My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, as a result of the tax allowances provided in the Finance Act 1980 and other action taken by the Government, I am pleased to say that the availability of small industrial workshops is improving to meet continuing demand, and the number now being built is greater than for many years.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he can tell me how many people have been actually employed, men and women, and if some of the younger age groups, those coming from school, are getting jobs in that way?

My Lords, I am not certain that I follow the gist of my noble friend's supplementary question. I answered a Question about industrial workshops and not about the employment of anyone.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister how many workshops, if any, have been closed since the Government took office?

My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised to know that I do not have that figure in front of me, but the number now being built, as I said in my original Answer, is greater than for many years.

My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether these small industrial workshops can be rented?

Indeed, yes, my Lords; a number of them are being built for that purpose.

My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that this Question begins:

"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are satisfied"?

On a philosophical point, is it ever the duty of any Government ever to be satisfied about anything, and can he therefore say that he is satisfied about this?

My Lords, that is an interesting question but it goes rather wide of what is on the Order Paper.

My Lords, would my noble friend not be willing to help the House in this respect? We should all like to know what is the employment content generated by these workshops, and if the Government are satisfied about them, presumably they are also satisfied about the increased employment.

My Lords, if that was the gist of the supplementary question put by my friend Lady Vickers, then I apologise to her for not understanding the point she put to me. I cannot off-the-cuff, I am afraid, give the answer as to how many people are employed in these new workshops—not all of them are yet occupied—but I will see whether I can find a figure and provide it to both my noble friends.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether these workshops are being built in the areas of highest unemployment? Is he aware that the unemployment situation throughout Wales is grave, and is becoming more serious month by month? If these workshops are indeed a success story, can he say how many of them are being built in Wales at the present time?

My Lords, a number of these new small workshops and factory premises are indeed being built in development areas, particularly those which are being financed by the English Industrial Estates Corporation, whose activities are generally confined to those areas.

My Lords, since my noble friend has been good enough to say that he will write to my noble friend Lady Vickers on the employment content of these workshops, can he not perhaps help us all by making that figure known, either in a Statement or by means of a press statement, or by putting it in the Library, so that we can all know what the figure is?

Indeed, my Lords, I shall be very pleased to do that if I can find the information, as I am sure I can. If my noble friend would like to table a Question for Written Answer, for example, I would be happy to answer it.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are grateful to the noble Viscount for drawing attention to Access Week in this interesting way. While I appreciate the intention underlying the Question, I doubt whether the suggestion contained in it would prove practicable even if it were possible for all those mentioned to carry it into effect.

My Lords, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for his reply, may I ask him this supplementary question: Would he encourage Members of both Houses of Parliament to join with disabled people in a wheelchair tour of significant buildings in their own areas?

My Lords, I am sure that local groups of disabled people would be greatly encouraged by the interest and support of Members of both Houses, but this is a matter which the individuals concerned will wish to decide for themselves. I would also think it would be extremely helpful to the cause for local authority officers, and perhaps local councillors, to be involved in this particular exercise.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether Government will encourage the planning officers of buildings for which they are responsible to be very attentive to the access to new buildings being put up by local authorities, and planning that they should be made adequate to deal with the access to which the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, refers? It is the planning authorities of local government which I hope the Government will press on this important matter.

My Lords, I agree with my noble friend. The Property Services Agency is compiling comprehensive lists as part of a scheme monitoring the civil estate. These will take time to complete. As they are ready they are supplied to the Civil Service Commission to assist them in the assignment of disabled candidates in the competitions they run. We are not just talking about wheelchairs. There are wider problems with people who are still disabled although not in wheelchairs. They have different access problems.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my noble friend stressed to the Japanese Government our serious concern about the growing imbalance of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan and between the European Community and Japan. He made it clear that the Government fully support the course of action recently agreed by the Foreign Affairs Council. He emphasised that the United Kingdom, in common with the other member states, is looking to Japan to exercise greater restraint in exporting and to open up its domestic market to imports.

My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I tabled this Question in the hope that I might have an opportunity to thank the Foreign Secretary personally for the hard work which he undertakes for the country in general and for our House in particular; and, secondly, to draw attention to the fact that the imbalance of visible trade between this country and Japan is now about £800 million per annum in deficit? The agony that this is creating for our motor industry and electronics industry is alarming. Can my noble friend assure us that if an agreement has been arrived at, further talks will go on in Japan so that we can make sure that some of the assurances that the Japanese have given will be honoured, and that we shall then see them opening their borders to our exports as well as restricting imports to this country?

My Lords, I can assure my noble friend that the Government fully share his aspirations about the future progress of trade between the United Kingdom and Japan. As for his kind words about my noble friend, I will see that they are conveyed to the Foreign Secretary, although the reason why I am answering this Question today is because this is a matter for the Department of Trade.

My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether, alongside the restriction he has discussed, there was any substantial encouragement given to Japanese investment in the United Kingdom, as a means of rectifying this imbalance?

My Lords, certainly we do everything we can to encourage Japanese investment and other appropriate foreign investment in the United Kingdom. The noble Lord will be aware of the plans recently announced for the Nissan company to do just that.

My Lords, is this not putting the cart before the horse? Are not the people who ought to exercise restraint those who resist the modernisation of archaic processes?

My Lords, that is another matter but it has a grain of truth in it. All the same, in this connection I think it is encumbent on Japanese exporters to exercise appropriate marketing policies.

My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.

My Lords, my department's official trade statistics show that United Kingdom imports from Guinea were £10·8 million and exports were £26·6 million. Imports thus showed an increase of £10·3 million over 1979 and exports an increase of £21·5 million over 1979—though I understand that both the import and export figures may have been distorted in 1980 by items in transit. In any event, the increase in our trade is significant—which is a welcome achievement by British firms.

My Lords, may I thank the Minister for that reply and will he accept that those who have been pressing for greater trade with Guinea are pleased to know that this acceleration in trade on both sides has taken place? Can he tell us whether there is any question yet of ECGD cover applying to trade with Guinea, which would certainly increasingly accelerate the figures that he has given?

My Lords, as I have said, the increased figures which I reported for 1980 may have been considerably distorted by items in transit to which I referred. Too much importance should, therefore, not be attached to them. As to ECGD cover, I am afraid that that would depend upon a satisfactory resolution of the difficulties over the rescheduled debt agreement with which I think the noble Lord is familiar.

My Lords, as the Minister has attached the question of ECGD cover to the debt, could I ask him whether it is not a fact that the debt is below £1 million; and, in view of the fact that cuts in Government overseas aid have already cost 15,000 jobs in this country, would it not be a good gesture both from the point of view of the economy of this country and from that of further business with Guinea if that debt were cancelled and serious attempts made to arrange for ECGD cover for business with this potentially very rich country? Will he also tell us what is the comparison between the figures that he has given and the figures of trade between Guinea and our competitors, such as France, the United States, Italy and West Germany?

My Lords, I cannot tell the noble Lord what is the level of trade between Guinea and countries other than the United Kingdom. But as for the question of debt, which the noble Lord has rightly associated with the question of ECGD cover, it is worth saying that the total debt owed under the rescheduled debt agreement is £7 million, of which just over £1 million is in arrears under the rescheduled debt agreement. The ECGD has to operate under prudent commercial constraints and we think that it would not be prudent to restore ECGD cover while the Guinean payment record is so unsatisfactory.

moved Amendment No. 1:

Standing Order 39: Line 17 and 18: leave out "Somerset House".

moved Amendments Nos. 2 to 5:

moved Amendment No. 6:

Standing Order 193: Line 1: leave out from "which" to "shall" in line 3 and insert: "a representation under section 1(4) of the Procedure Act would be required".

My Lords, I beg to move that the Third Report from the Select Committee be agreed to.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a third time. It represents an important piece of social legislation, which follows the publication in July last year of the Scottish Law Commission Report on Occupancy Rights in the Matrimonial Home and Domestic Violence. The Bill confers on the spouse who is neither the owner nor tenant a right of occupancy in the matrimonial home as an incident of marriage. It gives to the courts the power to make that right effective, and it provides for various matrimonial interdicts to protect the occupancy right of the spouse without title. The Bill also provides limited occupancy rights for unmarried cohabiting couples.

At the heart of the Bill is a significant modification in the rights which may be exercised within marriage in favour of wives in the great majority of cases. This is a change which has been widely welcomed by your Lordships. The Bill does however strike a balance between making those rights effective and ensuring that the interests of the other spouse and third parties are protected.

It has been apparent during the Committee and Report stages that some anxieties remain. On the one hand, there is a fear that despite the worthy objectives of the Bill, it may not have the effect in practice which is intended and wives who are at risk of domestic violence will discover that their plight is not improved as effectively as it should be. On the other hand, there is the apprehension, which my noble friend Lord Selkirk has cogently expressed, that in a desire to protect the wife there is a risk of tilting the scales rather too far in her favour and causing unnecessary hardship to the husband and possible prejudice to the rights of "innocent" third parties. The Government are very conscious of their responsibilities in this respect and we have amended the Bill at our own hand to take account of your Lordships' reservations in an open minded and flexible manner.

I hope therefore that the present Bill, as amended, has resolved many of your Lordships' misgivings, but I accept that some may remain and I should like to explain the Government's general position on three such aspects. There has been some unease about Clause 16 which provides limited occupancy rights for cohabiting couples. The Bill follows the thinking of the Scottish Law Commission in not seeking to provide the same rights for cohabiting couples as the Bill confers on spouses. The rights available to them are substantially less than for spouses. However, the Government have taken a rather more liberal line than the commission in one respect: by permitting the rights to last, where the court thinks fit, beyond the six months which the commission proposed as an absolute maximum. We would expect six months to suffice in the great majority of cases but we are convinced that a measure of flexibility is essential.

The Bill as now amended gives the court guidance on the factors to which it should have regard in determining whether or not a couple are cohabiting. I think that the Government's general policy must be accepted as being both fair and compassionate.

Another area of difficulty is the position of third parties such as creditors. Clause 6 protects the wife's rights from a dealing by the husband where she has not given her consent. This will require some changes in the practices of solicitors and building societies in relation to house purchase and conveyancing. As long as the consent is obtained, wherever it is needed, there should be no problem. It is, of course, open to the court in certain circumstances to dispense with the consent—for example, where it is unreasonably held. The approach adopted in Clause 6 seems sensible; it is one which should cause no difficulty unless dishonesty is involved. The provisions in this part of the Bill are of a highly technical nature and will no doubt receive further scrutiny in another place, but I am satisfied that they are based on a sound principle.

A final point of difficulty for your Lordships, on which it is clear that there is much strong feeling, does not relate to the substance of the Bill but rather to its form. The Bill is intended to be completely neutral as between the sexes. Moreover, the man at work and woman at home pattern of family life is no longer universal. The Scottish Law Commission's draft Bill therefore uses the terms "titled" and "non-titled" in relation to the spouses' rights in the matrimonial home, and "applicant" or "non-applicant" in relation to the spouse who has raised action in the court under the remedies provided by the Bill. These terms have been criticised as clumsy, inelegant and unnecessary. They have not, however, been subject to any censure as confusing in respect of their meaning. I think this is significant. For that reason, the Government were content to retain them despite their novelty. In sometimes difficult and technical subsections, at least it was clear what was meant. However, the Government concede that, given the emphatic view of your Lordships on this point, we are bound to reconsider it and search for more appropriate and yet concise forms of expression. It appeared in Committee that "non-applicant" had caused the greatest offence. But "non-titled"—which to the draftsman is at least the more defensible term—was resoundingly rejected in last week's Division on Report. I accept that the Government must now consider alternative terms which will both keep the meaning clear and comprehensible and also meet the stylistic requirements of another place and ultimately of your Lordships. I myself hold comprehensibility as the primary objective. Frankly, this will be no easy task. It is not a responsibility which we believe can be fulfilled to everyone's satisfaction. Nevertheless, I accept that it is a matter to which we must apply ourselves. It may be that we shall have to come back and ask your Lordships to reconsider the matter in the light of the proceedings in another place.

I am grateful to several of your Lordships—in particular the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, and my noble friends Lord Selkirk and Lord Drumalbyn—for the stimulating analysis of the principles which provide the essential justification for the Bill and for your scrutiny of the often complex provisions to achieve what I think we all accept are thoroughly laudable ends. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be read a third time.

My Lords, I think we are all grateful to the Minister of State for his handling of this Bill. He lost the head on just one occasion, and he is going to pay for it now, because the Government, having proved themselves flexible during the consideration of the Bill in Committee and on Report just on one amendment which we forced upon them, have left the position of the Bill imperfect and, whether they like it or not, they will have to reconsider matters. If they do it in the spirit in which they approached the rest of the Bill, I am perfectly sure everyone will be pleased.

The noble Earl said that comprehensibility was what he thought most important. I agree that it has a priority, but, where we are dealing with violence in the home and seeking to give protection for the affected spouse or family, it is more than comprehensibility that we want. We want ease, simplicity and comprehensiveness in the exercise of the new right that has been given. I think it is easier now than when the Bill started because before the Government produced the Bill we had a very, very complicated draft Bill from the Law Commission. I think the present Bill is very much simpler and it may be that in the simplification we got into some of the difficulties which the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, rightly raised.

As I say, I am not too well satisfied with the matter of comprehensibility and I hope that the noble Earl will look again at giving more discretion to the court without drawing attention to the question of tied houses. If we reduce the right in respect of any spouse and family, then we are not doing justice to the main aims of the Bill. The Bill is a good Bill. It is one I certainly welcome, and I trust that elsewhere the Government will take the opportunity to approve it.

My Lords, I am very happy to wish this Bill every good fortune but I do not think one should underestimate the fact that it is a very bold Bill. It is far-reaching and changes the whole basis of conveyancing to some degree in Scotland, which is something that may or may not be fully understood by everyone for quite a long time. It gives rights which are not public, which has been contrary to the principles of conveyancing in Scotland for 350 years. I think that will need a great deal of attention from a publicity point of view.

I may say that I am concerned over the question of blackmail, which I can see being very easily used in some cases; and great care will have to be taken to see that that does not happen. Also I believe it will increase the cost of transfer of occupation to some extent both in tenanted and in owner-occupied houses. These are matters in which the skill and no doubt the ability of the Scottish Office will be put to a test to see whether they can find ways and means without hampering what in effect is the cost of houses. To give an illustration, supposing that it takes a month longer to transfer property, when one considers that about 150,000 are transferred every year it will mean effectively that about 10,000 fewer houses will be available for occupation in Scotland at any one time; so the delay in transferring houses could be quite serious.

I must say I am sorry that the noble Earl only half accepts the decision which this House reached last time. I am sure he does not want to produce a good constitutional crisis on this matter, and I hope he will consider all that was said on that occasion. Where there's a "will, there's a way". I do wish this Bill good fortune, though I realise that it will be difficult for the people of Scotland to understand for quite a long time; it will need great care, particularly in publicity, from the Scottish Office.

My Lords, may I also join in thanking my noble friend for the way in which he has dealt with this Bill. As he knows, I am by no means yet satisfied on Clause 16, which deals with cohabiting. I think there is liable to be a lot of trouble in this. It is always difficult to make a partial extension of a principle to circumstances which are in many ways totally different, and I think great care will have to be taken—I am sure it will be taken in another place to examine the kind of circumstances in which applications will be made in cases of cohabitation.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The most cursory examination of the Bill shows that, as its Short Title declares, its provisions are indeed miscellaneous in character, in that they cover a diverse range of matters affecting local authorities in Scotland. A second main feature of the Bill is that it builds on existing structures and existing legislation, although it does bring a fresh emphasis to certain existing provisions. Significantly, this is most noticeable in the provisions dealing with the financial relationships between central and local government. It is in times like the present, when it is imperative for both central and local government to have regard to the needs of the national economy, that the financial relationship between central Government (with its responsibility for national economic management) and local government (with its responsibility for the provisions of so many of our services) has to be watched with particular care.

It is generally accepted that any Government—whatever their political complexion—has a legitimate and indeed vital interest in the totality of local authority current expenditure which accounts for about half of the total expenditure within the responsibility of the Secretary of State. Because of the national economic situation in the last five years and more, this interest has frequently found expression in appeals by Government to local authorities that they should keep their spending under a tighter rein. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may recall that in introducing the Rate Support Grant (Scotland) (No. 2) Order 1975 in another place on 15th December 1975—the last such order for which he was responsible as Secretary of State—he described the settlement contained in the order as "tough", drew attention to the severe economic climate affecting every sector of our national life, and stressed the need for restraint "of unheard-of stringency" in the years ahead. The noble Lord may also recall—it is a matter of public record—that the general response of local authorities to his appeal was, to say the very least, disappointing, and, under pressure from the International Monetary Fund, his successor in office was forced to make substantial reductions in the level of rate support grant with the objective—and, in the event, the result—of reducing local authority spending to a level within the Government's financial targets.

The need for local authorities to restrain their spending is no less now than when the noble Lord was Secretary of State. Since the present Government came to office, Ministers have, in public statements in Parliament and elsewhere, as well as at meetings with local authorities, made plain the important role local authorities have to play in the national interest in bringing down public expenditure to a level we can afford. Guidance has been sent to each authority by circular, so none of them can be unaware of the Government's objectives in this respect.

I pay tribute to the efforts of those authorities—including some not of the same political persuasion as the Government—who have responded responsibly and with good sense and who are trying to keep expenditure under control for the good of the nation. But others have failed to do so and they are jeopardising the national strategy and hurting their own ratepayers—including commercial and industrial ratepayers, who are striving in current difficult economic circumstances to keep their business viable and provide employment. I must tell the House that the Government simply cannot accept irresponsibility of this kind. We are accountable to the nation to ensure that public expenditure as a whole is managed in the public interest with due regard to economic realities.

It is quite clear from the returns showing outturn expenditure for 1980–81 and planned expenditure for 1981–82, which authorities have sent in to the Secretary of State in the last few weeks, that expenditure some £80 million in excess of the Government's guidelines has occurred in 1980–81 and that authorities plan to increase this overspending in 1981–82. The Secretary of State is currently examining these returns to find out the extent of that planned excess in spending and which authorities are mainly responsible for it.

The Secretary of State, in considering the means of taking action, has carried out extensive consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. He was informed that the present rate support grant system—which seeks to compensate for variations in local needs and resources—works quite satisfactorily and is generally acceptable. Having weighed that advice, we accordingly came to the conclusion that we should not alter radically the present system, but should seek to extend our existing powers to make selective reductions in grant payments to individual authorities.

The Secretary of State already has power under the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1966 to reduce grant, subject to prior approval by the House of Commons, to any local authority incurring excessive and unreasonable expenditure. The power now has a decent maturity; it first saw the light of day some 50 years ago and has been re-enacted twice by Labour Governments. The noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, may recall that the latest re-enactment of the power—in the 1966 Act—was during his term of office as Secretary of State for Scotland.

Section 5 of the 1966 Act empowers the Secretary of State, subject to the approval of the House of Commons, to reduce grant to a local authority if he is satisfied that it has incurred excessive and unreasonable expenditure. Useful though this power is, it is somewhat lacking in effectiveness, mainly because any grant reduction can be made only after the relative expenditure has been incurred.

The proposals in Clause 14 of the Bill will render this power more effective by allowing the Secretary of State to reduce grant where an authority, in striking its rate, budgets for excessive and unreasonable levels of expenditure out of line with the expenditure assumptions made by the Government in fixing the total of rate support grant. Clause 14 also introduces certain additional criteria which will enable the Secretary of State to take into account all relevant considerations in determining whether planned expenditure is excessive and unreasonable.

It may also be helpful in this context if I mention Clause 16, which will enable the Secretary of State, when he is calculating the amount of resources element payable to an authority which fixes its rate on the basis of excessive and unreasonable planned expenditure, to substitute a lower rate poundage for the actual rate poundage. This power will enable the Secretary of State to prevent such an authority profiting from increased resources element at the expense of authorities generally, and offers an alternative or supplementary procedure to that provided by Clause 14.

A reduction in rate support grant would not, however, be completely effective if an authority were able to maintain an excessive and unreasonable expenditure level by borrowing. Clause 18 accordingly seeks to prohibit an authority, without the consent of the Secretary of State, from using loans fund moneys to offset any part of a reduction in rate support grant; while Clause 27 will require a local authority to obtain the consent of the Secretary of State for borrowing to meet certain non-capital expenses.

The Government have always emphasised that a major purpose of their proposals is to benefit the local ratepayer, and that is why the powers to reduce the rate support grant otherwise payable to an authority are complemented by another new power in Clause 15 of the Bill, which will give an authority facing a reduction in rate support grant an opportunity to reconsider its spending plans and to fix a new, lower rate. This is not possible under the present law, which does not allow alteration of a rate poundage once fixed. The authority will, in effect, have the choice either of suffering a reduction in rate support grant, or of returning a similar sum to its ratepayers, who will therefore be able to benefit immediately from an authority's decision to prune its budget. If the authority has any regard at all for its ratepayers, it should not find the choice difficult to make.

The remaining provisions in Part II follow on from those I have described. Clause 17 makes provision for the new powers to be effective in the local authority financial year 1981–82 and thereafter. Clause 19 provides that the Secretary of State may use estimates of expenditure for rate support grant purposes—including the purposes of Clauses 14 and 16—if an authority fails to provide required information timeously. Naturally, it would be preferable in all cases to operate on information provided by the authority, but it is wise to provide against the possibility that these important policies could be frustrated by the deliberate withholding of information.

I should also mention for the convenience of your Lordships a related provision in Schedule 3. Paragraph 11 proposes a further amendment to Section 5 of the 1966 Act, the general effect of which is to provide the Secretary of State with wide discretion to restore to the original recipient all, or part, of a reduction in grant made under the provision of Clause 14, if the authority's subsequent conduct merits restitution, or to distribute up to the amount of the net reduction to other authorities to the extent that restitution is not made.

These proposals are not an attack on local democracy. Local authorities will remain frce to determine their own level of spending and local priorities between one service and another, with fair and substantial support from the Government. But, assuming enactment of the Bill, in the current financial year and in the future that support will be subject to modification by the Secretary of State if this freedom is exercised irresponsibly and an authority plans to incur excessive and unreasonable expenditure.

I turn now to capital expenditure. Capital expenditure by local authorities in Scotland is subject to cash limits and it is an essential feature of this Government's policy that these should be observed. It is the Secretary of State's intention to continue to control capital expenditure through the financial planning system which has been developed in cooperation with local authorities in recent years. This control is based on Section 94 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 and Clause 26 would enable that control to be modified in two ways: first, by allowing the Secretary of State to withdraw or vary any consent to incur capital expenditure, where the consent in question is not yet fully taken up. This will enable some limitation to be made if monitoring of returns during the year indicates that capital expenditure is going faster than expected. It will also introduce an element of flexibility into capital expenditure controls which could be used, for example, to transfer savings from one authority to another.

Secondly, Clause 26 will allow the Secretary of State to extend by order the scope of Section 94 to include capital consents taken on lease by local authorities or financed out of current revenue. Whether these formal extensions are required will depend on the results of a voluntary approach which is being tried out this year, following consultations with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. If authorities are prepared to count leased assets against their block consent allocations, and to keep within reasonable levels the amount of capital expenditure financed from current revenue, then the Secretary of State may be satisfied that the cash limit can be observed without any formal change in the system. Naturally this is his preferred course, but it remains to be seen how local authorities will respond.

