
It is no surprise to me that surrogacy has aroused comment today. The noble Lord, Lord Ennals, the noble Baroness, Lady Masham of Ilton, and the noble Lord, Lord Meston, raised this matter. Many of your Lordships have articulated the strong doubts which most people have about the practice. The weight of evidence presented to the committee was against the practice, although the committee certainly heard some arguments in favour of allowing it as a last resort. As the report acknowledges, surrogacy may offer the only chance for certain couples to have a child which is genetically related to one or both of them. It may be the only way in which the husband of an infertile woman can have a child. The committee were at pains to record the difficulties which the question posed, but in the end all but two members were persuaded that surrogate motherhood treatment, whether provided by agencies or individual practitioners, should not be allowed. The Government are considering the very difficult problems raised by this technique and will listen closely to all the points which will be and which have been made.

591
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, the noble Lord, Lord Meston, and others raised the question of the legal status of a child born as a result of AID and IVF. The committee's recommendation that an AID child should be treated as the legitimate child of its mother and her husband where they have both consented to treatment follows the recommendation of the English Law Commission in its report Family Law Illegitimacy, which was published in December 1982. The committee further recommended, which again follows the Law Commission's view, that it should be presumed that the husband has consented to AID unless the contrary is proved. If the recommendations of the committee and of the Law Commission are put into effect, the only ground on which the husband could challenge the operation of the provision would be that he had not consented to his wife receiving AID treatment.
The committee's other recommendations covering the position of children born as a result of egg donation and embryo donation follow the recommendations about the AID child. It is essential that the interests of the child born as a result of these procedures should be borne in mind just as much, perhaps, as those of the parents. We believe it is very much in the child's interests that the stigma of illegitimacy should be removed. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Denning, gave us much to think about, not only in respect of the present state of the law in relation to the matters under consideration, but also the social implications of the new techniques. We must bear those wise words of warning in mind in arriving at our decisions on the report.
We have also been reminded today by the noble and learned Lord, and by others, of the legal position relating to the ownership of embryos. The report states more than once that this is a very complex and difficult matter. Unlike the noble and learned Lord, I am no expert on the subject, but I understand that an embryo is not, in the present state of the law, a person. I gather, however, that there has not been a case in which a court has had to consider whether there can be property in an embryo. This confirms the importance of highlighting this matter as one for close consideration.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and others, raised the point of telling children resulting from AID and IVF techniques about their conception. Artificial insemination is not new and although I understand the noble Lady's point of view, we are not aware of any-specific difficulties in relation to such children. I understand that in relation to adoption it is considered desirable that the adoptive parents tell their children as early as possible that they were adopted. I have to tell the noble Lady, though she may not agree with me, that there is some evidence that when younger children are informed they do not regard themselves as abnormal; in fact, I gather that they may feel special rather than strange. I have no direct experience of this, but I understand it to be the case.
The noble Lady, Lady Saltoun, and the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, raised the question of National Health Service provision and how far it was going towards providing this technique. The committee considered the argument that the desire to have
592
children is only a wish and not a need and that wishes should not be satisfied at the expense of other, more urgent demands on resources. Despite this, the report concluded that infertility is a condition meriting treatment. Many of the recommendations which followed were based on that premise.
When the committee looked at relative priorities, they recommended some reorganisation of existing services which need not, in their words, necessarily involve much greater expenditure in the longer term. I do not propose to follow the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, down the avenue he opened up to me when he spoke purely about cash and resources in the way that he did. But while we expect the authorities to meet the pressures placed upon them and improve services using these resources, it is important that they are left to determine priorities. The provision of infertility services within the National Health Service reflects locally-assessed priorities and local determination of need.
The report also said that more information should be obtained about the scale of provision. That is quite right. We need to be clear about the level of need involved; a level which is complicated by rapid developments in this field (highlighted by many of your Lordships this afternoon) which can quickly promote expectations which could not have been possible only a few years ago. We shall be discussing with health authorities the considerations which flow from the report's recommendations on service provision and organisation.
There have been several calls from your Lordships for early legislation to implement the recommendations in the report. Some who have spoken consider such legislation to be a matter of urgency. As I indicated at the outset, it is not my purpose today to announce the Government's intentions in relation to the report. We are still in the consultation period, and there is much to consider. I should only like to reiterate that the Government are already considering the recommendations of the Warnock report, including those requiring legislation, very closely. We shall take full account of all the points that have been made.
Before concluding, whatever individuals may feel about the work they undertake, I should like to pay tribute to the achievements of the clinicians and researchers in this field. It would be regrettable if the deeply-held moral and religious convictions and the integrity—as was mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Sidmouth—of the scientists engaged in such exacting research was not acknowledged, I have seen some of their fascinating work at first hand and should like to record the high esteem in which I hold it. I should like to say, too, how reassured I was by the ready explanations given to me. I am sure there are others who would echo that sentiment.
The inquiry has considered a range of complicated and difficult issues and the Government are aware that a great deal of public concern remains, particularly about research on human embryos. The Government's duty is to allay that concern as far as possible. I hope I have emphasised adequately the importance which the Government attach to considering the committee's recommendations, and

593
the views of the organisations and bodies who have an interest in the issues, with the greatest possible care.
The starting point for the committee's work was not only the new techniques to alleviate infertility, but also the problems and heartaches which many childless couples face—the noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, referred to the cross they have to bear—in their desire to complete their family unit. For those who long for children the realisation that they are unable to found a family can be shattering. The report offers a basis for moving some way towards fulfilment of their hopes, with safeguards for the child, with caution, and within tolerances which society can accept.
On Question. Motion agreed to.

European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (Change in Status of Greenland) Order 1984
8.16 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young)The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Young) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved. [38th Report from the Joint Committee.]
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft order be approved. I should like to draw the attention of your Lordships to the treaty which is referred to in the schedule to the order. The purpose of the treaty is to give effect to Greenland's wish to make the transition from membership of the Community—as a part of Denmark—to association with it. The treaty does this by removing Greenland from the scope of application of those provisions of the EEC treaty which apply to the European territory of members of the Community in general.
The EEC treaty is amended by the inclusion of Greenland within its Part IV, relating to the association of overseas countries and territories within the Community. In addition, the new treaty removes Greenland from the geographical scope of the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and the European Atomic Energy Community.
Annexed to the treaty is a protocol, which provides for duty-free access to the community for fish and fishing products coming form Greenland in return for satisfactory arrangements for access by the Community to Greenland's fishing zones. Arrangements were also agreed between Greenland and the Community to provide for a framework fisheries agreement. This established principles governing Community fishing in Greenland waters, with a protocol setting the initial quotas for Community fishermen for the first five years.
The Community's fishing opportunities under the agreement are to be balanced by the annual payment to Greenland from the Community budget of 26.5 million ecu—about £15 million. Greenland will not, however, receive aid from the European Development Fund by virtue of her overseas countries and territories status during the validity of the fisheries protocol.
There is also provision for procedures under which the Community may act in the event of the overall agreement being disturbed. The regulations providing
594
for these arrangements are not listed in the schedule to the order, but it is nevertheless right to mention them your Lordships, as they are intended to form one package with the treaty and protocol. The draft texts making up the complete package were submitted to the scrutiny of the Select Committee on European legislation in another place on 24th February 1984. I shall have more to say about the fisheries arrangements later. The protocol to the treaty provides also for the application to Greenland of the Community's detailed arrangements on tariff treatment and other matters for the OCTs in relation to products covered by both the EEC and the European Coal and Steel Community Treaty.
Your Lordships will be aware that the effect of the order is that the treaty with attached protocol will be able to operate in the law of this country in accordance with their provisions.
It may be helpful to your Lordships if I briefly describe the background to Greenland's desire for a change in status. Greenland, though geographically distinct from the continent of Europe, was at the time of Denmark's entry into the Community fully integrated with the Kingdom of Denmark, of which it was and is a part. It was therefore obliged to join the Community with the rest of Denmark, though 60 per cent. of the Greenland population voted against membership in the referendum in which Denmark voted to accept membership. In 1979, however, there came an important change in Greenland's relationship with the rest of Denmark. She received a substantial degree of home rule, and in elections in 1979 the Greenland party opposed to EC membership won a majority.
Fisheries are Greenland's major economic activity, accounting for half of her exports. The Greenlanders have always seen disadvantages in the application of the Community's fisheries policy for which, as a territory remote from other member states and with relatively little industry or agriculture, they saw few compensating advantages. In a referendum on the membership issue in February 1982, Greenland opted for withdrawal by a small majority and sought associated status under the Community's arrangements for OCTs.