I now come to the remaining provisions of the Bill concerning local government finance. Part I proposes a series of amendments to the Scottish valuation and rating code. I know that the rating system does not have many friends, and indeed the Government are at present considering alternatives to domestic rates. It is because of the possibility of a change to the system—and to introduce a useful flexibility—that the Secretary of State is seeking the powers proposed in Clauses 1 and 2 which would enable him to defer future rating revaluations—including that presently due in 1983—or to require that only certain prescribed classes of lands and heritages be subject to revaluations in the usual way. It would be wasteful to revalue property if shortly afterwards rates no longer had to be paid on it, and Clause 2 would be very useful if it should so happen that only part of the rating system is changed at any time.

The remaining provisions in Part I make useful but relatively minor and technical improvements to the present code, and are included on the principle—with which I do not think anyone could quarrel—that a longer-term commitment to do something about the rating system is not an excuse for leaving it in a state of neglect in the meantime. Through these clauses we can trace the theme of simplifying administrative procedures and eliminating uneconomic work; as an example I might cite Clause 9, which by doing away with part-year increases in the rateable value of dwelling-houses, will reduce demands on ratepayers and also relieve local authorities of the need to go to considerable trouble and expense to levy and collect small sums of supplementary rates. This group of clauses springs mainly from representations by ratepayers or local authorities themselves, and have been agreed with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Part III of the Bill is concerned with the housing support grants which are payable to local authorities under the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978. At the outset I might mention that the need for the changes made by Part III has been accepted by the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities. The 1978 Act requires the Secretary of State to estimate the aggregate income and expenditure on the housing revenue accounts of all Scottish local authorities, and the amount of housing support grant which falls to be prescribed is the sum necessary to bridge the gap between income and expenditure so estimated.

This process has produced satisfactory results since the provisions were first applied for the year 1979/80, but there are now signs of changing patterns on housing revenue accounts, not least because of the effect of inflation in reducing the real cost of debt repayment. We now have the prospect of individual authorities running into surplus on housing revenue account. That is, in some places income will probably exceed expenditure with the result that the aggregate amount of housing support grants will be reduced by the amount of any local surpluses. There would then be less grant to distribute among the remaining authorities and a smaller sum than that necessary to meet their reasonable needs.

Clause 21 will avoid this undesirable effect by allowing the Secretary of State when estimating the aggregate amounts of income and expenditure to leave out of the reckoning the income and expenditure of any authority which is expected to be in surplus on its housing revenue account.

The clause will allow the exclusion of an authority in another, somewhat special situation. Housing support grants are distributed among authorities by such method as may be prescribed under Section 2 of the 1978 Act. The prescribed method may vary from year to year according to circumstances, but there is always detailed discussion with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Secretary of State gives great weight to the convention's advice. For technical reasons a distribution formula may afford no grant to an authority even though the aggregate grant calculation would ascribe to that authority an excess of expenditure over income. Such an excess would of course increase the aggregate amount of grant to a sum greater than necessary to meet the needs of authorities which do qualify for grant under the prescribed distribution formula, and so Clause 21 allows the exclusion from the block calculation of authorities not qualifying for grant under the formula.

Clause 22 makes a corresponding amendment to Section 2 of the 1978 Act to remove any doubt as to the competence of prescribing a method of distribution of grant which does not afford grant to every authority. I must now return briefly to Clause 21 to mention further changes of a highly technical nature which it makes to Section 1 of the 1978 Act and which will simply bring the legislation into line with the manner in which it has necessarily been interpreted in practice. Clause 21(2) therefore provides that these amendments to the 1978 Act shall be deemed always to have had effect.

Finally, I come to Part IV of the Bill. I have already dealt with Clauses 26 and 27, concerning capital expenditure and borrowing, and I now propose to discuss briefly the remaining clauses. Clause 24 and Schedule 1 make minor but useful improvements to the provisions under which the Commissioner for Local Administration operates in Scotland. The changes have been agreed with the commissioner himself. Clause 25 and Schedule 2 relax a number of detailed controls, many in the planning field, which central Government presently exercise over local authorities. These relaxations will help to further the Government's policy of disengaging as far as possible from the day-to-day administration of purely local affairs, and will also lead to minor administrative savings both locally and centrally.

The abolition of certain non-governmental bodies by Clauses 28 to 32 will also produce savings, but I should stress that we are not seeking to justify our decisions on financial grounds alone. In each case we have satisfied ourselves that advice from the bodies concerned is no longer necessary or can be obtained from other sources. Clause 33 will allow water authorities and water development boards a useful discretion in enforcing by-laws they have made to prevent waste, misuse or contamination of water by enabling them, with the Secretary of State's consent, to relax by-laws if they consider it would be more appropriate not to enforce them in a given case.

Clause 34 concerns one of the conditions which a local authority may lay down under Section 9 of the Housing (Scotland) Act 1974 before giving a house improvement grant. At present, an authority may require that the house to be improved must, when it is not occupied by the applicant for grant or his family, be let or kept available for letting, the purpose of such a condition being, of course, to discourage grant recipients from converting the grant into cash by selling the improved house at a price which reflects the grant received. There may often be a genuine reason for sale—for example, if the head of the household is obliged to move house to take up employment elsewhere. And since many local authorities are clearly reluctant to use their discretion not to require repayment in deserving cases it seems sensible to abolish the requirement as to letting altogether.

Clause 35 extends the right to buy their council houses to several thousand tenants of the Scottish Special Housing Association in Glasgow and Dundee. At present they are unable to buy their houses because, although the houses were built by the SSHA they stand on land leased from the district councils who have refused to sell the land to the association. The clause gives power to the Secretary of State to transfer ownership of land from any "right to buy landlord" to another "right to buy landlord" where such a transfer is necessary to enable tenants to exercise the right to buy. The power will be used only where a voluntary sale cannot be agreed, but it will prevent the local authorities in Glasgow and Dundee from continuing to obstruct the SSHA from selling the houses to their tenants.

The effect of Clause 36 is to require planning authorities, when considering any application for planning permission in connection with a public building, to draw the developer's attention to his general duty under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to ensure that adequate provision is made for disabled persons to have access to the building. The developer's attention will also have to be drawn to the British Standard Code of Practice on the matter. The clause will clarify planning authorities' existing powers to impose any good condition on the granting of planning permission in connection with a building open to the public. It seems particularly appropriate to ensure that developers are fully aware of their responsibilities towards the disabled in 1981, being the International Year of Disabled People.

Lastly, I might mention Clause 37 which suspends the operation of two provisions in the Education (Scotland) Act 1980 which were inadvertently brought into force as a result of a technical error.

As I made plain in my opening remarks, this Bill touches on a wide range of matters affecting local government in Scotland. These range from the important new provisions relating to rate support grant to comparatively minor but helpful relaxations of control. Many of the provisions will be useful to local authorities but I must acknowledge, in conclusion, that from the Government's point of view the most immediately useful powers will be those which will assist the Secretary of State in his task of bringing under control the local authority component of public expenditure in Scotland. These powers are necessary not just to protect the interest of the hard-pressed ratepayers of Scotland but to satisfy the national economy. The Government need make no apology to anyone for bringing these provisions forward. I beg to move.

My Lords, this Bill seems to us on these Benches to be to a large extent unnecessary although admittedly it covers such a wide range of measures and subjects that some of them are an asset; but it is unnecessary with regard to its main purposes, and also unacceptable. There are a number of reasons for thinking that the major part of this Bill is not necessary. To start with, the Secretary of State already has powers under the 1966 Act, a matter which the noble Earl the Minister mentioned, which can be invoked if an authority's expenditure is considered to be excessive, and I believe that those powers have never yet been used.

This Bill is based on the assumption that local authority expenditure is too high. The Government White Paper on public expenditure, however, stated that between 1974 and 1980 local authority spending in Scotland fell by 9 per cent. whereas over the same period expenditure by St. Andrew's House increased by 7·6 per cent. It is not local authorities that are putting up public expenditure. Indeed, the Government have admitted as much. The Secretary of State for Scotland has said:

"Authorities responsible for the greater part of expenditure are now showing a moderate and sensible approach to expenditure levels".

So the problem is, as in England, with one or two authorities, and indeed probably in this case with only one—with Lothian. If this is so, do we really need such wide-ranging and restrictive legislation: legislation which gives far too many powers to the Secretary of State and is basically a centralising Bill? This Bill would penalise all authorities for the acts of only a few.

If we have any faith at all in local government and in devolution we should at the moment be straining every effort to encourage more of it, not less. This Bill moves in the wrong direction. In aiming at those authorities who are disposed to ignore current economic realities in framing their expenditure plans, this Bill alters the relationship between the Secretary of State and local authorities in a way that is centralism of the worst kind.

Part II of the Bill is concerned with the levels of the rate support grant. It enables the Secretary of State to reduce the rate support grant if he is satisfied that the authority has incurred what he considers to be excessive and unreasonable levels of expenditure. Clause 16 enables him to use estimates of expenditure in planning the level of rate support grant if authorities fail to provide the required information. As the Secretary of State put it, and as I think the Minister put it just now, this is to prevent frustration by the deliberate withholding of information. Clause 14 enables the Secretary of State to substitute a lower rate poundage for actual rate poundage in determining the entitlement to RSG of excessively spending authorities.

Clause 23 enables the Secretary of State to withdraw or vary consent to capital expenditure. He can place a moratorium on local authority spending. Through these clauses the Bill thus gives substantial powers of intervention to the Secretary of State, and even if the present Secretary of State gives assurances about the way in which he will use these powers he cannot give any such assurances to govern his successors.

Part III of the Bill deals with the housing support grant. Clause 18 allows the Secretary of State to disregard the expenditure and income of certain authorities in determining the aggregate amount of housing support grant. Clause 19 amends Section 2 of the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Act 1978 to allow for prescription of methods of apportioning HSG. The calculation of housing support grant is being made on the basis that in 1981–82 local authorities in Scotland will put up their rents by 40 per cent. Looking at the figures per house the impact of this can be seen: in 1980–81 it was £255 per house and in 1981–82 it will be in the order of £156. It is still maintained that there is some freedom of manoeuvre by local authorities and that they do not have to increase their rents, but if they choose to raise their rates instead the Secretary of State has the power under Clauses 13 and 14 to claim that their expenditure is unreasonable and he can cut their rate support grant accordingly. It does not appear to be a very great liberty that they have.

I think that the central issue with regard to this Bill was outlined very well by my right honourable friend in another place, Mr. Grimond, when he stated that it was a question of the balance of responsibility and powers. Either the central Government should take some of the responsibility from local government as they are taking powers—at the moment they are taking powers without responsibility—or local authorities should be given more powers for the way they conduct their affairs. This Bill does not decide the issue; indeed, it fudges and complicates it. It merely gives the Secretary of State more power but not more responsibility. If he is to act responsibly he will need much more staff in order to make informed decisions; he will need to take over some of the responsibilities of local government as well as the powers. As it stands, the Bill provides no satisfactory criteria on which decisions are to be based. There is only a reference to general economic conditions and to such criteria as he considers appropriate.

This Government came into power making considerable noises about freedom and devolution of power and cutting central Government borrowing. In many areas—and particularly where it has touched local government—they have done exactly the opposite and have done it in a major way ever since they came into power. I think it was a very great pity that it happened in England, but the fact that the Secretary of State in England got himself into a problem where he could not find his way out without taking immense centralising powers I should have thought was not a reason why the same thing should happen in Scotland, where the difficulties and the problems are admittedly much less. It seems to be just another example—and a bad example—of the Government thinking that they have to do in Scotland much the same as they were doing in England. We think that that is not a good principle.

We will watch this Bill through its next stages with interest. On the face of it, it does not appear that there is very much that we can do to this Bill to make it acceptable. Nevertheless, we, and no doubt noble Lords in other parts of the House, will be studying ways in which we can improve it. If we do not manage to improve it, we will feel, I think, that this is an unacceptable Bill and that we will have to vote against it on Third Reading. But in the meantime I hope that your Lordships will be able to do something to make what is a bad and unnecessary Bill somewhat less bad and somewhat less unnecessary.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl for the clarity of his presentation of the Bill, but we share many, if not indeed all, of the reservations which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, upon its terms. As he said, the House will be considering the terms of the Bill with great care, with a view, if that be possible, to effecting the necessary improvement.

One thing is certain, my Lords; its provisions are certainly miscellaneous, and my recollection is that miscellaneous statutes were extremely unpopular with the Scottish legal profession, for reasons which no doubt will be clear to your Lordships. Indeed, my recollection is that in particular some learned professors of law used to reduce themselves to a state of near apoplexy when miscellaneous provisions statutes were presented to Parliament. It is true that the degree of their apoplexy varied according to whether the political complexion of the Government presenting the Bill was in accord or not with their own particular prejudices. But I need not detain your Lordships, and you would not wish me to do so, by dilating on the idiosyncracies of Scottish professors of law.

I find myself a little embarrassed at having to address your Lordships at this early stage of the Bill, for this reason, that it is the principle of one particular of the miscellany of clauses in this Bill to which I wish to invite your Lordships' attention. It is one which I was surprised that the noble Earl did not expand upon a little more, and it is Clause 36 of the Bill, which inserts a new subsection into Section 26 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1972. As your Lordships will remember, Section 26 of the 1972 Act makes provision for the determination by planning authorities in Scotland of applications for planning permission. It lays down the various matters to which planning authorities must have regard, must take into account, or must do, in dealing with and determining applications. The Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970, as amended by the subsequent Act of 1976, places upon a variety of persons a duty to take certain steps to provide for the needs of the disabled.

Thus, if I may expand a little on its provisions, any person undertaking the provision of any building to which the public are admitted must provide for the needs of the disabled so far as access, parking facilities and sanitary conveniences are concerned. A local authority providing public conveniences must do the same. Owners or occupiers of premises such as hotels, restaurants and places of public entertainment are required in the same way to provide sanitary conveniences, if required to do so under the public health Acts; persons providing buildings for schools, universities and colleges, so far as the means of access, parking and sanitary conveniences are concerned, must do likewise. These provisions were extended by the 1976 Act to offices, shops and railway premises to which the Shops, Offices and Railway Premises Act 1963 apply, and also to factories as defined by the Factories Act 1961.

The duty on all such persons is quite clear; they must provide in these various respects for the disabled. The only qualification is that the provision shall be so far as it is in the circumstances reasonably practicable. So the position is that Parliament has said that these various persons owe to the disabled these duties. Parliament failed to provide a sanction in the event of these persons neglecting their duty. Nor did Parliament provide who should be the judges of what was reasonably practicable. For myself, frankly I cannot understand why planning authorities have not ensured that the provisions of the 1970 and 1976 Acts are complied with. I should have thought that that would have been a matter of planning wisdom. But I am informed, and I gather from what was said in the other place—and I think it is implied by the fact that the Government have introduced into this Bill the provisions of Clause 36—that in fact since 1970 this duty to the disabled placed upon various persons has not been adequately discharged.

What concerns me is that the Government, having apparently acknowledged that this is the position, should have introduced a clause which seems less than adequate to the needs of the situation. Surely, if Parliament has said that this duty rests upon these people, it is not sufficient for the Government at this stage, if they admit that that is the situation, simply to ensure that the applicant in any planning application is aware of these duties laid upon him under the statute. Surely the Government's concern, if the duties are not being discharged, is to ensure that they are discharged, simply by making them mandatory. I should have thought that that would have been their approach to the matter. I cannot understand the reluctance, particularly in this year, and I hope that in the course of the Bill the provisions in relation to this particular matter will be radically strengthened.

My Lords, I should like to thank, as I am sure would other noble Lords, my noble friend Lord Mansfield for the very clear way in which he introduced this Bill. I propose to raise three points about three of the miscellaneous provisions. The first and most important is in Clause 36, which has just been alluded to by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. As chairman, for Scotland, of the International Year of Disabled People, I have been ventilating three guiding principles, which I call the three As—access, awareness and adaptation.

Here in Clause 36, we have an opportunity of looking at the first, access. I am glad to see that there is something in this Bill. But what we must ask is, is it enough? This Scottish Bill appears to give us the only opportunity during this International Year—1981—to make progress on the question of access for disabled people. The present wording of the clause does not go nearly as far on access as the recommendation in the report of the Silver Jubilee Committee. That report was published in January 1979 and it recommended that the access sections of the 1970 Act be made mandatory, subject to individual cases where it was unreasonable and impracticable. I understand that the Committee on Restrictions against Disabled People, which advises the Department of Health and Social Security, agrees with that recommendation. The British Standards Institution brought out a code of practice in 1979 and I am glad to see that it is mentioned in Clause 36.

So the way ahead is clear. This will happen anyway. It is only a matter of time. The country will insist upon access provisions for public buildings. As regards new public buildings there will be increasing pressure for this to take place. Also eventually there will be the adaptation of existing buildings. However, the demand for new buildings to have proper access arrangements is the result of growing public awareness and concern and that is what we are promoting during this International Year.

When new buildings are being considered in future it may well be cheaper and less trouble for the developers and builders to include proper access arrangements in the initial construction plans. Adaptation later is usually expensive and can be very awkward if access arrangements were not thought about at the design stage. Surely the Government would agree that in 1981—over 10 years after the access legislation in the 1970 Act—no new building intended for public use should pass through the design stage without consideration of access. Too often in the past that point has been forgotten until it is too late. There has been an improvement in the past 10 years—a great many more buildings which are open to the public are considered at the design stage than used to be the case before 1970. However, this matter is still being overlooked. Those concerned with the planning and the building of a new structure will have many other factors on their minds which they have to take into consideration. There ought, therefore, to be an automatic reminder, an obligation, that they must consider access for disabled people at an early enough stage.

The 1970 Act is not obligatory. What I suggest, therefore, is that new buildings to be open to the public should be subject to a procedure which ensures access for disabled people unless it can be shown to be unreasonable or impracticable. I reiterate that this is only to be applied to new buildings. I know that the local authorities in Scotland do now possess the power to refuse planning permission if dissatisfied with access arrangements. I believe that in this regard Scotland may be ahead of England and Wales. The trouble is that local authorities either use those powers or do not use them in a most haphazard way. I doubt whether further circulars from the Scottish Office would have much effect on this, but I would ask my noble friend whether perhaps at the end of this debate or later he could inform the House about the review of Scottish building standards regulations which is apparently, or has been, taking place, in the light of the British Standards Institution's code of practice on access. The Secretary of State for Scotland last month in another place stated that such a review was going on. So I would ask whether any result has been reported yet or whether any views have yet been formed. One way in which the situation could be improved would be through revising the building standards regulations by which new buildings would have to be regulated.

The Department of the Environment may have difficulties about this matter, and I keep seeing this in papers and correspondence and in reports from the other place. However, it need not affect Scotland. The Scottish Office is, among other things, the Department of the Environment in Scotland. Almost everything that is done by the Department of the Environment for England and Wales is done by the Scottish Office in Scotland. Certainly it deals with local authorities on all these matters and dispenses the Government grants to those local authorities, besides the fact that there is separate Scottish legislation. So there is no reason why we should not go ahead in Scotland. Indeed, we have done so in other fields in the past, leading the way for the rest of the United Kingdom.

In the matter of access for disabled people it appears that everyone concerned in the country accepts that we are all due to go in the direction of providing arrangements for access for disabled people in buildings for public use. The difficulties are simply those of readiness and timing. As regards developers and builders, if the matter is considered at an early enough stage it should not cause increased costs. Any cost would be derisory. Indeed, it could well save them spending money later on adaptation. The building industry is unfortunately under-employed at present in Scotland as well as elsewhere. The extra tasks of putting in ramps as well as, or instead of, steps is surely nothing that will overstrain that industry in present conditions.

Of course, the tidiest way of dealing with this matter would be, as the Silver Jubilee Committee recommended, to apply this to new buildings which are in the categories already in the legislation—that is, the 1970 Act. But should there be difficulties about doing that in this Bill—and I recognise that it covers shops, banks and pubs and that there may be difficulties or exceptions, although they may all be covered by the question of what is reasonable and what is practicable—I should like to ask the Government whether they could not make sure that publicly-owned buildings were covered; that is to say, that as regards every new building to be owned by a public agency (the Government, Government departments or local authorities) such as a library, museum or offices which the public are expected to enter, such provision should be made mandatory. I have spoken at a little length on this point but I think that it is worthwhile making it now, well before the Committee stage, because I hope that the Government will give considerable thought to it.

I attended last July the opening of a new housing estate by Her Majesty the Queen on the outskirts of Edinburgh, which was for disabled people living alongside able-bodied people. It was one of the schemes of integration. One of the matters that was made clear to all of us was that the disabled people, particularly those in wheelchairs, could go anywhere in the neighbourhood. In quite a short time they could go down from the first or second floor; out into the street and into the supermarket; all round the supermarket shopping, including coming out and paying, without any difficulty. Moreover, in even quicker time they could go down in their wheelchairs, along ramps the whole way, into the local pub and up to the bar. That was a happy demonstration of what can be done when people have really thought things out beforehand.

The other two matters I can deal with very briefly. Both concern Clause 25 and Schedule 2. The Government intend to relax, or bring to an end, certain Government controls over local authorities. In general, I welcome this. But I suggest to them that care is needed when they try to remove controls where the Secretary of State is in the position of a referee, with expert knowledge at his disposal.

The first point concerns community councils, in paragraphs 31 and 32 of Schedule 2. If this matter is to be left entirely to local authorities, in some areas the community councils—which may have been at odds with those local authorities—will certainly feel that their interests may not be properly looked after. Indeed, some of the new schemes that may come forward—if they are only to be decided upon without any kind of appeal by what in Scotland would presumably be the district councils—may never come to anything, because the district councils may decide that they do not want community councils in the area, for they may think that the community councils might simply give rise to a certain amount of trouble for them.

Therefore, I would ask the Government to look at that again, to see whether some reference or appeal should remain to the Secretary of State. I would also ask whether the community councils in Scotland have had any opportunity to express views on this; whether the Socttish Office was able to carry out consultations with them or their representatives before this provision was brought forward.

My last point concerns tree preservation orders. I declare an interest, as I have before in your Lordships' House, of owning a small forestry area in Northern Scotland. But I am also a conservationist and have myself successfully suggested to local authorities that certain tree preservation orders should be made, and they were made. So I have seen this from both sides.

However, in paragraph 23 of Schedule 2 again reference to the Secretary of State is being completely removed. There is anxiety among forestry interests that local authorities with little knowledge about trees or forestry—and there is no particular reason why they should have such knowledge—might make decisions which were inimical to forestry interests. The Secretary of State has access to expert knowledge and he would be able to be the best judge where there was a difference of opinion with forestry interests. I understand that the number of occasions when the appeal which is available has been used in the past is small, so this would not involve very much in the way of work. I hope that the Government will also reconsider that point.