In May 1982 the Danish Government therefore submitted a memorandum to the Council of Ministers proposing that Greenland should cease to be within the geographical scope of the treaties establishing the European Coal and Steel Community and European Economic Community and be added to the list of OCTs in Annex IV to the EEC treaty. But as the treaties contain no provision for the withdrawal of a member state, or a part of one, the precise terms of Greenland's change in status had to be negotiated within the Community in order to provide appropriate amendments to the treaties. In the course of negotiations it was also agreed that Greenland should cease to be within the geographical scope of the treaty establishing the European Atomic Energy Community. After discussion in the Council on a request from Denmark the treaty referred to in the schedule to the order was signed in Brussels on 13th March 1984, subject to ratification.
The treaty is to come into force on 1 st January 1985 if all member states have ratified it by then. Otherwise

595
it will come into force one month after the last state has ratified. Subject to the views of this House, we expect to have completed the necessary procedures for ratification by 1st January 1985 deadline.
Before I conclude, I should say a brief word to your Lordships about the agreement on fisheries to which I referred earlier. The agreement, which was laid before the House on 14th August, has several interlocking elements intended to balance the interests of Greenland and those of the Community. For its part, Greenland will continue to benefit from duty free access to the Community market for fish and fishery products in return for her commitment to the fisheries agreement with the Community. Under the protocol to the agreement, taking into account catches by Greenland vessels, the basic quotas set for Community fishermen for the first five years represent an overall level virtually equivalent to the quotas set by the Council of Fisheries Ministers for all the major Greenland fish stocks.
It is important to note that the Community is not being asked to alter its current fishing opportunities significantly. Any major reduction in current Community fishing efforts at Greenland would have led to claims for compensation from Community fishermen elsewhere in Community waters, and could have upset the entire balance of the common fisheries policy—established with such difficulty only last year. This has been avoided and the quotas between member states, including the United Kingdom, will be allocated in accordance with the normal procedures and criteria.
All in all, the Community's fishing opportunities in west and east Greenland waters, including those quotas which may be allocated to Norwegian and Faroese vessels under the relevant reciprocal fisheries agreements, amount to some 100,000 tonnes of cod equivalent—mainly cod, red fish, Greenland halibut and shrimps. These opportunities are balanced by the annual payment to Greenland to which I referred earlier. The Community's fishing rights in Greenland waters will not, however, end at the beginning of 1995. Although the agreement is concluded for 10 years, there is provision for successive six-year periods, thus providing a solid basis on which Community and Greenland fishermen can plan for the future.
I hope I have given sufficient general explanation of the background to the order and its objective for the order to commend itself to your Lordships as representing a fair and balanced deal for the Community and for this country. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved.—(Baroness Young.)
Lord Elwyn-Jones: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for steering us through the complex field of the withdrawal of a part-time member state from the European Community. On the face of it, from one point of view, this would seem a portentous event because, after all, Greenland is the second largest island in the world, representing half the land mass of the EC. However, with the assistance of my noble friend and of Whitaker's Almanack I discovered that in 1976 its
596
population was 49,666; so that introduces a certain sense of proportion to the gravity, significance and importance of this debate.
The Greenlanders are admirable people. They have, in their wisdom or unwisdom, decided upon withdrawal from the EC and acceptance of an associate status. We wish them every prosperity in the consequence which will flow from the general acceptance of these orders. There are obvious legal difficulties in withdrawing from the EC, but this exercise will have taught the lawyers a good deal. I have no points of technical criticism to make. We welcome the decision of the Greenlanders and wish them good fortune in their future.
Lord Diamond: My Lords, I, too, want to thank the noble Baroness for having fully explained the matter. It is an important matter. The population is small, but the principle is not as small. Indeed, the principle is quite large. We on these Benches hear with regret the departure of any member from the Community and we regret the departure of Greenland. We are grateful to the noble Baroness and we understand a good deal of what has happened.
There is only one question I want to ask and that deals with fisheries, which seem to be the main point of contention. Am I right in understanding that the rights of British fishermen are unaffected?
Baroness Young: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, for his welcome to this order. The negotiations with Greenland were long and far from easy, coinciding as they did with the closing stages of the Community's negotiations on a common fisheries policy. But we believe that this order is fair.
The noble Lord, Lord Diamond, said that he regretted that any country should wish to withdraw from the Community. He is right to say that it raises an important principle. But I am happy to confirm that we believe that the rights of British fishermen have been safeguarded. It is a complex matter, coming as it does at the same time as the negotiation of the common fisheries policy, but we believe that the rights of British fishermen and the rights of Community fishermen, as well as the rights of the Greenlanders, have been safeguarded by the proposals contained in this order.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

General Consumer Council(Northern Ireland) Order 1984
8.29 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Northern Ireland Office (Lord Lyell): My Lords, I beg to move that the Draft General Consumer Council (Northern Ireland) Order 1984, a draft of which was laid before your Lordships on 22nd October this year be approved.
The purpose of the order before us this evening is to provide more effective consumer protection for the people of Northern Ireland. Hitherto, consumer protection has been divided in the main between two

597
statutory bodies—the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers Council and the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee and one non-statutory body—the Northern Ireland Consumer Council. The non-statutory Northern Ireland Consumer Council advises Government on consumer protection matters, carries out and publishes research and maintains links with other United Kingdom consumer bodies, including the National Consumer Council. The statutory Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers Council has played an active role both in assisting people with complaints and in considering and in making recommendations on any matter affecting the distribution of electricity—including charges—and the provision of new and improved services. The last of the trio, the statutory Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee, deals with road and rail services and facilities provided at airports.
This order replaces a previous proposal for a draft order which was withdrawn in February 1983 after misgivings were expressed in three main areas: first, that electricity consumers would have less effective protection, particularly in relation to individual complaints; secondly, that the proposed budget of about £118,000 then available to the existing bodies, and which it was proposed to transfer to the new body, would be insufficient for the new body to fulfil the necessary functions; and, thirdly, that any consumer council must have a clear power to deal with individual complaints. The proposal was considered by the Northern Ireland Assemby, where these misgivings were fully aired, and resulted in the Assembly refusing to "take note".
In the face of such substantial reservations the then Secretary of State, my right honourable friend, withdrew the proposal and asked the then Minister of State, my honourable friend Mr. Adam Butler, to examine how best the matter might be taken forward. Mr. Butler's examination resulted in the formation of an independent advisory group of experts with the following terms of reference:
"To review the arrangements for consumer protection in Northern Ireland currently provided by the Northern Ireland Consumer Council, the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers Council and the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee, having regard to (a) the principle that overall, consumers in Northern Ireland should enjoy no less a standard of consumer protection than consumers in other parts of the United Kingdom; (b) the special interest of consumers of the services provided by monopoly public utilities (but not the Post Office); (c) the desirability of devising a system which, having regard to the scale of Northern Ireland, will fill any gaps in the existing arrangements and provide a consumer protection service which is cost-effective, economical, comprehensive and well co-ordinated and to make recommendations".
The group reported in September 1983 and its report, together with a discussion paper prepared by the Department of Economic Development, was published on 19th October 1983. They were subsequently considered by the Northern Ireland Assembly and were, together with the Assembly's recommendations placed in the Library of your Lordships' House on 16th January 1984. The response of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland was placed in the Library on 9th April 1984.
The order before us today is based almost entirely upon the recommendations of the independent
598
advisory group and those of the Northern Ireland Assembly, whose Economic Development Committee met with consumer interests in the Province. Meetings were also held with representatives of the Northern Ireland Members in another place, whose views were, we understood, in harmony with the recommendations.
I briefly turn now to the detail of the order. As your Lordships will see, it is not lengthy, extending only to eight articles and three schedules. It seeks to replace the three existing consumer protection bodies: the Northern Ireland Consumer Council, the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers Council and the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee by a single General Consumer Council for Northern Ireland. Article 1 provides that the order shall be brought into operation in two stages to enable the council to be appointed in December 1984 and to engage its staff and acquire premises so that business can commence on 1st April 1985, when the order will become fully operative. Articles 3 to 7 provide for the establishment of the General Consumer Council and set out its functions. It is made clear that the council will have the power to deal with individual complaints where this is appropriate or where other avenues of redress have failed. Its research and education role is stressed and its function in relation to transport, electricity and agricultural marketing schemes made under the Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order 1892 are clearly set down.