My Lords, I rise to speak as one who has had six years' experience as an elected regional councillor since 1974. I should like to speak from the practical background that I have gathered during that time. When the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 devolved powers to the newly reorganised local authorities in May 1975 there were many people—both within and outwith local government—who had severe misgivings. The margin of unease was very wide, stretching from those who saw the Act as heading for disaster from the start, to those who were prepared to find fault with it purely for fault's sake. There were also those—and I count myself among them—who were prepared to give the entire Act the benefit of the doubt and to work unswervingly in its support.

From this your Lordships will gather that throughout Scotland there were a multitude of opinions, from the destructive to the constructive. But however that may have been, there was also one single, solid, common area of belief, and it was shared throughout our nation. It was that the purpose of the Act had been to devolve from central Government to local government greater powers, and thus to increase local democracy and local involvement. Of that purpose there was no doubt whatever in anybody's mind.

Sadly, as I reflect upon the actual course of events since May 1975, I have to come to the conclusion that far from central Government relaxing and devolving their powers to local government, they have consistently taken actions which tighten the controls and decrease the intended benefits of local democracy and local involvement. It is not short of the truth to say that now, as never before, central Government exercise powers which virtually destroy the original intentions of reorganisation. It is my contention—and I say this quite genuinely with a heavy heart—that parts of the Bill before your Lordships' House today may well prove to be the final nail in the coffin in which will be buried the body of local government as we know it to be presently constituted.

It is, of course, true that the Bill contains certain relaxations, but these are as nothing when they are compared with the additional powers to be granted over local government, which, in my view, in places are absolutely deadly. When a person or a body is under attack—and local government is presently under attack—I believe that it is only fair to analyse the principal areas of criticism, and this I should like to try to do.

In the simplest possible terms, the charges made against local government are those of overspending and lack of control. But is this, in fact, true and if, in certain cases, it appears to be true, are these charges brought about by the actions of local government alone? If I am to make my point, it is necessary for me to invite your Lordships to return to the first half of the 1970s. During that particular period of time it was the deliberate policy of central Government to encourage local government to expand its spending programmes, both capital and revenue. This deliberate policy resulted in an increase in capital expenditure in real terms of 6·9 per cent. in 1972–73; of 23·4 per cent. in 1973–74; and by a further 1·4 per cent. in 1974–75. That was the final year of the old form of local government.

As is well known to your Lordships, increases in capital expenditure imply an increased commitment to current expenditure in future years. That this fact was fully recognised by central Government is clearly indicated by the increase in the rate support grant for 1975–76, the first financial year following reorganisation when the rate support grant was increased, in order to cover that area, to 75 per cent.

The changeover from the old to the new system also took place at that time when local expenditure was increasing within the same deliberate pattern established over previous years, and it took place at a time of very high inflation. It is true that there was a sig- nificant increase in local expenditure during the period of reorganisation. But most of this can be accounted for by inflation, over which local government has no control, and the inherited commitments of the new authorities, again over which they had no control.

An indication of how seriously under pressure the new local government was at that time is recorded in the Scottish Office Financial Division Circular, already mentioned by the noble Earl the Minister of State, 75–1975 dated 22nd December 1975. It was a circular very well known to all of us involved in local government in those days. Within the circular—and I make no bones about repeating the quotation—we in local government were requested to exercise "a stringency hitherto unheard of". This we had in fact been doing, but we continued to do it so that in the financial year 1975–76 instead of there being an increase in capital expenditure as in previous years there was a decrease of 11·2 per cent. in real terms. It was also possible to contain the rates burden by use of balances. But the fact remains that since reorganisation up at least until 1979 70 per cent. of all expenditure increases can be accounted for by inflation.

May I now turn to the implications of grants. Between 1972 and 1975, 70 per cent. to 79 per cent. of expenditure increases were accounted for by additional grants. However, following reorganisation, and against the inherited expenditure increases that I have already described, in our first year, 1975–76, only 44 per cent. of additional expenditure was financed by additional grants—44 per cent. rather than the 70 per cent. to 79 per cent. of the four years prior to reorganisation—while at the same time rate support grant has fallen from 75 per cent. in 1975–76 to the present level of 66·7 per cent. By any standards local government has received from central Government swingeing cuts.

These figures that I have quoted I have not provided as excuses but rather as facts which, when subjected to the closest interrogation within the total context of the financial pattern, prove beyond doubt the responsible and at times in my view nigh miraculous control of local government expenditure. There are of course a few exceptions, as there are to any rule, and I put up no defence whatsoever of those irresponsible elements. But taken in the grand mass the self-control of local government makes St. Andrew's House and Whitehall a picture that is positively black.

It is more for that last fact than for any other that I take the strongest exception to the presumption within this Bill that the Secretary of State, be he who he may, knows what is best for every local authority electorate. The Bill in my view contains elements which are a travesty of the intent of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. If I did not know the Secretary of State personally to be a man of great humanity and great humility I would describe as absolute arrogance the suggestion that the Secretary of State should be taking unto himself powers contained within Part II and elsewhere in this Bill.

Whether he likes it or not, within the present constitution the individual local authority is elected by the local electorate to provide and maintain certain services governed by statute. Unless it can be proved that it is acting contrary to the law, then the present proper method of disciplining a local authority is through the courts or through the ballot box. To me it is quite extraordinary to assume that the top civil servants and their masters know as well or better than the local politicians what the individual needs and aspirations are of the beneficiaries of the services provided by local authorities. On top of that is the fact that within this Bill I can find no proper definition, or clearly laid down rules of procedures, and yet the Secretary of State will be given wide powers to decide when he considers a local authority is spending excessively and unreasonably.

To make matters worse, as I understand it the Secretary of State will look at expenditure on all services grouped together and then, if he considers them excessive he is going to have the right to say which of these services shall suffer a reduction of rate support grant. If these powers are to be given, the next logical step of intrusion would be a direct intervention as to the element local rates form of an area's economic policy—and once you have done that you have killed the purpose of the local authority as we know it.

I am genuinely sad to have had to say these things at a time when I believe that the Government need support upon our road to recovery. Perhaps it may sound to some as if I have over-reacted to this Bill, but I wonder in fact whether it is not the Bill itself that is the child of over-reaction. We all know in Scotland who are the sinners in this field, and we all support the Government's anger when it is directed at those who are clearly at fault. But there are 65 local authorities, and for an example only six of those have found it possible to fall within the Government's revenue guidelines for the year 1981–82.

Does this mean that the 59 local authorities in the view of the Government are all wrong as to the needs and reasonable expectations of those they represent? Does this mean in the view of the Government that all 59 of them are irresponsible? Does it mean that they are all politically opposed to the Government? It most certainly does not, for they come from straight across the political field. When the friends, of which there are very many in Scotland, of the Government become as vociferous as the foes is it not just possible that the guidelines themselves indicate a clear distance of central government from the realities of life within the local authorities? Perhaps change in the constitution is required. If so, may I beg the Government to come through the front door with honesty and not to try to achieve their ends by entering through the basement window.

My Lords, I rise to take part in this debate having spent a great number of years in local government in Scotland, in particular the Borders. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, took my place as the representative when, in 1975, after 29 years, I thought it was time somebody else took on the responsibility. I shall not follow what the noble Earl said because I think it is for my noble friend Lord Mansfield to answer those points, but I must tell him that his reaction was a little over-strong. I say that because, having spent many years in local government, I find no difficulty in supporting the Government in the Bill, which contains a number of important aspects, and I could not agree with him that the measure is devoted entirely to taking away responsibility from local government. I should have been perfectly prepared to continue as a regional councillor operating under a Bill of this kind, as we have worked under a great many other measures.

Be that as it may, we must accept that conditions today are far different from what they were when I was a county council member. We were not faced with the very high inflation which exists now or with income going down all the time. I hope that what we did in those years will go down in the history of local government as things that were worthwhile, and of course we were able to do those things because we had the money to pay for them. The ratepayers approved of the things we were doing and of course the costs were much lower than they are today. Therefore we were in a much happier position, and that is obvious.

Considering the conditions facing the Government now and the fact that there are several very extravagant local authorities which are not paying due attention to what the Government are asking of them, I believe that the Government are right to take additional powers which will at any rate prevent inflation getting worse; of course we all hope that the situation will get very much better.

I have received so many letters and so much information on the subject that I cannot refrain from quoting a few figures to show how disruption can occur in relation to local responsibility under present conditions. I have received many letters from one region in particular, the Lothian Region, where current expenditure is £63 million above the sum that authority is supposed to be spending, while all the other regions altogether are overspending by only £87 million. In other words, in one region alone there is far more overspending taking place than in any other. In that area, expenditure has risen from £198 million in 1978–79 to £383 million in 1981–82, and, although the Government have agreed to raise the support grant from £114 million to £169 million, the rates there are abnormally high, and that is hitting people very hard indeed.

In fact, in the last three years the rates have risen by 25 per cent., 42 per cent. and 50 per cent. respectively. There is therefore justification for the Government taking a very serious view of that state of affairs. That region is largely governed by Labour councillors who appear to take a much less responsible view of the current situation. Because of the anxiety that the situation there is causing, my informant tells me that groups of ratepayers are going round the region pointing out where extravagances are taking place and where savings could be made. I understand these groups have been given the collective title of Ratepayers Action Group Executive, whose initials are RAGE, which is a ferocious word to use in this connection. People are bound to be anxious when the nation is in such a bad way and economic conditions are so bad.

Nobody dislikes having to economise more than I do. For all the years I was a county councillor we were in the happy position of being able to save up to do the important things that were wanted in the area, so we had the money to do those things and we did not need to raise the rates by anything like today's increases. I am sure the Bill contains a number of items—my noble friend Lord Mansfield will no doubt draw attention to them—which will lead to economies being made and that there will be schemes of, for example, rate rebates. The Government will of course explain to councils how such rebate schemes can be implemented.

In one of the very small East Lothian boroughs, my home town of North Berwick, is a small residential holiday centre of which a large proportion of the population are retired elderly people. Hopefully they will be able to apply for rebates, but they will not want to do that from choice because they have been independent all their lives. Many of them depend on the holidaymakers who come there, and many of them are in the low income groups. Most people in that category are anxious to pay their own way; rates which are reasonable and which they can pay without help they are anxious to pay, rather than call on the Government to assist them.

In my view the Government are right to try to curb expenditure in areas where overspending is injurious to the population and is unfair to many of the ratepayers. In my region in the Borders, although economies are having to be made, they are managing to carry on local government in what appears to me as a ratepayer to be a highly satisfactory way. It shows that economies can be made if people have the courage and desire to make them.

The noble Lords, Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Wilson of Langside, spoke about access to places by the disabled. I think Clause 36 could be improved so that more help along those lines could be provided at little extra expense. As Lord Campbell said, if plans for new buildings include special arrangements for the disabled, those facilities can be included for much less than is the case once the building has been completed and alterations have to be made. It is surprising that even nowadays, when we have a much better outlook on integrating the disabled into the community, there are architects and planners who forget when planning buildings that a large number of people in wheelchairs will want to use them and for whom it is vital to have the kind of access about which noble Lords have spoken. I very much hope that the Government will look with sympathy on this particular clause and that we shall be able to have a provision which will ensure that the kind of mistakes which have occurred in the past will not be made in the future.

There are a number of other points in the Bill with which I hope we shall be able to deal in Committee. But, taking the situation as it is, with the difficulties that face local authorities and the Government, I think it only right that at this time there should be some powers to restrict the extravagant and to help the non-extravagant, and to see that there is fair play throughout the whole of the regions of Scotland.

My Lords, I, bearing the name that I do bear, always feel that I owe the House an explanation when I intervene in purely Scottish affairs. I hope to explain the reason in a moment. At this stage I want to raise only one point, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy for having in fact already raised it, but I should like to digress on it further for not more than two minutes. I refer to those paragraphs of Schedule 2 which relate to timber preservation orders.

My reason for speaking on this matter—and I have to declare both an interest and a reason—is that I am the honorary president of the timber growers of Scotland, and I am involved with other organisations concerned with land use north of the Border. There is grave concern among landowners, large and small, farmers, foresters and I dare say gardeners, too, about the removal of the right of appeal to the Secretary of State over a timber preservation order—or TPO—which is disputed. In this respect what I have to say is contrary to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who stated that under the Bill the Secretary of State will be doing too much. I am saying that lie will be doing too little, because paragraphs 22 and 23 of Schedule 2 in effect provide that the local planning officer will be given the power to impose and confirm any TOP he wishes, whether or not there are any objections to it, and the owner will then have no right of appeal to anybody. So the local planning authority is to be judge and jury in these kinds of cases. I understand, as I think my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy mentioned, that there are very few instances of appeal to the Secretary of State, so I cannot think that the onus on central Government would be very great.

I am among those members of your Lordships' House who will wish to raise this matter again at the Committee stage, and I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will, with his usual sympathy in regard to matters of forestry, give the proposal further consideration and see whether it could not be changed for the better and the right of appeal to the Secretary of State restored. I have two particular reasons for suggesting that. One reason is that legislation is soon to come our way following the Government's private forestry consultative paper on felling control and grant aid, and I believe that whatever is done about timber preservation orders ought to be considered in the light of that document.

The other point is that the sub-committee on forestry of the Select Committee on Science and Technology (on which I sat under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield) has made a recommendation in a report that tree management orders ought to be substituted for tree preservation orders. I am most disappointed that, because of the timing of events, the Government and Ministers have never had an opportunity to study and consider the report of the Committee of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. However, I hope that they may yet do so before we finish dealing with the various forestry measures which are to come forward in the weeks or months ahead; in fact one of them is due to come up tomorrow. That is all that I wish to say, and I very much hope that my noble friend on the Front Bench will on another occasion be able to be helpful to us regarding this matter.

My Lords, as an Englishman I, too, wish to apologise to the Scots present in your Lordships' House for taking part in the debate, but Clause 36 particularly concerns disabled people and that is my reason for speaking. I should like to support the noble Lords, Lord Wilson of Langside and Lord Campbell of Croy, and the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, who have already spoken on the clause. The 1970 Act placed an obligation on developers of new buildings to which the public have access to provide facilities for the disabled, but no means of enforcing that obligation were included. Unfortunately, there are still being erected buildings which have unnecessary steps. I think that all of us in this House would agree that in principle all new buildings should be accessible to the disabled, except where that is physically impossible, or would be unreasonably expensive.

In this connection the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mentioned shops and pubs. I believe that to disabled people shops and pubs may be even more important than publicly-owned buildings and it is important that they should be included in any provisions, with the same kind of let-out where it is physically impossible or unreasonably expensive to make them accessible for the disabled.

So my feeling is that Clause 36 ought to be much stronger than it is at present. We should like to see the onus placed on a new developer to show that it is impracticable or unreasonable to provide access for the disabled, because we feel that in principle all new buildings should be accessible in this way.

My Lords, I am perfectly sure that the attention paid to Clause 36 of the Bill will give very considerable pleasure to my Labour colleague in another place, Mr. John Home Robertson, because it was he who introduced the clause. It will give him even more pleasure when he discovers that, like him, Members from all over have recognised the importance of the clause and feel that it should go further. I look forward to the very considerable help that we are to receive during the Committee stage when we deal with the point about access for the disabled.

The point was taken up in relation to a fairly new police headquarters in Ayr—the local concrete "Kremlin". It is quite a new building. When it was suggested that the question of access for the disabled ought to be considered, the reply was that the police headquarters was not a public building. That appals me. It is quite disgraceful that in this day and age people should be so insensitive to the needs of the disabled.

When we come down to the main aspects of the Bill, I do not know that the Minister of State can be very pleased with the acceptability of it. I think there was only one person—and that was the noble Baroness, Lady Elliot—who really defended the Government and the powers they were taking. She did not go into the powers; and she told us she had been a member of a local authority, not now but some time ago. It must have been rather sad for her to listen to the noble Earl, Lord Minto, who took her place on that local authority, with his present knowledge of the feelings of people in local government, condemning the Bill and warning us that this could be the last nail in the coffin of local government as we know it, and the local government of which we have been so proud.

Since the end of the war I have been concerned with every single Local Government Bill. I was either on the Committee dealing with it, right from 1946, or for eight years as Secretary of State I was the person responsible for it. I say that from the point of view of the continued existence of local government this is the worst Local Government Bill that I have known in that time. That is an attitude which, I am glad to say, is shared by other people. I remember that we have Members in this House who have all the experience that I have had. There is a whole team behind the noble Earl. There are, I think, eight or nine. There are three ex-Secretaries of State; there are Ministers of State; there are Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State—a whole team of them. Not one of them has come forward today to support him in respect of this Bill. No wonder he is drafting in reinforcements!

We were all expecting we were going to get a rather shattering new outlook on local government in Scotland, reviewing how re-organisation has gone. This task was given to an ex-Under-Secretary of State. He has reported, and he is now being honoured. He is going to come in, and we shall be able to question him about his report, the Stodart Report. We will welcome Tony Stodart here, but I do not think we can suggest to him that he gave us everything that we looked for in respect of his suggestions about the reorganisation of local government—grey areas being decided on, and one or two other things like that.

When you come down to it, the balance between local government and central Government is a delicate one. We in Parliament are to blame for most of the burdens of local government. Every Bill we pass we should examine to see whether or not we are giving local government more to do, and if we are giving it more to do we should be asking the question: Are the Government prepared to support it financially? The last Bill we in this House passed in respect of local government was a Private Member's Bill. It had the support of the Minister of State and the Scottish Office. It was to deal with the mentally handicapped, when we said that we would extend the privilege of concessionary fares to them. I was reading the Strathclyde Report. They welcomed it and applied it. To the people who are blind, to the people who are crippled, to the people who are old and to the people who are deaf we added the mentally handicapped as among those who have the right to concessionary fares. How much did it cost Strathclyde? It was £500,000. Should we have denied them it?

But if we will that to be done then we have to got to will the finance to do it, and not come along and say that the local authorities are irresponsible, that they are out of control so far as expenditure is concerned. I think the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Minto, highlighted this particular point. There are 65 Scottish local authorities, and all but six cannot meet the guidelines put down by the Government. That is a serious matter; and that number includes the local authority of which the noble Baroness was a distinguished member at one time. She knows what our rate poundage is from the region. I think it is only a penny different from that from Strathclyde. That is less than the Highland Region, because she is 83p. and the Highland Region rate poundage is 93p.

When you look at it, what determines the responsibility otherwise of a local authority? There is nobody who is going to tell me that local authorities sit down and say, "By how much can we increase the rates?" They have tried their best to get the balance right because we have willed upon them standards in education, standards in social work and standards in planning. We have given them new burdens. Then along come the Government and say, "You will cut down". That is what they have done. Local authority spending is not out of control. If there is anything which is out of control, it is spending by the central Government. I think the figure given to the Corrie Select Committee was that between 1965–70 and 1975–80 expenditure by Scottish local authorities in real terms went down by 13 per cent. At the same time the expenditure by the Scottish Office went up by 13 per cent. It is Satan rebuking innocence in this case, not Satan rebuking sin.

But now we come along with this Bill. Hitherto, Scottish Secretaries of State have said, "We can handle the matter; we do not need draconian powers such as the English Ministers have taken". I think the Minister of State suggested that in my time I was tough with local authorities. Of course I was tough with local authorities, but I got the balance right. Reluctantly they agreed—and I was actually at the negotiations—on eight separate terms on rate support grant. But I was fair.

The important point in relation to local government expenditure is that you sit round and you decide what is the reckonable expenditure. If a Government come along and cut the reckonable expenditure to an unreasonable figure, then of course rates are going to go up. That is what the Government have done. They did that last year, and they are doing it again this year. Of course, you have got to go back to December of last year, when we had the rate support grant statement. The rate support grant was cut by 3 per cent. I have here all the various cuts that were made, and, let us face it, these are the things we are talking about—what the Government did in the cuts. There was sewerage, highways, education—right through. They laid down their assessment as to where the local authorities should cut.

But, then, after you have settled that, there comes another point. The Secretary of State decides by how much he will support that reckonable expenditure. The noble Earl, Lord Minto, said that in 1975–76, when I was Secretary of State, the figure was 75 per cent. I think it is only fair to tell him that there were unusual circumstances in relation to the changeover, and it went back a bit later on. But this Government have cut it, and cut it deliberately, at a time when more support is needed. We were told in December that it was going to be cut by another 1 per cent.—it was 1·9, but there were certain calculations in respect of the ·9 per cent. So there you are. You have unreasonable rate support grant, the reckonable expenditure figure, and you have the Government cutting down on the support they are going to give. Of course the rates are going to go up.

Then, of course, we are not finished there. There used to be a time when the Government took into calculation while the year was on amounts in respect of increased orders; that is to say, if there were unusual circumstances, if the teachers' salaries went up or the salaries of other people—and, remember, local government is very much a labour-intensive industry—or if prices went up, they would negotiate with the local authorities and strike a figure to balance that out. They do not do that now. Read the same White Paper of December! The Government said that they would not support in this current year and give additional grants in respect of increases of wages and salaries over 6 per cent. That is from August last year to August next year. Has any single person within local government got 6 per cent. or less—the police, firemen, teachers, anyone else? This is the burden that local authority has to bear, a burden placed on them deliberately by the Scottish Office. Then they start this hare running that local expenditure is out of control. It is not local expenditure that is out of control; it is the heads of the Scottish Office and the Government—heads which are in the sands! So that they start this myth about local government being out of control; and now they come along and say that they will need to take more powers in this Bill to control it. They say that it is all very reasonable, that they are just tagging it on to existing powers which are there in Section 5 of the 1966 Act. I have a copy of what is said in Section 5 of the 1966 Act, for the purpose of greater accuracy. If there was ever deceit, there is deceit even in the rubric of this Clause 14 of the Bill, which reads:

"Reduction of rate support grant where local authority's estimated expenditure excessive and unreasonable".

Clause 14 reads:

"In section 5 of the 1966 Act (which among other things provides that an element of rate support grant payable to a local authority may be reduced where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the expenditure of that authority has been excessive and unreasonable)—".

What Section 5 said was that first there would be a reduction in expenditure if the local authority was not meeting the reasonable standards. That remains, I suppose. I warn the Scottish Office that they had better get going, because if they reduce the support to local authorities it may be that certain of the standards that Parliament has asked them to maintain they will not be able to meet and they will need to bring into force subsection (1) of Clause 5 of the 1966 Act.

Then Section 5 of the 1966 Act went on to say, the other case:

"that the expenditure of any local authority or joint board has been excessive and unreasonable, regard being had to the financial and other relevant circumstances of the area or areas concerned".

The circumstances only of the area! If one goes back—and this goes back 50 years—this was related not to excessive rates; this was related to manipulation of the formula by local authorities who, by manipulating the formula, would get a higher grant from the Government. It goes back beyond the rate support grant, beyond the Exchequer equalisation; it goes back to General Grant himself. It was for different purposes and it never has been used—not once in its 50 years. And this is where the Government say that they are just naturally adding to that. Are they? They should have come out with new Bill and people would have known the nature of the powers that they were going to take; because you could act under this after the money had been spent and you could cut the grants for the following year, and it was in relation to people who were saving up money and not providing the services that they were budgeting for perhaps so that in the next election they would be able to reduce the rates. These things can happen! Many people are able to manipulate formulae and the Government still have the power to manipulate formulae in the rate support grant.