Your Lordships will recollect that during the debate in this House on the Agricultural Marketing (Northern Ireland) Order on 22nd July 1982, my noble friend Lord Gowrie said that that order made no provision for the formation and role of a consumer committee to report on the effects of any scheme on consumer interests, but that it was intended that that role would be undertaken by an amalgamated consumer protection body looking after all consumer interests in Northern Ireland. The order enables the proposed new council to fulfil this important function.
Provision is also made for the abolition of the Northern Ireland Electricity Consumers Council and the Northern Ireland Transport Users' Committee, whose powers and duties are subsumed into the new council. Article 8 deals with repeals and amendments and repeals are listed in Schedules 2 and 3. Arrangements are made in Schedule 1 for the appointment of a chairman, deputy chairman and members to the council and for the ordering of its business, the employment of staff, acquisition of premises,. provision of funding and accountability.
One of the main points of difficulty with the 1982 proposal for a draft order was the feeling that the £118,000 provided was inadequate. To meet the expenses arising from the present proposals a sum not exceeding £200,000 has been allocated. I am sure that your Lordships will agree with me that this considerably larger sum provides a sound financial base for the council; indeed it is rather more proportionately than the amount received by comparable consumer protection bodies in Great Britain; but against this the Northern Ireland General Consumer Council will have responsibilities which are in Great Britain exercised by the nationalised

599
industries' consumer councils, and there is some leeway to be made up.
The council will be required to establish four mandatory groups to exercise particular responsibility and report to the council in relation to transport, food, electricity and energy (other than electricity). There will be cross-membership between the electricity and energy groups. It is also empowered to establish such other non-mandatory groups as it considers necessary. The council will have power to co-opt to these groups persons with relevant expertise. Such persons will not have voting powers, nor will their number exceed the number of council members in any group, thus ensuring that control of its affairs remains with the council yet giving it access to specialised knowledge and advice. The Department of Economic Development proposes to take power to make subordinate legislation, subject, of course, to negative resolution, to reduce, after consultation with the council, the number of mandatory groups, should the council consider this to be necessary.
In commending this order to your Lordships I would emphasise that it is the result of very protracted consultation and consideration and is firmly based on the recommendations of an expert independent advisory group, whose recommendations have been endorsed by the Northern Ireland Assembly and in the main by those interested in consumer protection in the Province. The Government feel that it will ensure that consumers in Northern Ireland have the safeguards which we would all wish should be given to them and that it should provide a sound base upon which to build for the future. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 22nd October be approved.—(Lord Lyell.)
8.40 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble Lord the Minister for explaining the order to the House. We feel sure that it will be a significant contribution to consumer protection in Northern Ireland, and for that reason we are delighted to support it. My understanding is that the consumer in Northern Ireland has historically been disadvantaged and that, indeed, up to recent times and up to today, there are great areas of important interest in the Province where the voice of the consumer is silent. But all that will change. The independent advisory group under the chairmanship of Professor Colin Campbell reviewed the position, concluded that the kind of criticism to which I have referred was justified, and recommended a thoroughgoing reform and. in particular, the setting up of a single organisation, the General Consumer Council, to represent consumer interest in Northern Ireland and to be funded by the Government.
I have not come across a single word of opposition to this basic recommendation. We are therefore very glad that the Government have gone down the road recommended by the advisory group. The order which is before the House tonight will establish the single permanent statutory body. Its remit will be wide, and it will be funded by the Government. I am particularly pleased to note that the funding will be of the order of £200,000 a year. I had heard with some disappointment that it might be of a lower order.
600
We are attracted by the idea of the General Consumer Council distributing its work between the specialist groups that will look after special areas of importance. As the Minister explained, there will be four mandatory groups. The remit of that relating to transport will, I understand, include the facilities for passengers travelling to and from Northern Ireland. Then there will be groups for electricity, energy and food. We believe that the department was probably correct in setting up the two separate groups for electricity and energy, although there has been a view that they should be merged in one group. We note the special arrangement in Article 7 in relation to the agricultural marketing schemes. We hope and trust that the arrangement will work well in practice.