I can remember in the times when there were boroughs and counties that a local authority in one of the boroughs decided to raise their rents. That meant raising their assessment; and that meant that they paid a great proportion of the education charge. In Ayr, the rents went up; because of that the rates went down in Kilmarnock. There was the ability to manipulate formulae; and this was related to that and not to the kind of problem the Government have at the present time.

What will happen here? Remember that we have all had our rate demands! I do not know about the Minister of State, but I got mine last week. The assessments have all been made. The Government now say that at the time of assessing the estimated expenditure the Secretary of State is going to ask them to let him know and he will examine it to see if he thinks it is excessive and unreasonable—not in the light of circumstances in the area—and there is a long list of other factors to which he must have regard in determining whether the esitmated expenditure is unreasonable. He must have regard:

"to expenditure or estimated expenses, in that or any preceding year, of other local authorities".

You cannot always compare one local authority in Scotland with another: the Highlands with Strathclyde, or Strathclyde with the Borders. Every noble Lord who has been in local government knows that this is just words—whitewashing a power which should never have been taken. This is lovely! We shall have a good time with this in Committee. I hope the Government are prepared to give us two or three weeks in Committee. I may be alone on this side but I am all for getting it right by amendments; and I shall get plenty of help from my English colleagues. What does,

"are closely comparable (or as closely comparable as is practicable)",

mean? It is about as meaningful as the non-titled spouses and the titled spoures that we had a go at the other day. It does not end there. He must then give consideration to the,

"general economic conditions; and

(iii) to such other financial, economic, demographic, geographical and like criteria".

What are "like criteria" to that? It is on the basis of all this. And he must hear the local authority and tell them that they are excessive and unreasonable. How long will this take?

And, suddenly, in the midst of all this the rates can be changed. But the rate reduction is not necessarily given back to the local authority. It might only be part. There are so many wonderful questions in this! And, bearing in mind the figure given by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that of the 65 there are 59 defaulting local authorities. Can we not be told which they are and what action the Government will take and when? Is it Strathclyde?—Strathclyde which has half the population of Scotland, including me. My rates have just gone up and I shall come to that point. If I forget, let somebody before I sit down whisper the valuable word "valuations", and I shall have a word or two to say about that. Strathclyde: what have they done? In the past seven months they have cut about £40 million off their budget; they have reduced their manpower by, I think, about 2,000 people. Everytime they make somebody unemployed it means additional expenditure on the Government side, so it is not all clear sailing. Yet they still cannot meet the guidelines. If they met the guidelines their rates would still have to go up by 31 per cent. instead of 37 per cent. This is the impossible task that the Government have given to local authorities.

Who is going to decide what is excessive and unreasonable? There is evidently some new Solomon that I never knew when I was there lurking around the carpeted corridors of New St. Andrew's House. Here we have the Secretary of State getting into trouble with local authorities. He cannot be so good as all these four Secretaries of State that now inhabit your Lordships' House. We never had this trouble. They thought we were tough, but we never had this trouble. What has gone wrong with the Scottish Office team? He comes along with a solution with all the subtlety and tenderness of Lord Braxfield. He has to deal with the whole of the Scottish local authorities as Braxfield did with the radicals of his day when he said:

"They'll be nane the waur o'a hangin'".

This is the attitude of the Secretary of State to Scottish local government. Well, it will not do. We had high hopes for the reconstructed local government of the 1973 Act. I see the noble Lord who was the Secretary of State at that time is in his place. The man who carried the Bill through most of the Committee stage was the present Secretary of State. I can remember the ringing phrases about strong, viable local government: "Local government will be free, not dependent, not interfered with by the central authority".

And what have we now? The greatest punitive and interfering powers that we have ever had initiated by Mr. George Younger who took that Bill through. It does not end at the rate support grant aid. We go on the same with the housing support grants. The powers in relation to housing support grants are such that the noble Earl, Lord Minto, suggested that everything showed further interference there. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, referred to this as well.

It is not a question of whether a local authority is in surplus; it is a question of whether it is made to go into surplus by virtue of the formula because the basic and central element of the formula is the assumed income of the local authority; and what is further assumed is not what the rent is but what the rent should be. We have already been given the figures that the rents for this year have to go up by 40 per cent. and the local authorities are tied to a recompense of 6 per cent. in respect of increased wages and 11 per cent. in respect of increased costs.

In the city of Glasgow half the people in local authority houses are getting rent rebates and rate rebates, and unemployment among householders is probably higher there than in any other part of the country, but they have to have their rents increased by 40 per cent. This is done by this tender Government, thoughtful all the time of the human spirit and human people. Is it not nonsense? Of course the local authority cannot possibly put up this 40 per cent.

If this is continued for another two years of the life of this Government there will be no support for council housing in Scotland at all. Nevertheless, there is support for private housing through income tax rebate and that will still continue. It is going to be a strange situation. Remember, if they do not put the rents up they are going to be attacked for the first time in respect of the capital spent on housing. It used to be that the capital provision on housing was related to needs, but now it is going to be whether or not they behave themselves.

This is political and financial blackmail of the worst kind. It would not be so bad if this Government had a mandate; but they have no mandate from the people of Scotland. There are 22 Tory Members of Parliament from Scotland. There are 44 Labour Members. At least the local authorities who are objecting to what is being done here, the local authorities who are fixing rents and determining expenditure, have an electoral mandate from their electors. I shall be speaking for a long time; I am the only speaker from this side of the House and I am going to take my allotted span. I hear the noble Lord opposite refer to three score years and 10. But I had that last week. The Government, as usual, are late.

The actual fact is that the local authorities have their mandate and the Government have none. I do not know why on earth the Government should descend to taking action like this—and it may well be just one local authority, or of course, for all I know, it may be the whole 59 local authorities. I do not know how the Government can justify this. It is causing concern. I hope that they will think again about it. I noticed today reading (I think it was the Scotsman) that the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in England and Wales are protesting about this Bill. They are protesting because the powers are so sweeping, so punitive, that they fear that they will be introduced for England next; that Scottish local authorities are being reduced to—I think their phrase was—"outstations of central Government".

They are being reduced to puppets of central Government. I do not know whether the Government appreciate that. In respect of local authorities, they are reducing them virtually to puppets. One of the hopes of the re-organisation of local authorities was that it would attract a different people of quality because they had power as well as responsibility. Now they have responsibility but the power—and it was suggested again I think by the noble Earl—has more and more been taken into the hands of the Government.

I want to say a word or two about valuation. I do not like what the Government are doing in respect of valuation. They are taking for the first time the power to change the year of valuation in Scotland. We have had a sad record in England and Wales about valuations. They seldom take place at the quinquennium and we are used to them being a bit erratic in respect of this. Only on one occasion have we departed from the five years in Scotland. Why is it being done? I know that no one loves valuation and the rating system of Scotland which is based upon valuation. It is an outdated feature that a person should be rated and pay local taxes on the house that he lives in. There could be four or five wage-earners in a small house but because it is a small house they pay very little rates. In a large house there could be one single person on a fixed income hit by inflation but he pays high rates. There are variations within Scotland as to the assessment in relation to rates.

I am very glad that one of the authorities, one of the Quangos, that the Government have decided to retain is the Scottish Valuation Advisory Committee, although I see for some reason or other they are reducing its size from eight to six members. But what has that advisory committee been doing in relation to the uniformity of rating? I do not expect the Minister of State to know because he is fairly new to his office and he was not there at a time when certain problems arose. I know areas in Ayr—I live in one—in Prestwick and Troon where at the last revaluation assessments gross annual values were "bumped" by a multiple of four and five.

It is about time that assessors should be able to give reasons for their changes in valuation and objective judgment and give them before appeal point. At the initial appeal they ask that the appellant should give reasons why they think they are too highly rated, but for the actual figures which have been set, and against which the people are appealing, the assessor gives no judgment. I can assure him I would be very annoyed if the 1983 valuation does not take place on time, because I have been amassing more and more evidence in relation to the lack of uniformity in judgments in relation to assessments throughout Scotland. In case he thinks that I am barking up the wrong tree there, I would refer him to a small Bill that was passed in which a change was made allowing anyone in Scotland who is aggrieved by valuation to be able to cite not just a house in the same area or the same town but anywhere else in Scotland. I suggested about 18 months ago to the Secretary of State when this arose that he should ask the Scottish Advisory Committee on valuation to look into it. It has never been done, but I think it is an important point.

We will come to valuation later on, but here again we find the Secretary of State taking powers to change the valuation date and to restrict the valuation to seven kinds of property. He tells us the reason is, "We do not like the whole system and we might change it all". We have had this before. Local rates were going to be abolished by the party opposite. Then they said they would take education out of the local authority's responsibility financially and would pay the whole thing. Nothing like that has happened and nothing is certainly in the Stodart Report to give an indication that this is their way of thinking at the present time. Like a true Scot on the Labour side, I am very suspicious of Tories: there must be some ulterior motive! It may not be the Minister's motive. Of course, 1983 is just before the next election. I should warn your Lordships also that the valuation officer in Scotland is also the electoral registration officer. It may well be they will be able to afford the cost of a revaluaton at the same time as they are getting ready for an election; but I cannot be at all certain why Clause 1 is there.

I do not like Part I. Part II I absolutely detest. Part III in relation to housing support grant means that the housing policy of this Government is now to raise the rents, sell the houses, raise the rates and get rid of government support for housing. It is a pretty bleak outlook for Scotland, a Scotland that never put them into power at all. The only good thing is probably Clause 36. That is about all I can say, and we will make every effort to ensure that in respect of planning we will be aware of the importance of access, and access at the start is much less expensive than adaptability, but we will do what we can to strengthen that.

I should like to say just one other thing. On 17th March 1981 the Scotsman addressed itself to this Bill. It said that these legislative proposals

"…would allow him to penalise an authority the estimated expenditure of which was considered excessive and unreasonable'.".

He is going to consider that and he is going to judge whether it is "excessive and unreasonable". They say also:

"Mr. Younger exercises his power because of the voting predilections of people in the south-east of England not because of the support of the Scottish electorate; those whom he is attacking, on the other hand, at least are exercising authority granted them by electoral right".

They go on to say:

"Without question the new amendments"—

that is this legislation—

"present a threat to the authority of local government. If the sole judge of what councils can spend is to be the Secretary of State then local independence will be a mirage with no place for councillors' discretion or judgment. To argue thus is not to condone authorities which challenge the Government at every turn, which meet dogma with dogma and so lose sight of the interests of their ratepayers. That is a political issue … What Mr. Younger is proposing is a constitutional change of fundamental importance but of doubtful value".

I hope the Government will think again about this and have a little more respect for the whole traditions of Scottish local authority and a little more faith in Scottish local authority. If we get the balance wrong, and the balance is being tilted in favour of central Government, then local government—that was damaged in many people's eyes by the re-organisation following 1973—is being further damaged by this particular Bill. So let the Government think again.

My Lords, I should like to express my thanks to all noble Lords who have taken part in this Second Reading debate, coming as they have from several shades of the political spectrum and among some of whom at any rate there is very considerable experience of both local government and of central Government. Not least I include here the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, who, in his own allotted span, as he described it, was careful to extract the last ounce of party political juice from this particular lemon. But I do not blame him for that.

I said I think fairly clearly in my introductory remarks that several of the provisions of this Bill are of considerable significance for local government in Scotland and of course I agree impliedly, I think, with the noble Earl, Lord Minto, that they certainly can affect the delicate financial relationship which exists between central Government and local authorities. This importance has been reflected by several speakers in this debate.

The main point put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, and certainly by the noble Lord, Lord Ross, and I fancy also by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, was that these provisions in effect come too close to providing an exercise in control over local expenditure in Scotland. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, prayed in aid the views of the Association of Metropolitan Authorities in England and Wales who are reported in the Scotsman as saying that the Bill could reduce authorities to administrative outposts of central Government. I suggest that is overstating the position to a very great degree in the same way as, if I may say so, I think the noble Earl, Lord Minto, overstated the position. I am not sure that he quite appreciates the limitations which there are in this Bill and the safeguards, checks and balances which are written into it and which I have no doubt we shall discuss at very considerable length in Committee—also, of course, for quite reasonable political motives, on the part of the noble Lord, Lord Ross.

I suggest that this Bill does no more than propose an extension of the powers of the Secretary of State to influence local government expenditure and I do declare that influence of this nature has been recognised by successive Secretaries of State of both the major parties to be necessary. Indeed, all of them have used it at one time or another in various different degrees. At the moment, an extension of these powers is justified by two factors—

My Lords, can the noble Earl say when I used these powers?

My Lords, as I said when I opened, the noble Lord proposed his rate support order and he was, at the time, concerned at the levels of expenditure. He did not reign long enough to influence what he wanted, but that was not to say that he was not concerned—

My Lords, with all due respect, the noble Earl made the implication that I has used these powers. I was Secretary of State for nearly eight years. When did I use these powers?

My Lords, every year—four times a year, I think—as Secretary of State, the noble Lord sat down with COSLA and argued the toss as to what their spending was going to be. If the noble Lord is saying that in all those meetings he did not try to influence the local authorities, then I am quite sure that he, or I, must be mistaken. I do not believe for one moment that the noble Lord, occupying the position that he did in St. Andrew's House, did not bring all his powers of persuasion to bear on the local authorities.

If I may get on, as I have tried to say there is a combination of two factors which justifies this present increase in power. These factors are very simple, if one analyses them. First, there is an increasing need for restraint in public expenditure which arises from our current economic situation. The second factor is that there is a reluctance on the part of one, or more than one, authority in Scotland to exercise the kind of restraint that our circumstances require. In those circumstances, what is the Secretary of State to do? What are the Government to do? We have to look at our powers again and, in the circumstances as we find them, we have to seek to supplement them.

I assure noble Lords that there is nothing in the Bill which would prevent a local authority from carrying out specific items of expenditure which it wished to carry out, and which it was lawfully entitled to carry out. But the Secretary of State, with his responsibility for the administration of the rate support grant, is entitled to secure that the grant is not used to support excessive and unreasonable levels of expenditure—and I emphasise that phrase. Even in such instances, if the Secretary of State is ultimately successful in withholding grant from a local authority he cannot veto any specific item of expenditure. So the freedom of local authorities, as I believe, is still very much there. Where their freedom is restricted is in budgeting for totally unjustified expenditure in our present circumstances.

The Association of Metropolitan Authorities claim that the Scottish proposals go much further than those for England and Wales. I think the difference is that the block grant provisions in England and Wales reduce the grant payable on local authority expenditure above a certain level, whereas the Scottish proposals depend on an act of judgment on the Secretary of State's part in deciding whether expenditure is excessive and unreasonable.

Of course, it is a fact that the Secretary of State has the duty to determine what is excessive and unreasonable expenditure, but, as the Bill provides, his initial judgment must have regard to financial and other relevant circumstances. If the Secretary of State failed to take any such relevant circumstances into account, the local authority concerned would have substantive grounds for its representations against the report. It is a major safeguard that all this has to be taken into account by the House of Commons, before approval is given to a report which could result in the withdrawal of rate support grant. So that, as I argue, the Scottish arrangements are at least as fair to the individual authority as the system which is to be operated in England and Wales. This, I think, has been quite overlooked by the Association, at least so far as they are reported in the Scotsman.

It is because we wish the powers which have been in existence since 1975 to be effective that we are fortifying the existing borrowing controls so as to make it clear that a local authority cannot cover loss of rate support grant by recourse to borrowing money. A local authority will still have that power in the short term, in anticipation of income receivable, but not to make good income lost from a reduction in rate support grant. It is in order to protect the ratepayer that we are introducing a power to allow a local authority to levy a lower rate; not a supplementary rate as is available in England and Wales. Our objective is, therefore, that local authorities should effect an actual reduction in their expenditure.

Obviously the Secretary of State regrets the need to introduce these powers to cut rate support grant and my right honourable friend wishes that there was no need to make use of them. But it is unfortuante, though nevertheless apparent, that overspending in Scotland in 1980–81 and local authority budgets for 1981–82 are running at an unacceptable level. It is significant, I suggest, that the manpower reductions achieved by local authorities in England and Wales have not been paralleled in Scotland. Our systems and circumstances are, moreover, significantly different and I think that the use of different powers to suit our different circumstances in Scotland is fully justified.

Perhaps I may come to some of the more important points which were put to me by noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy had three points. First, he and, indeed, other noble Lords—the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, and the noble Viscount, Lord Ingleby, among others—commented on Clause 36. I think I am right in saying that, basically speaking, the clause was welcomed but anxieties were raised.

As I mentioned in my opening remarks, we are anxious to do all we can for disabled people, particularly because this is the International Year of Disabled People. Clause 36 requires planning authorities, when considering any application for planning permission in connection with a public building, to draw the developer's attention to his general duty under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970 to ensure that adequate provision is made for disabled persons to have access to the building. The developer's attention will also have to be drawn to the British Standard Code of Practice on access for the disabled. The clause will clarify planning authorities' existing powers to impose any condition justified in planning terms on the granting of planning permission in connection with a building which is open to the public, and an undertaking was given in another place to issue a circular on this point. These measures should ensure that developers are fully aware of their responsibilities towards the disabled.

However, we feel it is wrong that the question of access for the disabled should be singled out as a material factor, when a planning authority is determining a planning application, since material considerations are not defined in the Planning Acts and what is material will vary with the individual circumstances of each application. It is a matter for the application of general principles derived from judicial decisions that make it possible to decide what, in any individual case, is material. Planning authorities can impose—and, in the past, have imposed—conditions relating to access for the disabled and the proposed circular will set that out. Nor would it be appropriate to use the Planning Acts to enforce a statutory duty under the Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Act 1970. It is a fundamental principle of the Planning Acts that they should not be used to regulate matters which are dealt with under other statutes.

My noble friend asked for an automatic reminder to be given to developers, who are seeking planning permission, of their duties in relation to access for the disabled. We think that, in effect, Clause 36 provides for this. For the reasons I have explained, it would not be possible for a planning condition to ensure that that duty was complied with. But I would certainly expect that adequate access for the disabled should be the norm in any new development to which the 1970 Act applies. The circular which is to be issued will provide absolutely unequivocally for the planning system to play its full part in drawing developers' attention to their duties. I hope that this will satisfy my noble friend, to whose work as Scottish chairman of the International Year of Disabled People, I should like to pay my own, and very sincere, tribute.

My noble friend asked next about community councils. I think his point was that the Secretary of State should retain his powers to deal with amendments to community council schemes where these are opposed. My noble friend emphasised the need for the Secretary of State to retain a role in relation to community council schemes so as to enable him, in particular, to act as a kind of arbiter in cases where amendments proposed by a local authority are opposed by local interests.

We accept entirely that the Secretary of State had a valid part to play in the initial formulation of community council schemes, not least to ensure that there was a broadly similar approach throughout the country. Now, however, that the basic schemes have been agreed in each area, we take the view that any amendments which are considered to be necessary in the light of local circumstances should be the subject of debate and decision locally.

To ensure that due weight is given to local interests we are proposing a statutory provision for full public consultation. The Bill envisages that any decision by a local authority to review or amend a scheme must have the approval of not less than two-thirds of the members present and voting at a meeting specially convened for the purpose. There are, we believe, important safeguards—and these are they—against hasty or ill-considered changes which do not reflect local views. My noble friend asked in effect what consultations had taken place in relation to these proposals. I can tell him that both COSLA and the Scottish Council for Social Services were informed about these proposals and did not demur.

My noble friend's third point, which was also echoed by my noble friend Lord Dulverton, related to tree preservation orders. Only the relatively few tree preservation orders against which representations or objections are made and not withdrawn require at present to be confirmed by the Secretary of State. A local authority which makes an order currently confirms it as unopposed if no objection or representation is raised. We are not aware of any consequent difficulty for private timber interests. The right of appeal to the Secretary of State against refusal of consent to fell will of course remain.

At present there is no discernible dissatisfaction with local authorities generally carrying out their responsibilities for tree preservation orders and there is no reason to anticipate change in this respect. Therefore, so far as consent to fell is concerned, appeal to the Secretary of State will continue to be the right of those whose applications are refused by a local authority. The planning authorities, in considering whether or not to make a tree preservation order, will have to take into consideration the representations made to them by interested parties when the order is advertised. However, we shall look carefully at the points made by my noble friends concerning the relationship between the system of tree preservation orders and the recent developments in forestry policy which we debated not so long ago in your Lordships' House and which we shall be returning to tomorrow.

I have—and equally without offence, I hope—tried to answer the point made by the noble Earl, Lord Minto, in general but I think that I should answer him in a little more particular form. He spoke on the basis that local authority expenditure has, at any rate in the main, been reasonable. I think that was the burden of his remarks. It is right to say that, from 1975–76 to 1979–80, Scottish local authority expenditure decreased further than public expenditure generally but that from 1971–72 to 1975–76 the opposite was true: local authority expenditure in Scotland relevant for rate support grant increased by 31 per cent. and the gross domestic product rose by 6 per cent. There is no reason why Scottish local authorities should not contribute realistically to the cuts in expenditure which are currently being sought by the Government.

I have already answered my noble friend's point that the Bill in no way detracts from a local authority's discretion to decide its own priorities so far as the services which it provides are concerned, but the exercise of the Secretary of State's existing powers, as extended by the Bill, will require an authority, in considering a high level of spending, to consider also the responsibility it hears to the national economy as well as to the people in its own area.

Another burden of my noble friend's argument—and certainly the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, argued this—was that local authorities are being made to bear an undue and unfair share of expenditure cuts. It has been suggested that local authorities are being asked to make unpleasant decisions instead of the Government. One has to remember that local authority expenditure is a large and important component of public expenditure and that it must be reduced, but the proportion of the reduction which it bears depends upon the content of local authority programmes.

For instance, education accounts for nearly one-half of local authority expenditure and the decline in school rolls entails a related reduction in expenditure on education. Expenditure by central Government includes substantial demand-related expenditures which are increasing, so a direct comparison overall is not appropriate. However, to take services with common characteristics, such as road transport, the 1981 White Paper shows that expenditure by central Government declined by nearly 33 per cent. from 1975–76 to 1980–81, while expenditure by local government declined by 24 per cent. in the same period.

The noble Lord—I hope I am answering his very well argued speech persuasively, because it was one which obviously had a great effect upon your Lordships—spoke about the guidelines as being possibly unrealistic and that as a result the authorities, or the great mass of them, are to be penalised. I want to emphasise that the guidelines are not mandatory. They are indicative. Whatever the relevance of individual guidelines, the total of guidelines is equal to the total of relevant expenditure as determined for rate support grant. In current economic circumstances, the Secretary of State is bound to be concerned about an overall excess, whatever reasons there may be for local variations.

I would remind the noble Lord of the criteria for grant cuts. Reference to the well established system of expenditure guidelines in Scotland will provide a reasonable basis for a preliminary assessment of expenditure plans. But it is not intended to refer only to any single factor. Evidence will be accumulated having regard to comparison between the authorities' and the Government's spending plans, population structure and changes, local industrial development, spending by closely comparable authorities and other evidence of that nature which would support the conclusion that excessive and unreasonable expenditure is planned. So my right honourable friend in the exercise of his new powers will not be, as it were, motivated by any arbitrary or, indeed, whimsical notions and ideas.