So, while giving the order our full and wholehearted support, I would ask the Minister four questions. I believe that he has answered my first question. How does this level of spending of £200,000 compare with expenditure incurred by the Welsh and Scottish consumer councils? I am almost certain that he explained that it compared favourably. Secondly, at what rate will members' allowances and expenses for attending meetings of the council and attending its group meetings be paid? Will there be parity with the allowance paid to the members of the Welsh and Scottish councils? Thirdly, we understand that housing is an area of great importance in Northern Ireland. Indeed, Professor Campbell described it as being one of the areas of (and I quote his words) "priority concern". I would be interested to know why the Secretary of State decided against setting up a mandatory specialist group for this subject.
My final question is this. As experience may show to the Government that there is a need to increase the number of mandatory groups, should not the order contain power for the Secretary of State, after consultation with the council, to increase their number? Certainly the order gives the Secretary of State the power to reduce the number. I wonder whether he should also have incorporated the power to increase the number. With those few questions, we give the order our full support.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, your Lordships will be grateful for the attention and careful interest that has been taken by the noble Lord in examining this order. It is, we believe, very important. It is detailed, and it is not immediately easy to understand. I pay tribute therefore to the noble Lord for the study that he has undertaken. I thank him for his comments. He is correct. The order is indeed comprehensive.
The noble Lord asked me four questions. He did mention one of the groups, the transport group, and he referred—I hope that I have quoted him correctly—to passengers travelling to and from Northern Ireland.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, yes.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, I understand that this is indeed so for passengers travelling by sea so far as the port of Great Britain is concerned. I asked this question myself this morning. Whether this includes the Isle of Man, I am not sure. But, anyway, it relates to those travelling by boat. So far as air travel is

601
concerned, the transport group will cover facilities at the airport. But I understand that once the passengers are on the aircraft this becomes a matter for the air users' consumer council which will be familiar to the noble Baroness, Lady Burton, from whom we hear so much. I understand that the transport group will cover only air passengers while they are at the airport in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord asked me four detailed and brief questions, to which I hope I can give him satisfactory answers this evening. I understand that the expenditure that we propose of the sum of up to £200,000 is rather more in comparative terms than the expenditure for both the Scottish and Welsh consumer councils. Of course, the noble Lord will bear in mind the remarks that I made that the Northern Ireland General Consumer Council will also be dealing with one or two points that might not be dealt with on a strictly comparable basis. Nevertheless, it is, in comparison, larger and more generous than in Scotland and in Wales.
Secondly, members' fees and allowances will be in parity with the allowances for members of the Scottish and Welsh councils.
The noble Lord asked about housing. I understand that the council is empowered and may set up a non-mandatory group if it feels that this is necessary. But, of course, the noble Lord will be aware that there are other avenues available to groups in Northern Ireland to speak to the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and my honourable friend in another place. Fourthly, the noble Lord asked whether the council has power to increase groups. Indeed, it does have power to increase its groups should it feel the necessity for this—does the noble Lord wish to intervene?
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I was wondering whether the Secretary of State himself, after consultation with the council, could increase the number of mandatory groups.
Lord Lyell: My Lords, my winged messenger advises me that this is entirely up to the council. I understand that the mechanics are set out in the schedule. But this will always be done in consultation with the Secretary of State or the relevant Minister. I am advised that this is entirely up to the council.
I am very grateful for the detail with which the noble Lord has examined this order. I am sure your Lordships would not wish me to detain the House further this evening. I am very grateful for the attention that has been paid by the House to this order, and I commend it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
8.50 p.m.
Lord Denham: My Lords, in moving that this House do adjourn during pleasure, I think I ought to give your Lordships some idea of the time we might resume. We shall not be resuming before about 10.20 p.m., but the exact time of resumption will be put on the annunciators in both Houses. This is so that the various businesses in the two Houses can be co-ordinated.
I beg to move that this House do adjourn during pleasure.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure.
House resumed.

Royal Commission
A Commission for Royal Assent and Prorogation was read:
The following Bills received the Royal Assent:
Roads (Scotland) Act,
Building Act,
Foster Children (Scotland) Act,
Co-operative Development Agency and Industrial Development Act,
Rent (Scotland) Act,
Ordnance Factories and Military Services Act,
Police and Criminal Evidence Act,
Norwich City Council Act,
Warwick District Council Act,
London Transport Act,
Kingston upon Hull Act,
Greater London Council (General Powers) Act.

Prorogation: Her Majesty's Speech
Her Majesty's most gracious Speech was then delivered to both Houses of Parliament by the Lord Chancellor (in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command) as follows:
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"The Duke of Edinburgh and I were pleased to receive the State Visits of His Highness the Amir of Bahrain in April and the President of the French Republic and Madame Mitterrand last week.
"We look back with much pleasure to the visits we have made over the past year. As Head of the Commonwealth I was in New Delhi on the occasion of the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in November. We paid State Visits to Kenya, Bangladesh and India in November and Jordan in March. Our thoughts are with the people of India today following the tragedy of Mrs. Gandhi's assassination. We visited France in June, to attend the commemoration of the 40th anniversary of D-Day. We were in Canada in September and October for the bicentenary celebrations of New Brunswick and Ontario, and to visit Manitoba.
"My Government welcomed the independence of Saint Christopher and Nevis, Brunei's resumption of full responsibility for its own external relations, and the decision of both countries to join the Commonwealth.
"My Government have sustained Britain's contribution to Western defence, playing an active part in the Atlantic Alliance. They welcomed Lord Carrington's appointment as its Secretary-General. In the absence of an arms control agreement, my Government fulfilled their undertaking to begin the deployment of cruise missiles by the end of 1983.
"My Government, with the United Kingdom's allies, have worked vigorously for balanced and

603
verifiable arms control and disarmament and have sought to improve relations with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. They fully supported the United States' efforts to achieve nuclear arms reductions and their readiness to resume the negotiations suspended by the Soviet Union.
"My Government agreed with other Member States on a fair sharing of the European Community's budget burden and on control of Community spending. They have made proposals for new Community policies.
"My Government were hosts to the London Economic Summit in June and welcome its conclusions.
"My Government have continued fully to discharge their obligations to the people of the Falkland Islands, while seeking more normal relations between this country and Argentina. They have conducted talks with China on the future of Hong Kong and published the text of a draft agreement. They have been helping with the conversion of the Royal Navy Dockyard in Gibraltar to commercial operation.
"My Government have continued to support efforts to restore the independent and non-aligned status of Afghanistan and to settle the tragic conflict between Iran and Iraq. They have welcomed moves to reduce tension in Southern Africa, and continue to support peaceful change there and the early independence of Namibia. They supported United Nations efforts to settle the Cyprus question.
"Members of the House of Commons,
"I thank you for the provision which you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons,
"My Government have maintained the policies necessary to reduce inflation and sustain economic recovery. Inflation remains low and the output of the nation continues to increase. Steps have been taken to increase incentives and to improve the climate for enterprise, the creation of wealth, and adaptability and efficiency in industry and commerce. Measures have been taken to help the unemployed into jobs, to launch a comprehensive foundation training scheme for young people starting working life, and to improve vocational education and adult training.
"In order to promote economic efficiency and growth, my Government have continued their policies of exposing state-owned businesses to competition and returning them to the private sector where appropriate. Legislation has been passed to end British Telecom's exclusive privilege of running telecommunications systems, to establish arrangements for the licensing and regulation of telecommunications systems, and to prepare the way for the sale of British Telecom's shares. An Act has been passed to enable the introduction of private finance into the Royal Ordnance Factories. The disposal of oil assets of the British Gas Corporation has been successfully completed.
"Legislation has been passed to provide for
604
reforms in the tax system, especially for companies, in the interest of greater efficiency, to encourage the further development of United Kingdom oil and gas resources by abolishing royalties for certain new fields, and to provide a framework for the development of cable programme services and direct broadcasting by satellite. An Act has been passed to ensure continued funding for the Cooperative Development Agency and to introduce a new scheme of Regional Development grants.
"Legislation has been passed to give trade union members greater democratic control over their unions.
"An Act has been passed to protect ratepayers by limiting rate increases by high-spending local authorities, and to provide reserve powers for general limitation of rates. Legislation has been passed making interim arrangements for the Greater London Council and the metropolitan county councils pending a decision by Parliament on the abolition of those authorities.