I turn now to the noble Lord, Lord Ross. He complained of many things, most of which, I think, have been answered one way or another in what I have already said in what has been rather a long period of time; but there are two matters which I think I should raise. The noble Lord complains of unreasonable increases in council house rents. In 1980–81 rents bore just under half the cost of the provision and maintenance of council houses. In the present year, rents will bear about 56 per cent. of costs. That is the first point. The second point is that the rebate scheme will, for eligible households, limit the rent increases to an average of about 75p per week. The third point is that, of the tenants who do not receive support, about one half enjoy incomes in excess of £8,000 a year, and I suggest, therefore, that they at least cannot expect to be subsidised by the ratepayers, many of whom must be worse off than them.

Another point which was quite unconnected was dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Ross of Marnock, in the effects of the 1978 rating revaluation, and, of course, he used his considerable knowledge and experience of Ayrshire. The Scottish Valuation Advisory Council is examining the 1978 revaluation and that includes the associated appeal arrangements. So far as Ayrshire is concerned, the advice which was given by the Secretary of State of the day was that ratepayers can, and if necessary should, appeal, and I understand that a good many have done so.

My Lords, no doubt we shall consider some of these—and indeed other—matters in depth in Committee. As I have said, I am grateful to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate and I have no doubt that our debates in the future on this Bill will be as full and fruitful.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. This Bill is the sequel to an unsuccessful attempt by the Portsmouth City Council to promote a private Bill in the House of Commons in the last Session, to prevent the transit through their harbour of food animals intended for slaughter or for further fattening. That Bill was ruled out of order by Mr. Speaker, on the ground that it was unsuitable for the Private Bill procedure and that it should be a Public Bill. So that Bill did not proceed in another place and the Portsmouth City Council, diligent in its endeavours and persistent in its purpose, sought some other way of regulating or prohibiting a trade which is repugnant to a large section of the citizens of the town. On advice, the City of Portsmouth has now drafted this Bill, which I submit overcomes the impediment which, under Mr. Speaker's ruling, made it unsuitable for the Private Bill procedure.

The Bill before the House today is therefore, a Public Bill, although introduced by me as a private member. I need scarcely say that I have no interest whatsoever to declare, except that I am wholeheartedly behind this Bill and recommend it to the enlightened opinion and selfless interests of noble Lords this afternoon. The object of this Bill is to enable all harbour authorities—not Portsmouth alone—to make by-laws for regulating or prohibiting the transport of farm animals intended for slaughter and for certain connected purposes.

I think it may be for the convenience of the House if I go straight on to the Bill itself and come to other matters arising later on. Clause 1 contains the whole aim of the Bill. This is the conscience clause for a whole community. It says:

"Where the transport of farm animals through a harbour, or on ship from or to a harbour, for slaughter or for fattening prior to slaughter gives rise to public concern as being offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy, the harbour authority…may make bye-laws for regulating or prohibiting"—

that traffic.

That, my Lords, in one long sentence, is it. All harbour authorities within the meaning of the Harbour Act of 1954 would be granted by-law-making powers and the procedure for making by-laws would be that laid down in the Local Government Act 1972, which applies generally to by-laws made by local authorities and is now commonly applied, where appropriate in legislation, to by-laws made by other harbour authorities.

It is provided in subsection (4) of Clause 1 that the confirming authority for by-laws made under this clause would be the Minister. No conscience clause without confirmation. The Minister is the keeper of the Ark of the Covenant of the deeply held community conviction. Those words will ring in the ears of noble Lords on both sides of the House in another connection.

The Bill, therefore, provides the Minister, if he sees fit, to require a harbour authority to make and submit by-laws for the purposes of this Bill. This would apply to such harbour authorities as the British Transport Docks Board or the Port of London Authority, who would have difficulty in the ordinary way in ascertaining local opinion and deciding what is or is not offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy. Therefore, the provisions of subsection (5) of Clause 1, giving the Minister power to require bylaws to be made, would of course rest entirely upon his own judgment and his own opinion of local feeling.

This power is based upon Section 7(3) of the Petroleum (Consolidation) Act 1928 regulating the handling of petrol in harbours. The purposes for which the by-laws may be made are set out in Clause 1(2) and they would give power to regulate as well as to prohibit this particular traffic. Paragraph (a) of subsection (2) is normal for a harbour authority at the present time, but paragraph (b)

"…for regulating the care and handling of farm animals in transit through the harbour and their loading or unloading in the harbour"

is probably new, because harbour authorities generally appear not to have such duties laid upon them at present and that is why people complain so much about the rough handling that these animals frequently get at the ports—and I am told by observers how rough it can be.

Particular importance attaches to paragraph (c), which is the principal provision to enable harbour authorities to prohibit the loading and unloading of animals for slaughter. So much for Clause 1. Clause 2 deals with the inspection and detention for the enforcement of such by-laws and the powers provided in subsection (2) to search premises, vehicles or vessels is specifically limited to this purpose but the power to require information goes wider, as it must in order to be effective.

So subsections (3) and (4) deal with power to give directions to ships under Section 52 of the Harbours Clauses Act 1847. Clause 3 provides for offences under the Bill and Clause 4 deals with interpretation. That is a fairly rough sketch of the Bill, which I hope is adequate and intelligible at this time.

Now I think I ought to pass to the legality of the Bill under EEC rules. I do this because in interviews that took place between the Portsmouth City Council and officials of the Ministry of Agriculture, and indeed the Minister of State, the noble Earl himself, they all made quite a big point of the possible impediment of the Treaty of Rome and regulations made under it to this Bill. So I must look for a few moments as to whether the provisions of the Bill fall foul of our obligations under the Treaty of Rome and any other EEC legislation which may override our own.

The Treaty itself in Article 34.1 provides that:

"Quantitative restrictions on exports, and all measures having equivalent effect, shall be prohibited between Member States".

But Article 36 provides:

"The provisions of Articles 30 to 34 shall not preclude prohibitions or restrictions on imports, exports or goods in transit justified on grounds of public morality, or public security, the protection of health and life of humans, animals or plants".

And there are other grounds which are provided in the same article not relevant to this Bill; for example, articles of historic or archeaological value. So this is, so to speak, the conscience clause of the treaty; the let-out by Article 36 on grounds specified in it. But then Article 36 goes on to say:

"Such prohibitions or restrictions shall not, however, constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade between Member States".

The Report of the Agriculture Departments on this subject, published in 1978, devoted quite a lot of space to the implications of these articles. Their view was stated in paragraph 130 of their report. May I quote it.

"There have been several cases in the European Court where it has been held that Article 36 must be strictly construed in relation to prohibitions of trade, and that Member States are not entitled unilaterally to determine that a particular prohibition or restriction falls within the terms of the Article. There might well be difficulty, therefore, in persuading the European Court that a total ban on exports was justified for the protection of health or life of animals simply on the showing of instances of detriment to the health or welfare of animals in the course of trade".

But, my Lords, those are not the grounds upon which my case rests: nor indeed is it what the Bill proposes to do. The report of the Agriculture Departments concluded, in paragraph 132, that the judgment of the European Court on a particular case (which was not in fact related in any way to the matter in hand but on the disciplines of harmonisation of the laws of Member States) would be to make it more difficult to justify a ban on exports after Directive 77/489 which provides its own safeguard measures on health and welfare and which became binding on this country in August 1978. But this Bill raises the matter to a higher plane of ethical judgment than Directive 77.

I think I would take too much of the time of your Lordships at this moment if I were to pursue this question of legality within EEC laws much further. All I will add now is that much is uncertain about the construction of the laws of the EEC; they are not a model of clarity. The European Court is the arbiter, and no decided case appears to rule out the options in this Bill.

On the principal clause of the Bill I will argue that member states must judge for themselves, at least in the first instance, as to when public concern has arisen on a matter which is

"offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy".

If this Parliament confers upon harbour authorities the right to test and respond to public feelings on a matter of this importance, then that may become public policy, and what is "offensive to public morality" is surely for us to judge. Certainly this Bill is not "a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised restriction on trade", referred to in Article 36 of the Treaty.

Do your Lordships believe for a single moment that if the horrible trade in the export of worn-out horses for slaughter in Belgium still continues we should be deterred for a single moment by the Treaty of Rome from stopping it? As far as it can be made effective we already have a total ban on the export of horses for slaughter. The most recent Act of Parliament to stop traffic in horses was the Ponies Act 1969. Before that boatloads of young foals were shipped abroad, ostensibly for riding, but most of them were for meat, and that trade was stopped. Horses for slaughter must be killed here. EEC countries would very much like to import live horses and especially foals for meat. They have a delicacy known as "foal-veal", but they cannot get foals from us by lawful means, though they get calves by the tens of thousands. You see, we have discrimination between young equines and young bovines, and one might ask why.

For good measure we also have a ban on export of live food animals to the Middle East for slaughter, because it would be offensive to public morality to send our animals long distances to a method of ritual slaughter which is unlawful here except for meat for consumption by Mohammedans. Whether the latest development of an export trade in animals slaughtered here under the immunities of Section 36 of the Slaughterhouses Act 1974 is to be tolerated is another matter. I already have Questions on the Order Paper on this subject.

Moreover, let me recall that in 1973 the House of Commons itself imposed a total ban on exports of live food animals which lasted until another vote was taken on the subject in January 1975. So when we feel strongly enough about things we ban them. I am submitting here that while not advocating a total national ban I am advocating that there should be a measure of local option.

Let me turn then to the case of the local community for the Bill. The Bill provides for more democracy locally, and that in itself is a good thing. It promotes the principle that citizens have the right to greater control over their environment. More local autonomy, more decentralisation—how frequently we hear this said, and how much of it is lip service! There are numerous limitations placed upon the right of citizens to control their environment. I need not labour that. Where, however, some project or proposal is mooted which causes concern among those claiming to be adversely affected there is usually some form of appeal, and we are all familiar with appeals under the planning Acts and the powers of the Secretary of State.

If, for example, there was a proposal to erect a slaughterhouse in the middle of a town, or, say, a cattle market, the citizens locally would be able to resist a development which would seriously harm their environment. All the offensive side effects of transporting or of driving livestock to and from the place would be brought into their protest. But when a harbour is used, and increasingly used, for the transit and shipment of thousands of live animals a year, the citizens through whose streets and thoroughfares this traffic passes have no remedy whatever. No planning permission is required. Indeed, for years land has been used for lairages without any planning permission, despite the bitter complaints of local residents. In Folkestone and Dover the prerequisite of planning permission has now been established after a long controversy, and one lairage has been closed and permission granted for an alternative further away from a residential area.

Shipments from a port which were a trickle years ago are now a flood and no one appears to have the power to do anything about it except Parliament and the Transport and General Workers' Union, whose veto on one port I shall come to later. I have already mentioned that Parliamentary authority was granted to stop the shipment of live horses for slaughter and it is at present public policy not to export live food animals to the Middle East for slaughter. Both those bans were imposed on the grounds set out in Clause 1 of this Bill, which are the words of Article 36 of the Treaty, under which member states may still act unilaterally if they so wish.

There was, of course, a significant occasion when the House of Commons voted against the Government of the day to stop the granting of further licences for export until complaints about this traffic were further investigated. The Government had already banned the export of sheep off their own bat and the House of Commons refused further licences for beef and calves. The House of Commons made the ban total and a committee was appointed under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien, in July 1973, and reported in March 1974. On 16th January 1975 the House of Commons debated the subject in the light of the O'Brien Report and on a free vote of the House the resumption of the export trade was approved. That was an act of faith in the good intentions of our European partners to impose measures to eradicate the cruelties which had aroused such indignation on this side of the Channel. There is still a lot of realiable evidence available to justify much concern about the treatment of our animals both before and certainly after they leave our shores. It is that concern which troubles citizens who see it in their midst. They see more of it than those who happen not to live in the eight ports principally used for this traffic.

The second matter to consider in this connection is whether those who object have reasonable grounds for a demand to stop it or at least to have control over it. Here we come to what may satisfy the conditions of Clause 1, which are based upon public opinion and what the public will not stand for. This brings us close to the real cause of public distress, which is the welfare of the animals.

I turn first to the size of the problem, including the limits of possible rejection, of this traffic in living animals through our ports. How big is it? How many localities are involved? There are eight ports: Dover, Felixstowe, Folkestone, Great Yarmouth, Plymouth, Poole, Portsmouth and Southampton. Your Lordships may wonder what happened to the Port of Hull, from which 50,000 sheep and lambs a year used to cross the North Sea. The Transport and General Workers' Union gave notice in March 1978 that as from 1st May in that year they would not ship any more, and they did not and they have not shipped any since. So there are occasions when local option can be obtained through a union that some people would deny to be given by Parliament. The total export trade through these ports in the year to last December was approximately 185,000 calves and 226,000 sheep and lambs. That is sea-borne trade. There is now a growing export by air and that amounted to 90,000 calves in the same year from eight airports, but they are outside the scope of this Bill.

The volume of trade through the seaports ranged between 247,000 animals through Dover—by far the busiest of all—and 10,500 through Great Yarmouth. Portsmouth exported 34,300 calves, but no sheep or lambs. Southampton exported over 30,000 calves and less than 40 cattle, but 1,100 sheep and lambs. Dover exported 48,300 calves and 198,000 sheep and lambs. So Portsmouth holds fourth place in the total of sea-borne exports, behind Dover, Plymouth and Southampton. There is one further piece of information which is relevant to this: no calves are exported for immediate slaughter, all go for further fattening—at least so far as we know. But a substantial proportion of the total of 226,000 sheep and lambs did go for immediate slaughter. This trade has grown up during the past 25 years. It had a small beginning—to begin with it was simply for food for Service families stationed in Europe. It changed from a mere trickle to a flood and none of the citizens closest to it have been consulted, and none can interfere. The cattlemen and the shippers are in command.

If I am asked what it is that local citizens object to I have plenty of evidence available from petitions and letters from people in Portsmouth. Indeed, the city council received a petition of over 7,000 signatures to campaign for this Bill. Noble Lords may have had letters from individual citizens concerned which tell them as much about their feelings as I could tell them. What upsets local people is the ceaseless traffic of livestock carriers through the approaches to the town and to the docks. In rough weather conditions they grieve for the live cargoes at sea for up to seven, nine or 10 hours. They also have deep concern for the fate that awaits these animals on the other side.

On that matter the RSPCA has said to me—as I believe they have to many noble Lords—that:

"the safeguards for the welfare of the animals involved are as inadequate now as they were in the 1950s".

That is their judgment. The special investigation inspectors of the RSPCA have followed numerous shipments to Europe and every year, they say, they report breaches of the existing regulations. The RSPCA has been tireless in gathering at enormous cost, first-hand evidence of what actually happens and they have probably given in a letter to noble Lords an account of shipments last year trailed by their inspectors, some of which were in transit for over 24 hours, during which time the animals were not fed, rested or watered, despite stops en route to rest and water the drivers, and to refuel the vehicles. Last September the RSPCA trailed a consignment of sheep bound for West Germany which was kept waiting all night at the German border because no veterinary inspection facilities were available. When the RSPCA inspectors finally lost touch with the lorries they had been in transit over 35 hours.

My Lords, how many prosecutions were there as regards the allegations which the noble Lord is making? How many prosecutions have there been in view of the fact that that action is clearly contrary to the existing law?

My Lords, they are breaches of European law.

My Lords, how many prosecutions were there?

My Lords, there is the problem of enforcement all the time not only in Europe, but in this country too. Despite these codes and regulations and an EEC directive which is still supposed to be binding on all members of the Community, a free trade across frontiers between one country and another exists today; no limit upon the distance that animals may be transported is laid down; there is grave concern at slaugthering methods in the EEC; and the rules about the feeding and watering of animals in transit laid down in the EEC directive are frequently ignored.

The conclusion of the RSPCA, shared by others who have accompanied numerous consignments, is that breaches of the EEC rules are going on all the time. The RSPCA declares that:

"Further safeguards and regulations are not the answer. Those that exist at present are blatantly ignored and, in the absence of any proper enforcement agency on the other side, there is no reason to believe that the position will change".

It adds:

"In terms of animal welfare there is an overwhelming case for a total ban, but it would make economic sense also".

That brings me to the complex puzzle of the economics of this trade. It is very difficult to get a satisfactory overall assessment of what our input and output of live animals, and our meat imports and exports, really amount to. The Report of the Agricultural Departments of 1978, to which I have already referred, made an attempt to get the economics of this trade in perspective. But I wish that we could be given more information which gets to the heart and the truth of the matter; not that in a matter of this kind I regard economics as being all-important. Those engaged in the slave trade talked loudly about economics; so did the employers of sweated female labour; so did those who organised the white slave traffic. Morality behind public policy is sometimes all—as were the sanctions on Rhodesia and, more recently, on the USSR. One cannot curb evil without some loss to somebody. Even the ports which might want to avail themselves of this Bill would probably suffer more than anyone else in the business. We are not yet an obsessively mercenary nation. But here is the exercise in comparative economics which I submit to your Lordships.

While exports of adult cattle, which reached a total of 70,000 a year nine years ago, have virtually ceased, the number of calves exported has risen dramatically over the same period from 10,000 to 276,000. Exports of sheep and lambs, which rose from 122,000 in 1972 to 200,000 in 1977, are even higher in 1980. Alongside the rise in exports of calves, we have imports of adult cattle now averaging 100,000 a year from the Irish Republic. Are they all store cattle? I invite noble Lords to study the reply to my Parliamentary Question which was published in the Official Report this morning, at column 859, giving the latest figures over the whole area of this subject. It amounts to the fact that we are exporting both sheepmeat and live sheep, and at the same time we import large quantities of sheepmeat. We export beef and veal and large numbers of calves to EEC countries; at the same time we import over 200,000 metric tonnes of beef and veal from the EEC.

Is there some economic sense to be found in all this, or is it the movement of live animals across the draught-board of the big cattle dealers? There may be some doubt as to how all this trade comes to be manipulated, but if noble Lords can bear with me for a moment or two longer, I shall give my summary of the account. In 1980 we exported live calves to the value of £25 million, and we imported carcase beef and veal to the value of £293 million. As regards live sheep and lambs, we exported £7·5 million-worth, and imported sheep-meat to the value of £170 million. So we exported carcase meat to a value of £250 million, live animals to a value of £33 million, and we imported carcase meat of the same species to the value of £464 million. We have halved our United Kingdom slaughtering of calves over the last two years. No wonder that some slaughterhouses have gone out of business and are now being opened up by Arab slaughtermen who want to use them for the export of ritually-slaughtered animals to the Middle East.

There are obviously some questions to be asked on these figures, and the National Farmers' Union has tried to answer some of them. But whatever may be the answers, it is not necessary to sort them out here and now for the purposes of this Bill. This Bill does not, of itself, ban anything. It would give some local option, though only then by consent of the Minister. This is the least that the citizen should be given—to have some vestige of control over his environment. Without this Bill the inhabitants of eight English ports may continue to bear the brunt of a trade which has a host of critics and which causes the deepest resentment among those who, like myself, believe that the moral standards of a people have as much to do with the treatment of animals as with many less important aspects of the human condition. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, I should like to express our gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, for so ably and fully introducing this Bill. It is a vast subject, covering not only animal welfare but economics and rights of local communities; and he has covered the field excellently and well. In view of the number of speakers on the list today, I do not think that it is for me to try to cover anything like the same ground. I shall do my best to be extremely brief because there is one particular point on which the noble Lord touched towards the end of his speech which, from these Liberal Benches, I wish to underline.

I shall not concentrate on the ill-treatment of animals, the evidence for which those of your Lordships who have received a certain amount of information from the RSPCA and others will know. It is no use saying that there are laws against this ill-treatment. The point is that in other countries those laws are unenforceable by us, except just occasionally by great pertinacity, great luck, and at great expense. For all practical purposes they are not enforceable, and this ill-treatment goes on. We know that the laws are being broken, and there is nothing that we can do about it.

But that is background and I do not want to dwell on it. I do not wish to find myself specialising in animal affairs, fond as I am of them. I find myself concerned with the Laboratory Animals Protection Bill and with this Bill, and I find myself permanently speaking after the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. That is always a pleasure, but there are other things to do; and it is for that reason that I should like to concentrate on something which I regard as important, and that is the rights of local communities to protest, to state their claims, to be allowed not to take part, and not to allow certain things to happen where they live.

This is a right which Liberals would encourage at the best of times over perfectly ordinary matters. In this country as a general policy we need more devolution and not less, but we are getting less devolution and not more. Those of your Lordships who were present in the Chamber this afternoon during the debate on the last Bill will already have seen how a Government which are, in their own way, keen on the principle of freedom and keen on not having centralised government have been forced—and I say "forced" to put it kindly—or have found themselves in a position where they felt that they had no alternative but to increase the powers of the centre as against local government. We have had an English local government Bill where that happened; we are now having a Scottish local government Bill where that is happening, and it is absolutely the wrong tendency. Any situation that we can find where we can give the right to local communities to govern their own affairs, particularly when it is to do with matters of their own conscience, is a worthwhile opportunity which we should seize.

Approving, as we do on these Benches, of devolution of powers, such devolution is doubly important on matters of conscience. The English conscience moves in a peculiar way. It is not over-sensitive, and that is a good thing. We tend for years and years to let individuals make up their own minds, decide for themselves, even on things which a lot of us feel are barbarous, cruel and wrong. I think that this is absolutely right. Whether it is laziness or tolerance, I believe that it has the right effect. But from time to time we make up our own minds that we must act collectively, and as often as not the move is a local move rather than a central move, and all the sounder for that.

John Hampden refused to pay the ship money; the dockers refused to ship supplies to the Russian counter revolution. Our history is in fact studded with examples of this kind of action. Sometimes in the light of history we may look back and think they were wrong as to what they decided to do, but much more often they are right, and surely they are always right to do what they think to be right. The efficacy of democracy depends on that kind of decision, that kind of action, and that kind of local prejudice much more than it depends on what happens here in Westminster.

The people of Portsmouth, the councillors of Portsmouth by a great majority—and I think it is a splendid thing, and something which we should admire and marvel at, that an overwhelmining majority of councillors, and we all know in local government that councillors are not easily moved to quixotic gestures—have been moved to claim the right of their city to stop this vile traffic—and I use that phrase with intention—going through their city. Morally, undoubtedly, they have this right. Certainly they should have it legally.

My Lords, I am opposed to this Bill for two main reasons. One, it would damage the nation's trade; secondly, it could cause unnecessary delay and therefore hardship and cruelty to livestock in transit. Being a farmer I shall concentrate my remarks on the welfare aspect, but as I am being constantly told by Governments, of all colours, that I should try to sell my goods more efficiently I have to remind your Lordships that exporting is a vital outlet. This Bill would discriminate against British farmers and exporters without similar conditions being put on our EEC partners.

On the matter of trade, I was somewhat interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, indirectly suggesting the banning of imports of New Zealand lamb. I understand only too well the concern of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, to ensure that no unnecessary cruelty is inflicted on animals. It is my concern as well. Therefore, our objectives are the same, but not for the first time or maybe the last time I differ from him in the application and the practice.

I do not think we shall achieve much in arguing as to what does, or does not, constitute cruelty to animals. The argument is subjective, and neither the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, nor his compatriots in Portsmouth, nor I, can prove to your Lordships who is correct. It is not possible to ask a sheep how she feels. We can only guess. Certainly I have been doing that all my farming life, as no doubt the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has been doing similarly all his political life.

The noble Lord can argue that, because I am so intimately and physically concerned with my livestock, particularly the need to make them profitable—and I am not ashamed of making profits and employing people—I fail (if I can put it this way) to see the meat from the wool, and that his judgment is a more balanced one. I must leave such a decision to your Lordships, but I would add that no farmer or exporter of livestock can tolerate, on financial or welfare grounds, stress. I think it is the stress factor that I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, is trying to reduce in his Bill.

It will not, for the following reasons. First, it will multiply and complicate existing national arrangements by substituting local ones. There could be a totally different set of rules in, say, Holyhead from the one in Portsmouth, apart from the language problem. Surely such a matter is not a matter for a Private Bill, despite the remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont. Secondly, the Bill could delay and obstruct movement through the ports. Thirdly, the Bill could complicate and revise unnecessarily the new 1979–80 Sea Transport Order which consolidates previous legislation in line with the directive that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, mentioned, EEC 77/489. Lastly, the Bill could confound and confuse the Farm Animal Welfare Council, whose job it is to look at the export of live animals.

I have to remind your Lordships that the export of live animals has been the subject of inquiries in 1957, 1975 and 1977, including the one chaired by the noble Lord, Lord O'Brien. All these reports came out in favour of the trade continuing subject to certain conditions, which have been met and are now subject to close day by day monitoring. I have to ask the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, why he cannot accept decisions made by Government select inquiries. If my memory serves me right, it was only the other day that the noble Lord was so forthright in his condemnation of Governments appointing such inquiries and using the valuable free time of such experts as the noble Lord himself, for instance, who I think served or gave evidence to the committee Dogs in Society, after which the Government did not accept their recommendations. Surely here is a perfect example of a Government doing exactly what the noble Lord wants them to do.

I conclude by repeating to the noble Lord, Yes, we are on your side in trying to prevent cruelty to animals; but do not take my particular view of what is, or what is not, cruel. Likewise, I ask you not to take your own view, but to accept the impartial inquiries of 1957, 1975 and 1977. The noble Lord has made his point. He has concentrated the industry's mind yet again on the need to keep a close watch on the export trade. But no further good, only aggravation and frustration, would occur should this Bill be allowed to go into Committee. I beg the noble Lord that he will withdraw it.

My Lords, I am in somewhat of a quandary this evening. Yesterday I agreed to a request from the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, who cannot be here today, to ascertain what were the views of the Association of District Councils since I am one of the vice-presidents of that body. I now find, having put my name down to speak, that that association, having discussed the matter, decided "a decision by the Association on this issue is not appropriate", which does not help me very much this evening.

Despite the fact that I played truant last week and spent it on a hill farm in Cumberland, I have no farming credentials to speak on this Bill. But I personally support the Bill that is before the House, and I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, for his attempts to alleviate suffering by animals in transhipment to other ports. Opponents of this Bill may very well argue that the local port authorities are not the right bodies to have the powers which are proposed in the Bill. I know that some will feel that Parliament should remain the arbiter of public policy and public morality in matters which affect national activities.

Like the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, they feel that this Bill, if enacted, could well lead to an arbitrary assessment of what is public concern in a particular locality followed by the making of bye-laws under the Act which could result in different regulations being enforced in different ports all around the country. I have no doubt that some opponents will object to Clause 1(5) as being somewhat unnecessary in a Bill which purports to grant permissive discretionary powers only. But it is nothing new for the Minister to have reserve powers to use if he deems it necessary so to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, covered the background of the Bill and the reasons for its introduction thoroughly. The Bill simply makes it possible for port or harbour authorities to make by-laws to regulate or prohibit the transport and export of farm animals intended for slaughter. Why do we have to export animals intended eventually for slaughter? Why can they not be slaughtered here and their carcases exported? Many of these animals are transported to the Continent and are subject to frequent loading and unloading with all the attendant stress, strain and suffering after going sometimes 300, 400 or 500 miles without rest, food or water. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said the RSPCA each year reported repeated breaches of the regulations and the EEC directives which exist and which are supposed to safeguard the welfare of animals in transit. I accept that we alone cannot enforce the directives or regulations in other countries, but we could at least give a lead by means of this Bill to enable harbour and port authorities to make by-laws to regulate or prohibit the export of farm animals intended for slaughter.

Other noble Lords have referred to the attitude of the Portsmouth City Council, a responsible local authority with a great deal of experience in the export of live animals for food, and their views should carry weight with your Lordships. Another point we should consider is that when live animals are exported, our processing industries in turn have to import large quantities of hides, offals, bones and other by-products. If the slaughtering was done at home, there would be less need for those imports and it seems ironic that at the same time that we are exporting cattle to the Continent for further fattening for slaughter, we are importing large numbers of store cattle from Ireland.

My noble friend Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge spoke to a similar Bill in 1972 and he has asked me to pass his regrets to the House at not being able to stay tonight for this debate. However, he supported a similar Bill in 1972 and he supports this one today. He would particularly like to know—if the Minister cannot answer these points tonight perhaps he will do so by way of correspondence—the numbers of bobby calves (that is, calves under a week old) that are exported from this country; surely those calves should be killed as early as possible if they are not to be reared here at home. Secondly, what improvements have been made in the handling of animals for sport both here and abroad, since we last discussed the matter on the Bill that was put forward in 1972? As I say, I shall understand if the Minister cannot reply offhand tonight. Perhaps he will write to me or my noble friend Lord Donaldson on those two points. I hope the House will give the Bill an unopposed Second Reading, and I give it my support.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Baroness to clarify one point? I think I misheard her, but did she ask for information as to what improvements had been made in respect of animals for sport—or did she mean animals for export?

For export, my Lords.

My Lords, while my feelings are rather divided on the matter, I feel that I must support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, on the Bill. I am happy to speak following the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, because on many occasions we have crossed swords across the Floor of the House, but tonight it is delightful to find myself on the same side with her. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said there was a large matter of conscience involved in the issue and that people expressed their consciences in different ways. My conscience is wholeheartedly behind the Bill and I cannot understand the attitude of people who point to the EEC as being a difficulty in relation to the Bill.

The House may remember that I have never been a supporter of the EEC, and what always astonishes me is the way in which we keep hearing about harmonising things; it never happens. We are supposed to harmonise with the EEC, but it seems they are never prepared to harmonise with us. What stuck very badly in my throat was the banning of exports of lamb to France. If there was any question of harmonising, I should have thought that was one case where the French might have given way. They did not, however; they fought it all the way.

We in this country through Parliament can arrange all the welfare we want for animals in transit, but once the boat carrying them leaves our shores, it seems we can do nothing about the welfare of those animals if the country to which they are going will not agree or try to enforce the laws which are in existence. When the City of Portsmouth or any other port says, "Enough is enough"—that they will not export animals in a certain way—I am 100 per cent. with them because it should be for the people of an area to decide such matters affecting that area. Indeed, many times in recent years we in Parliament have been told by the Government, "We intend to hand responsibility for this, that or the other to the people who live in the local areas", and that is what we are asking the Government to do in this case.

I will not follow other noble Lords in describing the horrors that can take place once animals have left this country. It can be said that those who make such comments are biased and are prepared to overstate the case. Be that as it may, things occur which are contrary to the conscience of the people of this country and if the people of a port area say they will not stand for it any longer, then in my view they have every right to say that. My noble friend says he cares for his sheep but that he must make a profit.

I cannot see—I have never been able to see—why the continuation of the export of sheep live can really make more profit for a farmer than the same sheep slaughtered with all its by-products left in this country. People have tried to tell me why it is, but I still do not see it. I am not a very good economist; in fact I am an extremely bad one according to my wife. I should like to understand the reason. But I fear that until I am convinced that we would be doing damage to our farming industry, I shall always be against the export of live animals, and I must support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in relation to the Bill, though I do not agree with some of its details.

My Lords, as many of your Lordships know, I farm. I do not sell cattle, other than dead cattle, and I do not sell any sheep at all. I feel that the Bill is really for the prejudiced, and not for the enlightened. Not surprisingly, the Speaker in another place ruled that it was a totally unsuitable Bill to be introduced by Portsmouth City Council as a Private Bill. I shall try to show that it is equally unsuitable in a Public Bill to allow mediaeval barriers to trade to be set up by the various ports concerned.

Clause 1 is extremely widely drawn. What it really says is that if a number of people get together and say that they do not like the export of live animals, the local authority can ban it, disrupt people's livelihoods, and, as has already been said, introduce different laws for different ports. At the moment there are very strict rules on the transport of live animals overseas. They are stricter than the rules for transport of animals within the United Kingdom. Furthermore, the Bill and the attitude of those who support it have shown a very unattractive form of chauvinism. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, was saying, basically, "We don't trust beastly foreigners"—as was the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. I presume that it is perfectly all right to take sheep from Orkney or Shetland or Northern Ireland to this country; that is all right because it is being done by nice, kind "Brits". They would not do harm to animals. But we cannot really allow the foreigners to do it; they are far too unkind, far too cruel. That comes from the great Liberal Benches of those who support internationalism and free trade.

Perhaps your Lordships will be interested to know that many of the slaughterhouses in the Community are up to Community standards for slaughterhouses, which are extremely high, whereas the standard of slaughterhouses in this country is not nearly up to the standard of slaughterhouses in France, Germany or the Low Countries. So perhaps before we go on about how beastly are the foreigners to our poor little sheep, we ought to put our own house in order with regard to slaughterhouses in this country.

The logic of Clause 1(5) has already been commented on. It is that if the Minister says that people are not passing enough laws in their local authority, he can make them pass some more. Is that really what we are suggesting should happen? I know that it happens in relation to petroleum transport. But people do not get emotional about petrol. You cannot pat it on the head and feed it carrots on a Sunday afternoon. We get too emotional about animals. Of course we have to have decent lairage and feeding and proper regulations, but I find it rather unattractive that it is suggested in your Lordships' House that we cannot trust foreigners to enforce the rules that we have.

Clause 2(2) also gives another set of people the right to search private property without warrant and generally to boss people about. I suggest to your Lordships that there are already too many of those kind of people in existence. Surely—and I think that this will be established further by my noble friend Lord Ferrers—it is against the rules of the European Community to enact a Bill such as this. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, would have liked to say it was not against the rules of the Community—but he seemed to cast doubt even on that.

The farming industry would bear an unnecessary cost if, say, Felixstowe said, "Yes, go on with the trade in live animals", while Folkestone and the South Coast ports said, "No". That would present an unfair disadvantage to farmers, and it would hamper trade.

As I have previously said to your Lordships, we must of course have decent rules for the transport of live animals. Of course transportation must be undertaken kindly and successfully; and of course I should be totally against the grubby transport of broken-down knacker horses for trade. Of course one is against that. But I personally see nothing wrong in having horses slaughtered for human consumption. I had an extremely nice hunter, of which I was very fond. His soul hunts with the Fernie hounds and his body fed greedy Frenchmen over Christmas because his legs were gone and he was put down and slaughtered in this country. Let us not get emotional. Let us make absolutely certain that what we do is done cleanly, tidily and correctly, and without cruelty. But let us look to the mote in our own eye before we say that all foreigners are beastly to British animals.

My Lords, I do not intend to delay the debate for any length of time, not being an expert in the subject in which we are involved. But it has been my lot for nearly 40 years to spend summers on the little island of Iona, eight miles long by two miles wide, which lies off the coast of Mull. Whenever I am on the island the farmers have livestock for the market. The livestock has to be ferried across to Oban. That means that it has to be put on one ferry for one mile. Then it has to go 34 miles across Mull, and then travel for 10 miles by another ferry to Oban. The livestock has to undertake a 2-ferry journey before being disposed of in England or abroad, which means going over the sea again.

That is the essence of the problem, but here is the extent of it. It involves not only Iona. Everyone can picture in their minds the West Highland coast, with Islay, Jura, Colonsay, Mull, Skye, the Hebrides, and Shetland and Orkney. Livestock from all those places has to travel by ferry before being disposed of. Thus your Lordships will understand the concern of farmers regarding this proposed legislation.

The rugged Western Highlands are uneconomic in relation to mainland abattoir activities, and moreover they are not economic in the sense of growing crops and any form of development of agricultural work. The farmers in these areas can do only one thing—that is to export their livestock. They will be faced with catastopohe if they are debarred by further regulations concerning transport.

From Orkney alone 13,000 cattle and 20,000 sheep are disposed of every year. From Shetland 25,000 sheep are disposed of; I do not know the figure for cattle from there. From the Western Isles at least another 20,000 sheep and cattle are disposed of. Well over 100,000 beasts are sent, and the catastrophe would be absolutely disastrous for literally hundreds of small farmers if they are to be affected by new legislation.

We should remember—we have been reminded of this fact in the debate—that legislation regarding the transport of animals was passed in 1927, that we legislated for the protection of exported animals in 1964, and that in 1973 there was the Transit of Animals Order. Bearing in mind that that legislation has been loyally obeyed from the districts that I have named, to pile on additional conditions would literally throw out of business scores of farmers, and would leave us and the continent short of tons of carcases, which presently are seemingly required both here and on the continent.

If anything like this present Bill is ultimately passed, I plead with the Government to make the necessary amendments for the West of Scotland and for the North of Scotland, to satisfy hundreds of farmers who presently have a prosperous, necessary and well-regulated trade, divided though they be, and have to be essentially every time they move in all these places, by ferries, in the North and West of Scotland.

My Lords, I am very glad to follow the noble Lord, Lord Macleod, because I, too, shall be touching on that point which he has raised. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, has explained the purpose of his Bill very clearly, and its content, and I know how sincere he is in his intention to obviate suffering by livestock. But I must tell him immediately that I cannot support this Bill, and that I hope he will not pursue it. I declare again my interest as engaged in farming in Northern Scotland, near my home. My specialities do not include livestock; they are seed potatoes and barley, which all goes into the whisky industry.

This Bill would give port authorities powers to regulate or stop the transport of live farm animals for slaughter or for fattening for slaughter. The effect of this would be haphazard. It would disrupt both the livestock farmers and the transport operators. It would damage their programmes, which would in any case by bedevilled in future by uncertainty. The interests of our islands, and especially the Scottish islands, would be severely damaged. The Bill would affect movements between the islands and the mainland—everywhere where the livestock pass through a harbour. In the Western and Northern Isles, cattle and sheep are an important element in farming and crofting, and they in turn form major sectors of the islands' economies.

I would point out, after what the noble Lord, Lord Macleod, has said, that it is not sensible or feasible to have slaughtering facilities on all the islands. Indeed, recent health requirements have made slaughtering conditions more stringent, and this is no doubt correct—and I heard what my noble friend Lord Onslow said about raising standards in this regard. It is consequently not easy to multiply slaughtering facilities over the islands.

Livestock forms the staple commodity in the islands, for land over a large area of them is not suitable for other forms of agriculture, such as crops. I would make the exception of Orkney, where there is pasture for dairy cattle, which produce the well-known cheese and cream. But in general the Scottish islands have to depend upon the rearing of livestock for beef, mutton and lamb. This Bill would strike a severe blow upon the Scottish islands. The consumers would also be deprived of supplies of, for example, Shetland lamb, and beef from the Hebrides. From what I have said—and I was interested to hear the origin of this Bill as having come from the City of Portsmouth—what may be appropriate for Portsmouth is not appropriate for Stornaway.

Turning to exports as a whole, I understand we export to European countries, and in many cases it is for slaughter and consumption. I would ask my noble friend Lord Ferrers whether he would confirm this when he speaks. This Bill would undoubtedly reduce British exports to those markets, and some of those markets have been hard won in the past. How, then, should we proceed? At present the regulations in the United Kingdom are strict, and require proper periods of rest, watering and other humane handling of animals. They are now, I understand, being consolidated and brought into line with EEC arrangements.

There remains the question of enforcement, and I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, that we must improve in every way we can the policing of the regulations. Surely that is where we should be looking. It is, from what he said himself, anxiety about exports to other European countries which is the reason for his having introduced this Bill. We are concerned with what happens to those animals after they have left the shores of the United Kingdom. This is the area in which we should be seeking improvement and consolidation, and making sure that the regulations can be enforced. But I conclude by saying that the damage which would be done to the British agricultural industry if this Bill were to go through means that I hope it will not succeed.

My Lords, I take a different view from that of the noble Lord who has just spoken. I should like to thank my noble friend Lord Houghton for introducing this Bill. I support it, and I hope your Lordships will give it a Second Reading and allow it to proceed to amendment in Committee. I shall be very brief because at this stage of the debate it is impossible to avoid repeating arguments that other noble Lords have made, but I think it is important to demonstrate the weight of support in your Lordships' House for this Bill, and this may justify a very limited degree of repetition.

I welcome particularly the power given in Clause 1 of the Bill to harbour authorities to prohibit the export of farm animals intended for slaughter, and I hope that it will appear to many of these authorities that it would be, to quote the words of Clause 1,

"offensive to public morality and contrary to public policy"

to allow the export of sheep or cattle assigned for shipment to the European Economic Community countries for slaughter there.

Now why, on the balance of the arguments that have been expressed in the course of this debate, should this trade in farm animals be stopped? I think it is because we now know without any possibility of doubt—thanks largely, as the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has pointed out, to the fine work of the RSPCA inspectors, who followed shipments of farm animals to their destinations on the Continent; and I think a tribute is certainly due to the RSPCA—that such regulations as have been made for humane treatment of these animals in transit and for their merciful dispatch at the point of slaughter have not been generally observed and are not capable of enforcement. These safeguards are in fact as ineffective today as they have been at any time since the trade began about 25 years ago.

The only effective action, of course, would be for the Government to ban the trade in farm animals, as they did for a time when it was suspended in 1973. But this is obviously not the policy of the Government today. The most we can hope for is that this trade will be curtailed and controlled by port authorities by the use of the by-law powers conferred on them by this Bill.

The argument for stopping the export of sheep or cattle on the hoof is not solely humanitarian. This, again, has been pointed out, but I think it ought to be underlined. It is also economic and social. We are amply provided with slaughterhouses in the United Kingdom (and I am afraid that on this point I disagree with the noble Earl, Lord Onslow; my information is quite contrary to his) and these slaughterhouses measure up to the high standard of hygiene and efficiency prescribed by the European Economic Community. At present, these abattoirs at home are not used to capacity. The export of live animals would be unnecessary if, instead of being transported a long distance to a convenient port, they were killed at the nearest slaughterhouse and exported as carcase meat to the continent like the great majority of meat that we export to the continent. This would be some degree of compensation for the farmers. It would give more employment to those engaged in slaughtering animals and there would be further benefit from the use of the by-products, hides and so on, which would cut down the import bill for leather and the meat processing industries. There would thus be real economic and social advantages in converting our present exports on the hoof to exports of carcase meat.

This is only an enabling Bill which does not oblige the harbour authorities to do anything. Some may not wish to take advantage of its provisions. Therefore, I am glad that there is a default power for the Minister in Clause 1 in case this should happen. But where authorities have the need for these powers they should not be deprived of them simply because they are not appropriate for private legislation. It should be possible for them under the general law, which is exactly what this Bill provides, to have regard to matters of public concern and policy in their own areas and to stop, or, at least, to regulate, a trade that is offensive to all concerned with animal welfare. I repeat that I hope your Lordships will allow the Bill to have a Second Reading and that any amendments which may be necessary in the interests of those who are prejudiced by the provisions of the Bill will be considered and dealt with at that stage.

My Lords, can the noble Earl say whether he would also ban the export of animals from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom and from the Scottish Isles to the mainland? Would he recommend a ban on the export of live animals from the Scottish Islands to Scotland or from Northern Ireland to the rest of the United Kingdom—or is it only to foreigners?

No, my Lords, I suggested that in the case of live animals to other parts of the country—and I know that it is more difficult in Scotland—they should be sent to the nearest convenient slaughterhouse which, again, from the farmers' point of view is best from the standpoint of the quality of the meat.

My Lords, I would not wish to detain your Lordships for long. While I appreciate the good intentions of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, I am afraid that I must tell the House that this Bill would be devastating for Scottish agriculture, which is already struggling, as I have said recently, with an average net income for the 30,000 holdings of £1,100 per annum per holding. Which of your Lordships will expect anyone in this country today to work, often for long hours, for as little as or less than £1,100 a year? The Bill would prevent farming on all the islands off the coast of Scotland. Surely that is a restriction on trade. The noble Lord said that he did not wish to restrict trade. That is a restriction; it must be so.

By the nature of the terrain, the islands are confined to livestock farming only (as my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy has said) and if this Bill were to pass, one or two individuals, possibly with the best welfare intentions, could stop the market for all this livestock and close down the farming in the islands. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, stated that it was the intention to get by-laws for every port. His intention seems to be to inflict the maximum damage on farmers, particularly for the islanders. They are the very people in the worst economic state, who have difficulties with everything coming into the islands or going out being more expensive.

Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, could confirm that Portsmouth have already spent £70,000 of their ratepayers' money on trying to get legislation of this type. This shows what a few determined individuals can do. I am confident that many of the ratepayers of Portsmouth could have found more worthwhile uses for this large sum of money. By the nature of the size of the enterprises in the islands, slaughterhouses are impracticable there. While on the subject of slaughterhouses the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, referred to them and I am afraid that he was wrong. Our slaughterhouses are way behind a lot of the European ones. It is very often the local authorities who are represented on the port authorities who are the people responsible for these slaughterhouses and who have not brought them up to standard. They say that they do not have the money to do so. To put them in the position of looking after the welfare of these animals seems to be wrong.

The noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary, has spoken more ably than I could on the problem which would face the islanders. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, referred to the ban on the exports of sheep to the Arab countries. This market has been largely taken over by Australia and New Zealand. All that has happened is that we have lost a large trade outlet which we could have controlled and now millions of sheep are having a longer journey than if we had been allowed to do it. The noble Lord referred to the various infringements of the existing laws and EEC laws which, he said, were taking place. He referred to following vehicles for many miles and hours. If there were infringements and all this expense and trouble was taken to follow these vehicles, why were there no prosecutions? He could not answer me. I know that I interrupted the noble Lord. I apologise to him; but I felt that I had to do so.

Legislation already exists with realistic provisions to safeguard the wellbeing of animals being transported by sea. The Government only last year took steps to initiate a consolidation, an up-dating, of transport orders and have circulated proposals for consideration. The Government already keep a close watch on these matters. Let us look at what exists at the moment. First, animals for export must be rested for at least 10 hours, fed, watered, inspected by a veterinary officer who must then issue a certificate of fitness to travel. There are already very strong safeguards on that alone. There are rules governing the loading and unloading of stock. That is exactly what this Bill is intended to impose—further restrictions in addition to those already there. Vessels can leave port only if the master is satisfied that the sea conditions are such as will not cause suffering or injury to animals which are being transported—a more stringent regulation, therefore, than is in existence for humans. I do not think that the master worries about whether the ferry leaves port in a rough sea when he has only human beings aboard, but he is not allowed to do so if he is carrying animals. So much for the allegations that animals are being moved from Portsmouth and battled about while going to France. I take it that that is where they were going.