"Acts have been passed to extend the right of public sector tenants to buy their homes, to reform the system of building control in England and Wales, and to assist purchases of public sector houses which have proved to be defective. Legislation has been passed to make more farming tenancies available in England and Wales, and to make other improvements in the law relating to agricultural tenancies.
"An Act has been passed transferring control of London Transport from the Greater London Council to the Government.
"Legislation has been passed to modernise and clarify the law of England and Wales governing the investigation of crime and evidence in criminal proceedings, to strengthen the ties between the police and the community there and to extend powers to prevent acts of terrorism and to increase safegards for people subject to such powers.
"An Act has been passed to introduce important new safegards for individuals about whom information is held on computers.
"Legislation has been passed to improve family law and its administration in England Wales, to clarify the liability of occupiers of premises to persons other than their visitors and to amend the law concerning limitation of actions.
"My Government has continued to work for higher standards in education, announcing proposals on the school curriculum, examinations and increasing the influence of parents over their children's schooling. Legislation has been passed to enable grants to be paid to local education authorities in England and Wales for improvements and innovations.
"Legislation has been passed to replace non-contributory invalidity pensions with a severe disablement allowance. My Government has also embarked on a series of fundamental reviews of the social security system, seeking to ensure that this large programme operates effectively and in ways suited to present day needs.
"My Government has taken further action to ensure that patients receive the best value for money spent on the National Health Service.
"My Government has encouraged Northern Ireland's elected representatives to seek arrangements, acceptable across the community, whereby responsibilities can be returned to local administration. A high priority had been given to the maintenance of law and order and support for the Northern Ireland economy.
"For Scotland, measures have been passed to extend the right of public sector tenants, and to improve the legislation governing rating and valuation, promotion of tourism overseas, roads and inshore fisheries.
"My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, I pray that the blessing of Almighty God may attend you."
After which the Lord Chancellor said:
My Lords and Members of the House of Commons, by virtue of Her Majesty's Commission which has been now read we do in Her Majesty's name, and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to the 6th day of November 1984, to be then here holden, and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to Tuesday, the 6th day of November 1984.
Parliament was prorogued at eleven o'clock.

  PRISON INDUSTRIES AND FARMS
  PRISON INDUSTRIES AND FARMS
  REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS ACT 1984
  REPATRIATION OF PRISONERS ACT 1984
  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL: BADGERS
  BOVINE TUBERCULOSIS CONTROL: BADGERS
  FARM ANIMALS: ACTION ON REPORT
  FARM ANIMALS: ACTION ON REPORT
  DHSS INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE: NEWCASTLE
  DHSS INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE: NEWCASTLE
  NATIONAL ADOPTION SOCIETY: APPROVAL APPLICATION
  NATIONAL ADOPTION SOCIETY: APPROVAL APPLICATION
  MENDIP HOSPITAL, WELLS
  MENDIP HOSPITAL, WELLS
  PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION: COST OF PROVISION
  PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION: COST OF PROVISION
  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
  PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES
  NON-DEPARTMENTAL PUBLIC BODIES
  RUBBISH DISPOSAL IN LONDON
  RUBBISH DISPOSAL IN LONDON
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: GENERAL CONSENTS
  LOCAL GOVERNMENT: GENERAL CONSENTS
  TRANSPORT AND YOUNG PEOPLE
  TRANSPORT AND YOUNG PEOPLE
  ETHIOPIA: AID
  ETHIOPIA: AID
  DISASTER AREAS: DISTRIBUTION
  DISASTER AREAS: DISTRIBUTION
  SWANS: ANGLING LEAD WEIGHTS
  SWANS: ANGLING LEAD WEIGHTS
  ROYAL ARTILLERY MEMORIAL
  ROYAL ARTILLERY MEMORIAL
  COAL MINING: SUBSIDY
  COAL MINING: SUBSIDY
  PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION: COST OF PROVISION
  PARLIAMENTARY INFORMATION: COST OF PROVISION
  OIL AND GAS INSTALLATIONS: "HOME BASE" DEFINITION
  OIL AND GAS INSTALLATIONS: "HOME BASE" DEFINITION
  LIBRARY DOCUMENTS: COST
  LIBRARY DOCUMENTS: COST
  WAR WIDOWS: VISITS TO HUSBANDS' GRAVES
  WAR WIDOWS: VISITS TO HUSBANDS' GRAVES