Finally, export licences are issued only for those countries where acceptable welfare standards already exist. Ample legislation and regulations exist already. It could be that if this Bill were passed, the Skyemen would have to resort to their old method of getting cattle to market. That was to swim them across to the mainland mainly at Kyleakin. Would the noble Lord feel it better for the cattle to have to have a long swim in cold water and strong currents rather than to leave things as they now are? His Bill would not stop someone swimming the cattle but would possibly stop them from taking the ferry.

Earlier I referred to how Scottish agriculture is struggling for its very existence at the moment under sever financial handicaps. This has been recognised in Brussels and the EEC has agreed to make a payment of £20 miilion for the development of agriculture in the Western Islands. If this Bill were passed tonight we should be holding out the begging bowl with one hand while cutting our throat with the other. We should be the laughing stock of Europe and the hope of getting further aid for other impoverished areas of the country would be completely lost.

To return to two detailed points of the Bill, Clause 3(1) makes it possible for a £1,000 fine to be payable by anyone who fails to comply with the by-laws. It seems to me that this regulation could apply to every animal so moving. Consequently, if there is a sheep lorry with 400 sheep on board—which is not an unreasonable number—there could be a fine of £400,000. Is this not correct?

I think that this Bill is intended to be a United Kingdom Bill; but as at present drafted in Clause 4—and this is the intention—it would not apply to Scotland. The Bill refers to the wrong Ministers, it has the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. They are not the relevant Ministers. It should be referring to the Secretary of State for Scotland. Not only is there faulty drafting here—and the Bill would be extremely injurious but there may well be drafting mistakes elsewhere. I hope for all these reasons—and very good reasons they are, and no doubt we shall hear others from my noble friend on the Front Bench—that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, will withdraw his Bill tonight. I am confident that, if he does not, we shall not give it a Second Reading.

My Lords, in speaking to your Lordships, I have been advised by the Confederation of British Industry and also the National Farmers' Union of the Isle of Wight. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy—in a splendid speech which I thoroughly endorse—said that it might be all right for Portsmouth, but not for Stornaway. I can assure him that it is not all right for Portsmouth. It is one of the ports that we would seek to have, by amendment, excluded from the provisions of the Bill, if it ever got that far. It would be illogical for Portsmouth to stop its traffic to, say, France, and to allow its traffic to the Isle of Wight. I can assure your Lordships that we would fight hard to have it banned from taking part in the outcome of this Bill, in the unlikely and unhappy event of it ever becoming law.

Turning to the slightly wider issue, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton—who put his case extremely well and tried very hard—was not very convincing on what I think was the key point in his argument. That was that Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome gave a save-all to anybody to upset all the efforts of the Treaty of Rome. I was not at all convinced by what he said. So quite apart from the fact that I do not like the Bill, I do not think he even proved to us that it was legitimate within the EEC framework.

I would suggest—and one or two noble Lords have pushed on to this point—that really what we want to do is not produce this rather narrow-minded legislation, which gives individual ports freedom to impose their somewhat one-sided views upon the majority; we want to concentrate—and I am sure that the feel of the House would go with this—on trying to make sure that the EEC Directive 77/489, which has been referred to, is properly implemented throughout the Community. The important point is that we are in the Community and we need take full advantage of it. There are all sorts of advantages for us and in such a communanté spirit what we need to do is make sure that the Community's own rules are properly implemented for all of us. To take a narrow-minded view strikes me to be backward-looking and thoroughly retrograde. I suggest to your Lordships—and I shall not detain you any more because all I wanted to say has already been said—that we must not accept this Bill and we must not give it a Second Reading.

My Lords, I beg your forgiveness for intervening but it will be for only three minutes. I yield to nobody in my admiration for the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, in his efforts for the welfare of animals. As the House knows, I am also interested in that aspect. This Bill is not really logical or practical. Regarding logic, I should like to point out that Clause 1(2)(c) says:

"the authority as may be specified in the byelaws grant a certificate that the animal is not intended for slaughter on, or within three months after, arrival at the place to which it is consigned and has been certified by the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food to be accredited breeding stock".

I have exported breeding and store stock—both cattle and sheep—by sea. So far as I have been able to ascertain, there is no difference in their treatment. If you have a bull worth about £10,000 he would probably be treated better. Animals intended for slaughter do not know that they are going to be slaughtered any more than the animals intended for breeding know that they are intended for breeding. So it is not really logical.

The other point regarding practicability has been made extremely well by my noble friends Lord Camp- bell of Croy and Lord Burton, so I will not go into that. I must declare an interest: I farm in a fairly extensive way on the Island of Mull. We have to send our stock across to the mainland. If we could not do so we should have to become like the Hindus with the Brahman bulls. We would have to leave our livestock until they died of old age, because we cannot fatten them on the hills. So it is not really practicable. I should like to end by saying that as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, said, the real problem is enforcement. There are ample laws to see that this traffic is controlled for the welfare of animals; but the real problem is to enforce these laws. Having said that, I shall not support the Bill if it goes to a Division.

My Lords, we have had a very interesting debate, starting with a most passionate and detailed speech from my noble friend. This is a Private Member's Bill, and if there is a vote then this is a matter for the exercise of conscience on the part of every Member of this House. There is no doubt whatever about Lord Houghton's passionate concern for animal welfare. It is well known, appreciated and understood. It is to his great credit.

I am afraid, however, that the Bill put forward with the best possible intentions will serve only to increase bureaucracy and certainly confusion arising through different standards covering the movement and welfare of animals applying in various ports. I note in passing that no mention is made in the Bill of the use of air transport, which also has welfare problems of its own, as we all well know.

I share my noble friend's concern for animal welfare as well as other humanitarian interests. This may interest your Lordships: it so happens that some years ago, before the operation of the Export Animals Protection Order 1964 and the Transit of Animals Order 1973, I was involved at first hand with the purchase, transport and care of cattle for export, mainly to Holland. This was at a time when I was nursing a constituency in Norwich, where there was and still is a considerable animal welfare lobby. I had no option: my employer was the late Lord Macpherson of Drumochter, who on the first deal gave me 24 hours to obtain all the facts about what was and is a complicated business, bearing in mind the regulations governing animal welfare, which have been extended and strengthened since.

Bearing in mind the implications of my political interests, I watched every procedure personally with the greatest care. I saw the cattle loaded, inspected them and their quarters on the ship, checked lairage facilities and visited my animals resting there. In no case, I may say from my observations on this particular ship, was there any ill-treatment or lack of care. In fact in one shipment from Boston, Lincolnshire, one of my cows was found to be in calf and the pregnant mother was held back and given every attention until the veterinary surgeon certified her and her offspring as fit for travel. The lucky buyer had a bonus but my firm had greater expense. I must say from past experience of attending some, though not all, cattle markets that it seemed to me that often discomfort and distress to animals was greater there than in the procedures of shipment I still maintain that view.

Apart from the obvious possibility of an uneven operation of the Bill by harbour authorities, which might cause animals destined for export to travel greater distances, what happens to the cattle already loaded if some official discovers a technical breach of a by-law and the ship is detained? Are they to be offloaded, put onto transport and dispatched again to lairage, and then once again to be in transit and loaded, et cetera, all over again?

The Bill does in fact encourage piecemeal legislation, as harbour authorities could adopt varying by-laws or none at all. This is the core and the weakest part of the Bill. If further safeguards and improvements are needed, and I am prepared to accept that that is the case, then the only way is to have legislation operating nationally, as a Government measure.

I do accept that there is a case against long-distance shipment of live cattle overseas or to countries where standards of welfare and slaughter are not equal to our own. There is certainly a case, I will agree with my noble friend, for further consideration on the position of calves or baby calves, which many letters received refer to, and I have loads of them here.

I must say that the great bulk of correspondence sent on or handed to me—because I am deputising for my noble friend Lord Peart—comes from the Portsmouth area. Much of it refers to animals enduring long journeys without rest, food or water. If this occurs here, then there is a case for the Government to institute an investigation, as this is illegal in Britain. Mention was made about shipping cattle at times of rough seas prevailing. I understand, and I am subject to correction, that ships carrying cattle are not allowed to sail when the seas are rough. There are a number of pressure groups for or against, some expressing views with great emotion. The bulk in favour want slaughter in Britain. Carcase meat is still exported from Britain as well as being imported into Britain.

I have not referred to any question of a valuable export trade or the profit motive. My main concern, like that of my noble friend, is animal welfare and there is no doubt that my noble friend, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, is as well aware as I am that his Bill at this stage of the Session has practically no chance whatever of proceeding very far, even if given a Second Reading majority today. But we must all admit that he has well and truly put his case. Let us say that in many instances there is a degree of substance in it.

The Government circulated proposals for a new Sea Transport and Export of Animals Order in 1979–80. These proposals are extensive and desirable. Legislation consolidating present law and extending powers nationally and internationally would be welcomed on all sides of the House and outside. It would be a considerable help to the House if the Minister replying for the Government could give us a definite assurance that legislation will in fact be coming along.

As I have already indicated, my Lords, I very much regret that I cannot support my noble friend's Bill because, as I have indicated, it would result in a patchwork of varying degrees of control all over the country. The bringing in of by-laws would in itself often depend on the volume and strength of public lobbying in a given local authority area, as indeed is the case in Portsmouth. I accept that people have the right to protest, as we see by the lobbies here in these Houses of Parliament. They have the right to protest to their councillors and to bring pressure on them, as indeed they do. Even on noble Lords pressure is exerted, as the volume of correspondence I have here proves. But I believe the answer lies in the hands of the Government by the bringing in of legislation, proposals for which are already available—legislation which would in this House be vigorously and expertly examined. Of that, bearing in mind this debate, we can be very sure.

My Lords, I was fascinated by the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, because he is always so careful. I was not surprised that he did not hold his position with the late Lord Macpherson of Drumochter too long if he sold off all his cows which he thought were barren cows, only to find they were in calf. He must be a very good person to do business with! I am sure I have done the same too; but the only difference was that I did not know it. I suppose I should declare an interest. I also farm, but I do not export any animals for slaughter or further fattening.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has been—much to his credit—a great campaigner for the improvement of conditions under which animals are kept, and the noble Lord's Bill today is another tangible example of his concern. The Government share with the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, a concern for the welfare of farm animals but where we tend to part company with him is on the most suitable way in which to protect them. In this case we are concerned with the welfare of those of them which are carried by water and, in particular, those which are to be exported.

Perhaps I may first explain the protection and safeguards which already exist. The Government already protects all farm animals which are intended for export through the provisions of the Exported Animals Protection Order 1964. That order requires them, among other things, to be rested for a period of 10 hours in a Government approved export lairage and to be offered food and water during that time. Under the order, animals cannot be exported unless they have been examined by a veterinary inspector, who is appointed by the Minister of Agriculture, and also unless they have been passed as fit to be shipped. A new order is being prepared, which will improve the welfare of farm animals which are intended for export, and it will transfer the licensing of such exports from the Department of Trade to the agriculture departments in Great Britain. Interested bodies and the Farm Animal Welfare Council have been consulted about these and account is being taken of their comments in the new order which is being prepared.

There are, too, two further statutory instruments to protect the welfare of farm animals during carriage by water. They are the Transit of Animals Order 1927 and the Animals (Sea Transport) Order 1930. These orders lay down detailed, constructional standards, in order to ensure that the ships, which are used, are adequate, and that they make provision to protect the welfare of the animals during carriage. Under a related measure, standards are laid down for two-tier vehicles which are used to carry farm livestock on ferries, and these vehicles have to be inspected to ensure that they meet the required standards. Proposals to amend and to update these regulations have been the subject of consultation with interested parties and the Farm Animal Welfare Council, and here, too, a new instrument is being prepared. The new order would set revised standards for vessels and vehicles which are used to carry livestock on ferries and it would, in a number of ways, tighten up on the existing safeguards.

Apart from the domestic scene, the Government are working in the European Community on the preparation of a new directive which is intended to expand and to develop Directive 77/489 on the protection of animals during international transport. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mottistone that we should try to make improvements in standards in the European Community. This is exactly what we are doing. This new directive has involved long and difficult negotiations in Brussels, but agreement is not far off and the Government hope to see this new directive in being within the next few months. My noble friend Lord Onslow asked me about this directive—or I think he intended to ask me, because he gave me prior notice that he was going to do so—but he waxed so eloquently about motes and beams that I believe he failed to do so.

The welfare of farm animals during international transport is already protected by Directive 77/489 and one of its most important provisions is that, during transport, these animals must not be left for more than 24 hours without being fed and watered, unless the journey can be completed within a reasonable period of time. There are allegations—they were made this evening—that there are breaches of this directive. Where that happens, the breaches are taken up with the exporter concerned and with the authorities in other member states.

A further directive is under discussion in Brussels. It is almost complete. It is, at the moment, at the technical level and it will be submitted to the Council of Ministers shortly. This directive would expand and develop the provisions of Directive 77/489, and would be likely to provide for a travel document to record certain details of the journey, and thereby improve the enforcement of the present rules. The provisions of the draft directive will be likely to require remedial action to be taken during the journey, if the animals are not being carried in accordance with current requirements. These are important new developments which must be taken into account in reaching any decision on the need to prevent the export of live food animals to destinations within the European Community. So there is quite a lot going on in the animal welfare scene.

These safeguards, and the new developments which are proposed, demonstrate that the Government are deeply engaged in the preparation of measures, both here and within the European Community, to increase the protection of the welfare of farm animals which are being exported and which are being carried by water. I accept that there are some who feel that, whatever the arguments are, they just do not want to see animals exported on, in their judgment, humanitarian or welfare grounds. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, and various others of your Lordships have given us examples of that today. May I say that, even though I do not share these views myself, I entirely respect them and I respect the right and the sincerity of others who do hold them. That is what I might describe as the causus belli of the Bill.

However, I am bound to tell your Lordships that if this Bill were implemented it would have very severe economic and international consequences; and particularly severe consequences for agriculture in the islands, and for the communities which depend upon it. So let us consider this, as a number of noble Lords have been concerned about it. The main cause for concern is the provision which enables by-laws to be made to prohibit the movement of farm animals by water, except for the movement of accredited breeding stock. In 1980, over 600,000 farm animals were transported by water to, from and within Great Britain. This movement of animals is necessary for the efficient operation of the agriculture and food industries, and there would be serious consequences for both if this trade were to be interrupted.

Over half this total of 600,000 is made up of sheep and calves which are exported to the European Community, and the interruption of this trade would lose well over £100 million in foreign exchange every year. That is a very substantial sum. I know that the advocates of a ban on live food animal exports would argue that the lost trade could be made up by increased carcase meat exports. But this would not be the case, because live exports exist in response to a specific market demand on the Continent, and those countries which require animals for their own slaughtering will simply get their supplies from elsewhere, in preference to importing carcase meat.

The scope of the Bill does not cover foreign trade alone, but covers all movements of farm livestock by water, including that which goes between the islands and the mainland of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Macleod of Fuinary, was the first to mention that. It is a curious thing that every Scottish noble Lord—my noble friend Lord Burton, my noble friend Lord Campbell, and my noble friend Lord Massereene—mentioned it and I am not surprised. My noble friend Lord Burton said that this Bill does not refer to Scotland. In fact, it does because an Act of Parliament applies to all parts of the United Kingdom, unless a part of the United Kingdom is specifically excluded. There is no such exclusion in the Harbours (Transport of Farm Animals) Bill, and therefore it applies to England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But, of course, my noble friend is quite right. The definition of "Minister" in the Bill is one of a number of drafting defects, where the scope of the Bill has not been reflected in its definitions.

In 1980, over 130,000 farm animals were moved by sea between the Scottish islands and the mainland. The Scottish islands are heavily dependent on agriculture and, in particular, on livestock production, and they need to be able to send store and fat animals to the mainland for market. If the provisions of this Bill were to be applied to the Scottish islands, it would have a devastating effect on their economy and on the people who live by that economy. My noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy asked whether there was a decline in slaughterhouses and referred to slaughter- house standards. There may well be a decline in slaughterhouses, because the hygiene regulations are expensive to put into effect and small slaughterhouses, such as those on the islands, with a low throughput, could not justify the costs of meeting the hygiene regulations. He also asked me whether we export animals for slaughter. The answer is that the United Kingdom exports sheep for slaughter and for further fattening, but our calf exports are for further fattening and are not for immediate slaughter.

The noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, said that had the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, been here he would have asked what improvements there had been since 1972. The main improvement has been the introduction of common rules throughout the Community. This is a very substantial improvement which requires pre-stunning at slaughter. That is Directive 74/577 which came into force on 1st July 1975 and which protects the welfare of animals during international transport. One of its most important provisions is that during transport these animals must not be left for more than 24 hours without being fed and watered unless the journey can be completed within a reasonable period.

The welfare of exported animals has also been improved by the provisions of the Transit of Animals General Order 1973 which introduced general safeguards to protect the welfare of animals in transit by any means of transport. There is also the directive to which I referred earlier, 77/489. The noble Baroness asked in particular what is the position with regard to bobby calves. That is a terminology which has traditionally been used to refer to calves which go for immediate slaughter.

As I have said, no calves go for export for immediate slaughter because it is not economical to do so. All calves which do go, go for fattening. I cannot tell the noble Baroness what are the exact figures for calves but I can tell her that in 1979 total cattle exports—the majority of these refer to calves—were 500,000 head, which was 3 per cent. less than in 1978. In 1980, the number dropped to 370,000 head, which was about 26 per cent. less than in 1979. The noble Baroness will also wish to know that all calves which do go abroad have to be inspected by a Government vet and that they must be over 50 kilogrammes in weight before they are exported. Government vets enforce this rule strictly when they inspect the calves. There are, therefore, no very young calves which are exported.

It is estimated that 30,000 cattle and between 50,000 and 60,000 sheep are transported annually from the islands to the mainland for immediate or early slaughter. There is also a reverse trade in live finished cattle from Aberdeenshire to the Island of Lewis and a small inter-island trade in finished cattle and sheep. The prohibition of these movements of stock would place the islands in a serious financial position by the closure of outlets to a wider market.

A problem could also arise in the beef industry. This industry traditionally relies upon supplies of fattened store cattle from Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. These animals, too, are imported by sea. In 1980, over 110,000 animals were brought in. If the provisions of this Bill were to come into effect, this trade would stop and it would have severe consequences for our beef supplies in Great Britain.

My Lords, for many of us who have an open mind on this issue, a great deal turns on this question. A lot of the debate has missed the point which seemed to be made by my noble friend Lord Houghton of Sowerby: that these powers to make by-laws are subject to confirmation by the Minister. Is it the case that the power to confirm or to refuse could be used in order to prevent any unreasonable by-law in the case, for example, of the trade between the Scottish Islands and the mainland? Or is the power to confirm or not to confirm not used in that way?

My Lords, if the noble Lord will be good enough to contain himself, I shall come to the point to which he addresses his mind quite correctly. There is another aspect of the Bill to which I should like to refer before turning to that point; namely, that if the Ministers of Agriculture and Transport were to approve any by-law which could be construed as limiting trade between members of the European Community, they would be placing the Government at the risk of causing a breach of its obligations under the Treaty of Rome.

My noble friend Lord Stanley of Alderley says that this kind of prohibition, if not observed within other states would be discriminatory. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that this is not so, because Article 36 of the Treaty of Rome would permit this. The Government's legal advice is that a by-law banning exports or imports even from one port could constitute a breach of our obligations under Articles 34 and 30 of the Treaty of Rome. The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, suggested that Article 36 permits a ban on the grounds of public morality but I have to tell him that past rulings of the European Court of Justice give us no reason to believe that a ban could successfully be defended on these grounds.

Article 30 of the Treaty of Rome prohibits quantitative restrictions on imports or measures having an equivalent effect. Article 34 contains similar provisions relating to exports. Our legal advisers consider that these articles include local restrictions such as those proposed in the Bill. Such measures would, at the very least, result in the diversion of trade which could cause delays and additional transport costs to the exporter.

There is the implication in Clause 1(5) that the Bill should be applied uniformly. The European Court has ruled that all trading rules enacted by member states which are capable of hindering directly or indirectly, actually or potentially, intra-Community trade, are to be considered as measures having an equivalent effect to quantitative restrictions.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said that the bye-laws can be justified on such grounds, even if they are considered to contravene Articles 30 and 34 of the treaty. I am bound to tell your Lordships that our legal advisers very much doubt whether a case on these grounds could be made before the courts.

Apart from this, Article 36 also provides that any restrictions or prohibitions imposed on the grounds provided in Article 36 must not constitute a means of arbitrary discrimination or a disguised discrimination of trade between member states. Council directive 77/489 EEC on the protection of animals during international transport has been adopted to harmonise member states' laws in that regard, in order to eliminate the technical barriers to trade in live animals which could result from disparrities between national laws. The European Court of Justice has ruled that in such circumstances recourse to Article 36 is no longer available.

The Government are also concerned about the precedent which this Bill could set for the use of ports for our seaborne trade generally. The control of our exports and imports must manifestly be a matter of national policy and not, I suggest, of local determination. For this reason alone, I am sure that the Bill will not be welcomed either by shippers or shipowners generally, although I accept that the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, would not be particularly worried about that. However, I know that the Department of Trade has had representations from the Freight Transport Association which includes the British Shippers' Council.

It is to individual harbour authorities to whom the Bill would give the responsibility for judging whether a trade had given rise to public concern as being offensive to public morality or contrary to public policy. I would venture to suggest that it is wholly inappropriate to place a subjective responsibility of that nature upon commercial bodies. In the first place, we would be creating an obvious conflict of interest, since ports depend on all kinds of traffic for their livelihood. Some ports already have a trade in farm animals, and there will always be others who could see a reasonable prospect of obtaining such business. In the second place, the Bill could lead to an arbitrary assessment of public concern in a particular locality and it could result in divergent by-laws being enforced at different ports around the country. I suggest this is not a matter on which there should be a variety of methods of application of the law but one common approach within the country.

The noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said, "Don't worry about this, all by-laws must have the approval of the Minister"—and here we come to the point raised by the noble Lord. If I got his words correctly I think the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, said that the Minister is the Ark of the conscience of the community. The Bill goes further than that. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont, said that he was all for devolution and let individual local authorities do what they like. Further, there is an implied obligation under Clause 1(5) that a Minister should—not just "could" but "should"—impose these restrictions on trade if he feels that any harbour authority does not at present have sufficient by-laws of its own to achieve that end.

So although the Bill may appear to give freedom of choice to individual harbour authorities in fact it places upon the Minister an overriding power which could enable him to ensure that the provisions of this Bill apply nationally to all harbour authorities, irrespective of their views. Furthermore, it gives the Minister the power to make the by-laws which will have the same effect as if the harbour authority had made the by-laws, even if the authority did not want to have them.

So this has other implications for harbour authorities. It runs counter to the long-standing policy that ports should remain open to all users provided that port charges are paid. This policy is expressed in Section 33 of the Harbours, Docks and Piers Clauses Act of 1847 which is incorporated into the local legislation of most harbour authorities. The Bill would involve a major and unwelcome departure from this policy. At the same time it would place on harbour authorities the responsibility for administering a policy which has nothing whatsoever to do with safe navigation or with the proper regulation of a harbour, which are the duties for which they are established.

This is of course a Private Member's Bill and your Lordships can do what your Lordships see fit with it, but I am bound to leave the House with a clear impression of the Government's attitude to the welfare of farm animals which are intended for export, and it is this. We believe that this trade should be permitted to continue but with added legal safeguards. The Government have set up the Farm Animal Welfare Council to give advice on matters affecting the welfare of farm animals and it has already considered the Government's proposals for the new safeguards for the welfare of farm animals during export and during carriage by water. In our view, these measures should apply throughout the country and not on a port by port basis as is proposed in the Bill.

The Government understand, and indeed share, the deep concern of those who are committed to improving the welfare of farm animals, and many of your Lordships have spoken on that basis this evening. We all want to see animals well and properly cared for, but I suggest that the Bill has to be considered in all its aspects and not just in relation to one aspect, however important that may be. I am bound to tell your Lordships that the Government's view is that the adverse effects of this Bill, which I have endeavoured to describe, outweigh the advantages of it, and therefore the Government could not support the Bill.

My Lords, first I must thank all noble Lords who have taken part in this debate. It is obvious that this Bill has aroused considerable interest and has been more controversial than I expected. Our debate today has not been nearly so entertaining as some of the debates we had on the Wildlife and Countryside Bill, when we were more relaxed and we had more friends across the Chamber than I appear to have at the present moment. Nevertheless I have assumed this task and I am going to stick doggedly to it.

I must make an apology to the noble Lord, Lord Burton, for not having dealt adequately with his question. The infringements that I referred to were those observed by the special investigation branch of the RSPCA in other countries and therefore prosecutions did not lie in the hands of those who were observing the infringement. There are obvious difficulties in other countries' nationals trying to prosecute those who infringe the law of their own country, so they were reporting infringements outside this country.

I think I should make another observation in passing, which is that probably new considerations will arise in connection with the transportation of animals with Greece already in the enlarged Community, where there are grave doubts about the treatment of animals—and with Spain and Portugal and Turkey also coming in, the enlargement of the EEC will certainly create entirely new problems of freedom of movement of transportation and the removal of trade barriers between member countries. I ask noble Lords to bear that in mind.

I wish those who are not in favour of the Bill had at least made some acknowledgment of the ideal—I would say it is a principle—that living animals which are to be slaughtered should be slaughtered as near as possible to the point of production. That has been stated time and again as the ideal which should be followed, and we should be adjusting our slaughterhouse facilities to the greater observance of that principle than we are doing at the present time.

I believe that one day those who come after us will wonder why we tolerated this traffic at all. There will be alternatives found to regarding living animals as merchandise to be shipped from one place to another and subjected to treatment which offends a great many people. The British Veterinary Association said that they would heartily support this Bill, though they feared, as one or two noble Lords have mentioned, the possibility of longer distances having to be travelled by land if facilities at certain ports were withdrawn. It is better that animals should travel further overland in this country than have longer sea voyages or journeys by land in other countries. That is the experience which I think most people would say justifies keeping as much as possible within our own control.

Let me now straight away dispose of the problem of Scotland and the transportation of animals between islands and the mainland within the United Kingdom. The Bill does not specifically exclude them and it does not directly or indirectly refer to them, but I would say that this is a matter which could be dealt with at the Committee stage of the Bill. We could in fact leave Scotland out of it altogether, as so frequently Scotland is left out of legislation which applies to England and Wales, so I hope that no noble Lords will regard the special difficulties of transportation from islands to the mainland of Scotland as a serious obstacle to approving the general principles of this Bill.

The real principle is whether we can make some progress towards a better solution of a problem which will stay with us whatever we do. I believe that ultimately the only straight and sensible course is to phase out this traffic altogether—and let me remind my noble friend Lord Wallace, who has spoken from the Front Bench, that this is part of Labour Party policy and I have not the slightest doubt that one day this will appear in the manifesto to which he will be committed. I must say that as of now I am drawn more to the Social Democratic Party than I am to my noble friend on the Front Bench. At least I have heard the voice that I wanted to hear from our Front Bench, and I cannot make any promises about my future political allegiance. However, meantime I must put up with what my noble friend said from the Front Bench.

My Lords, the noble Lord will be quite welcome over here if he has any doubts.

My Lords, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, kept on saying "if this Bill is applied", "if the provisions of this Bill applied"; it was as if this Bill were imposing directly the options which are available under the Bill. The options are there, but they are not necessarily applied to anybody, not necessarily imposed on anybody either. It is a matter of particular harbour authorities, particularly probably the municipally-owned ones which have local electorates bringing their opinions to bear upon them. It is there that the disposition of a harbour authority is probably stronger towards exercising the option under this Bill than in a nationalised port which has no necessary response to make to local opinion. It is only if local opinion is strong enough and the port authority, a local one, take no action to respond to that local opinion that the Minister would come in to exercise his powers by requiring that particular port authority to make the necessary by-laws.

I think heavy weather has been made on all sides about a good deal of the detail of this Bill, losing sight of the fact that there is a firm principle involved here—that is, whether we are going to have more de-centralisation, whether we are going to have more control over our environment or whether we are to exercise some responsibility. And I emphasise that word; it is not a whim, it is not an emotion, it is responsibility for the attitude of citizens towards activities which are going on in their midst. I think we must bear that aspect of the matter in mind. The difficulties that might arise as between one port and another are inseparable from the exercise of any degree of local autonomy. We have spoken of regional decentralisation, we have been bewitched by devolution and decentralisation in recent years; we have in fact tried to get a greater acceptance of devolution in both Scotland and Wales. So the principles of this Bill are clearly written into a great many political tendencies at the present time.

Well, my Lords, there is a great deal else that could be said. I feel very strongly that the issues in this Bill are worth your Lordships' approval, for examination as thoroughly as your Lordships like in the Committee stage of the Bill. I regret that I cannot respond to the suggestion that I should withdraw it. I do not do things to withdraw them—not of this magnitude. I have spent a great deal of time and thought on this Bill. I have convinced myself about it, and there is not the slightest reason why If should withdraw, no matter how critical the views of noble Lords opposite. They have all been in favour of keeping this trade going. No concessions have been made in the speeches I have listened to, and I have listened to them all, about wanting to meet the public disquiet and distress about this trade, which is more widespread than in the ports directly affected.

I am afraid that this is the attitude of the conservative frame of mind. I use that term not in a political sense at all, because I do not want to make any political points in my final few observations. But we do have to move on from where we are; otherwise we should still be in the middle of the slave trade, to which I have already referred. However, I see that your Lordships are ready to give this Bill a Second Reading, so I strongly thank you for doing so, and invite all noble Lords who feel as I do, if we have a Division, to come into the Lobby with me.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government how their policy on El Salvador and its immediate neighbours is evolving.

My Lords, I very warmly welcome and endorse the analysis of my noble friend Lord Chitnis of what is happening in El Salvador, and I believe that the resistance forces there exist, not because of the outside encouragement to which reference has sometimes been made, but because of the internal situation in the country itself, on the basis of inequalities which have been apparent in that society over very many years. I think that the resistance forces are acting out of a desire for national liberation and social justice, and that they represent, very broadly, the people of El Salvador; and there should be mechanisms by which the people of El Salvador should be allowed to decide their own destiny free from the interventions of any outside power, and that particularly includes the supply of arms from any source whatever.

Although the spotlight is on El Salvador these days, it is not the only country in Central America where human life is held cheap. In neighbouring Guatemala, which is a country of 5½ million inhabitants, the Government programme of political murder, described in a report published in February 1981 by Amnesty International, has intensified recently, and this may not be unconnected with the fact that the American Right see the régime of President Luis Garcia, as they see that of President Duarte in El Salvador, as a bastion of anti-Communism.

The authoritative Latin American Bureau in a study entitled Guatemala—Unnatural Disaster, which was published in 1978, pointed out that while the earthquake in 1976 claimed over 22,000 lives and rendered over one million people homeless, in the years 1970 to 1974, 15,000 died at the hands of the Government-sponsored right wing terrorist groups; uncounted numbers died from malnutrition due to the inegalitarian social policies and particularly to land tenure; trade unions were repressed and attacked as the "enemy of reconstruction", and thousands of peasants were forcibly evicted from their holdings.

Now Amnesty International, in one of the most horrifying documents ever to have been published by that organisation, reveals, in all its loathsome detail, the policies of the Guatemalan régime today; it is alleged that the death squads, the Escudrón de la Muerte and the Ejérato Secreto Anticomunista, operate under the direct control of the President's office.

In 1979, according to official spokesmen, the Escudrón de la Muerte killed 1,224 so-called criminals between January and June, and the ESA killed 3,252 alleged subversives in the first 10 months of that year alone. Not a single one of these thousands of murders has ever been solved. The assassinations continued at the same rate in 1980, although official figures are not available. Among those who were murdered last year were four Catholic priests, including, for instance, Father Conrado De La Cruz, who was detained with 44 other people at a demonstration on 1st May. He and his assistant, Herlindo Cifuentes, have never been seen again and many of those who were arrested at the same time were later found murdered. Florencia Xocop Chavez, a leader of the trade union at a textile plant in the capital, was abducted together with 26 other trade union leaders meeting in the Centrale Nacional de Trabajadores, the equivalent of the TUC, on the afternoon of Sunday, 21st June. None of those trade union leaders has been seen since that date.

Senora Juana Turn De Menchu, wife of one of the peasants who was killed in the Spanish Embassy occupation, was detained as she walked home to her village on 19th April 1980, and again has never been seen since. A final example and a particularly interesting one, because he is one of the few people who have escaped after having been arrested, is Victor Manuel Valverth Morales, an engineering student, who was arrested by two plain-clothes men in the engineering department on the campus of the university. But after he had been shot several times by these two plainclothes men, he was rescued by fellow students. They secured the identification papers of the two kidnappers, which showed that one of them was a military intelligence agent and the other a member of the so-called "Treasury Police". I am glad to say that Valverth recovered from his wounds and is now in exile in Costa Rica.

The Amnesty International report contains detailed statements, first, from the survivor of a military torture camp, who endured being hung up by his testicles, kicked unconscious and hooded with quick lime, and who also saw three fellow prisoners garroted in front of his eyes. The report contains the testimony of a conscript soldier who witnessed many tortures and murders. If anybody wants this information confirmed by independent sources, this is what the former Field Director for Oxfam, who spent four years in Guatemala, had to say:

"The wholesale slaughter, for there is no other word for it, has spared no sector of society".

Dr. Villagarn Kramer, the former Vice-President of Guatemala, who resigned his office in Washington last September because he could not do so in Guatemala in case he would be assassinated, said that his main reason for relinquishing office was the disregard of the Guatemalan régime for human rights. I think that it is rather surprising that none of this information is thought worthy of comment either, I gather, in the United States' media or even more so in the United Kingdom, where one would have thought that because of the situation with regard to Belize it might have been worthy of comment.

But United States policy on Guatemala seems to be designed to have the very opposite effect of that which is intended; that is, it will drive the people of Guatemala into the arms of the Communists. Recently three United States envoys—General Daniel Graham, Belden Bell and General John K. Singlaub—visited the country and pledged support for the terrorist régime of Luis Garcia. General Singlaub came very close to declaring his sympathy for the death squads. Frankly, I must say that the Americans seem to be choosing some very odd friends. The trouble is that in the long-run, when these dictators are finally overthrown, those who had to struggle for their freedom against murderers and thugs, who were armed with American weapons, are not going to be exactly sympathetic to the United States.

Britain's relationship with Guatemala is a tricky one because we have no diplomatic relations with the country and because we have the responsibility to ensure that the independence of Belize is secure. Nobody wants to do anything whatsoever that will jeopardise or hinder the progress of that country towards independence. One wants to ensure at the same time, however, that nothing in the agreement that we make with Guatemala could involve this country in action, either direct or indirect, against the democratic forces of the opposition in Guatemala.

There have recently been bombing attacks against villages on the Guatemalan side of the frontier with Belize. I should like to ask the noble Lord when he replies whether he would tell the House if the roads mentioned in paragraph 5 of the Heads of Agreement signed between the United Kingdom and Guatemala on 11th March will facilitate military operations by the Guatemalan forces against the rebels, or against the civilian population in the neighbourhood of the frontier with Belize. In this respect the situation in Guatemala bears a close resemblance to that in El Salvador, the attacks being indiscriminate. Although they may be said to be directed against terrorists, it is frequently innocent civilians who lose their lives.

The Heads of Agreement also provide in paragraph 9 that Belize and Guatemala shall agree upon certain development projects of mutual benefit. If the treaty, or treaties, giving effect to this clause involve any payment of aid by the United Kingdom will it be ensured that that aid is related to bona fide development projects, and that stringent safeguards will be incorporated in them to ensure that resources are not diverted into military or quasi military purposes?

In conclusion, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to the report of the UN Commission on Human Rights of 26th January 1981 on the question of missing and disappeared persons. That Commission, of which the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, was a distinguished member, received information in great detail about murders, disappearances and tortures in Guatemala of named individuals. The Commission wrote to the Government of Guatemala first on 30th June last year and then again on 30th September asking for the Government's observations, and no reply was ever received.

I should like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, for an assurance—and I know he will be prepared to give this assurance—that we will continue to support the work of that Commission, so that the international community may ultimately build up an effective system for detecting, exposing, and even finally punishing crimes against the people committed by the main powers which are supposed to protect them from injury, which is the hope of the tortured, the bereaved, and the dispossessed in Guatemala just as much as in El Salvador.

My Lords, I cannot attempt to follow the noble Lord, Lord Avebury; precisely. In any event, he was mostly talking about the next-door country, Guatemala, although it of course has a great deal of relevance to this issue. Our thanks must be due to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for introducing this subject at such a timely moment. I should probably declare an interest, as I think I am the only Member of your Lordships' House who has actually lived in El Salvador. I lived there some 20 years ago for nearly three years. Although this gives me only a little knowledge, which has been helpful, it has given me above all a great feeling for the people who live there. Many of my friends have in fact been killed in the present and recent troubles.

When I went to live in El Salvador I never used to declare that, because nobody had ever heard of it. I always used to say I was going to live in Central America. They more or less knew where that must be by definition. Unfortunately now, by virtue of the unfortunate happenings in that country, everybody has heard of El Salvador.

I should like to take up one interesting point that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, made about military victory. I am sure we are all agreed that military victory is not the objective, can never be, and should never be. But in order to achieve the objectives laid down and spoken about by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, it is essential that we have some sort of law and order. What seems to me to be happening in El Salvador is a power struggle between the Left and the Right. The Government have to establish some system in the country whereby people can go about their daily business. In a struggle between Left and Right, this is not the same as it was in Nicaragua. That was a special case where there was a single oligarchy. In El Salvador no such oligarchy exists. What exists is an emergent middle class, unfortunately insufficiently established to have been able to give the stability in the political system at a crucial period in the 1960s.

It is necessary when considering El Salvador to go back to the 1960s because frequently one hears, and reads in the press, and there has been a lot of coverage, that democracy has never existed in El Salvador. That is not correct. There was a fragile parliamentary system which unfortunately collapsed due to pressures from all sides. Indeed, at one time President Duarte, now held up as being very much a Right-Wing character, was considered to be the most radical person in existence. It shows that thinking has changed.

It behoves us to think a great deal about what President Duarte, a parliamentarian, a man who has been a candidate for the presidency in democracy, is trying to achieve, and his long-range objectives. But as the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, put it so clearly you cannot create, or re-create, instant democracy. In a country where there is a great deal of illiteracy, and so much outside interference which has produced this instability, the immediate reintroduction of one man one vote is an unlikely panacea. I was very happy to hear the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, say that.

From the point of view of Britain, this is not really our main area of interest. Unfortunately, our trade and our involvement in Central America are very low. Some of us have struggled manfully to try to raise them, but it is outside our generally recognised sphere of influence. It is therefore essentially a North American problem. The North-South relationship, the whole of the hemispheric dialogue between the United States, Central and South America, is something of vital importance, and is insufficiently understood in Europe. It requires increasing knowledge and increasing dissemination, and this is another reason why I welcome this debate this evening so much, because it will help to propagate the problems of Central America which are insufficiently recognised.

Whatever happens it is no good us in the West, or indeed in the East, trying to impose solutions from the outside. What we can do—and I hope that the noble Lord who replies will say something about this—is to encourage the organisations with which we are associated, like the Organisation of American States, and indeed the leading and great republics in Latin America such as Mexico, Venezuela, Brazil and Argentina, to play a much greater part in participating in Caribbean affairs in general. When talking about the Caribbean one must include Central America.

Meanwhile, the bloodshed must cease, and in that respect I welcome the United States initiative. I hope the Minister will say that we are supporting that initiative in trying to achieve those ends. It is an absurd situation that the United States Embassy should be in a state of seige in a country where it is trying to restore law and order. Until we get law and order, the objectives outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, will never be achieved, nor will the objective of-re-creating economic prosperity.

I say that because it is a small country with a very dynamic population, but unfortunately many of the entrepreneurial people have been driven out and their businesses put under seige. As for the solutions that have been proposed, one is instant land reform of the whole country, breaking the estates up, when in fact the estates do not dominate the position. It is often said that, with a population of 4 million, the land there is owned by only 2 per cent. of the pepole. It must be borne in mind, however, that though a small country, that represents about 100,000 farms. Economic activity and agricultural development, which will only come after stability is re-created, will bring about a new way of life in Central America.

Some years ago, as noble Lords will be aware, Central American countries tried to group together in a common market, but it foundered for a variety of reasons; for example, because of the Salvador—Honduras conflict, because of the economic problems in other countries and because of problems in Nicaragua. Ultimately, it will restart, because in the limited spell of its life it achieved an enormous increase in intra-regional trade; countries which had previously not spoken to one another began to realise that by working together they could achieve something.

It is a fragile institution which still exists but it broke down because of differences and political ambitions in the individual countries. Therefore, I believe our best effort rather than criticising, as we do, in the press—would be to see where we can help to fortify the international institutions which are working in El Salvador and in the whole of Central America. We must try to see where we can be of help to re-create a sensible trading pattern so that the products which those countries produce can be exported, and many of their agricultural products have great opportunities in the West and elsewhere, particularly if a climate of investment can be created.

One should in that context mention the large corporations or multinationals, which are frequently castigated. In fact, in Central America the multinationals have brought nothing but benefit. Unfortunately, they have been insufficiently involved because of the smallness of the area and the fragility of the then common market; probably Honduras was the only country in which the larger corporations were involved to any extent, and that fell apart a long time ago.

The development of the area about which we are speaking will take place only by the re-creation of a climate appropriate to investment, and that means investment by the nationals of the country; about 80 per cent. of all investments in Central America has come from domestic capital formations. Until that sort of climate is re-created—and it requires peace and order—we shall never see a solution to the problem.

My Lords, we have listened with great respect to the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, because of his residence in El Salvador. It may seem almost an impertinence that someone who has not been there should differ from him in some of his conclusions. I can only say that people are often resident in a country but are in a different environment and have a different political attitude; two people may live in a country together yet come to different conclusions. The views which I shall express are also a reflection of the views of those who have lived in El Salvador and know the circumstances there.

On Sunday 23rd March 1980 the Archbishop of Salvador in a sermon appealed to the members of the security forces not to kill people. He said:

"Brothers, you are from our same pueblo (people), you kill our brother campesinos (peasants); and, before an order to kill given by a man, you ought to reflect on the law of God which says: do not kill. No soldier is obliged to obey an order that is contrary to the law of God … In the name of God, then, and in the name of this suffering pueblo, whose cries rise to the heavens, every day more clamouringly, I beg, I ask, I order you in the name of God: stop the repression".

That sermon was described by a representative of the armed forces as "criminal", and the following evening the archbishop was shot while celebrating Mass in the cancer hospital where he lived to give some service to the dying patients. On the following Sunday, 100,000 people gathered in the square before the Cathedral for the archbishop's funeral service. A bomb was thrown into the crowd and snipers opened fire from buildings around. The funeral service was completed, not only for the archbishop but for the 50 people who had been killed.

I am indebted to Dr. Dermot Keogh, the historian, for those descriptions in his book, Romero: El Salvador's Martyr. He was in the cathedral crowd and he asked, "Where are the police and army?"—accustomed to democratic societies where their duty is to protect the public—and the answer he got was, "Outside, shooting in at us". I recite that incident because it indicates two conclusions. The first is that the present Government there, initiated by overcoming by a military coup in October 1979 50 years of dictatorships, are often described as moderate. Because they began with a programme of human rights and democracy they are still presented to us as being democratic. But in fact they have sadly deteriorated in their policy—deteriorated from violation of human rights to the point of massive extermination. It is the army of the Government that is guilty of violence against peaceful crowds such as occurred outside the cathedral. In addition to the army, reactionary paramilitary forces are supported by the Government and allowed to shoot at will.

The second conclusion is that the victims of the repression are not members of Marxist resistance organisations only. They are Catholics (the archbishop and the cathedral crowd); they are many Christian Democrats; above all, they are innocent, defenceless peasants in that territory. According to the records of the Catholic Church in El Salvador, an overwhelming proportion of those killed are unarmed civilians.

One must say something about the attitude of the Government of the United States. They are now supporting the Government of repression in El Salvador. President Reagan has stated openly that human rights are secondary; the struggle against communist states and dangers must come first. But, my Lords, what is the democratic case against communism? It is the denial of human rights It is the denial of political liberties. I do not think there is any doubt that, proportionately to the population, El Salvador denies human rights more than does the Soviet Union itself. I am always reluctant to describe political opponents as hypocrites. But what word other than hypocrisy can be used when, at the present Madrid Conference, the United States representative is threatening to disrupt all the proceedings by denunciation of human rights in the Soviet Union?

I make my position clear. I am against the denial of human rights in any country. I have stated publicly that I will not go to the Soviet Union on the invitation of the Government because of their repression of human rights. But 82 countries in the world are repressing human rights, according to a survey of the United Nations. To seek to threaten the progress of detente and disarmament in the world by selecting only the Soviet Union, while supporting in El Salvador a government which are repressing human rights is, to say the least, illogical and not justifiable.

The United States Government justify their attitude by stating that Cuba has been supplying arms to the resistance in El Salvador and that they have been passing through Nicaragua. They have been showing to our Government, or to the governments of Western Europe, a document which appears to justify that statement. Cuba has denied that it has supplied arms. Nicaragua has denied that it has allowed them to go through its territory. They say that the document that has been shown to governments is a forgery which has been committed by the CIA. I want to acknowledge at once that I cannot judge the truth of what is said on both sides, but one knows from the history of the CIA that in the past it has been guilty of forgeries, guilty even of assassinations. The CIA and the KGB of the Soviet Union are together the most dangerous international organisations in the world at the present time.

I wish to end my speech on a constructive note. The Human Rights Commission has appointed a rapporteur to go to El Salvador. I am glad to know that the representative of the United Kingdom voted in favour of that proposal at the United Nations Commission. The representative of the United States did not do so; he abstained. I want to suggest that the rapporteur from the Human Rights Commission should not he satisfied merely with giving a report of the situation as he sees it. He will be meeting representatives of all the communities and ideologies in El Salvador. He will be meeting the representatives of the powerful Catholic Church. He will be meeting many Christian Democrats. He will be meeting the representatives of the two resistance organisations, one of which is Marxist. He will be meeting the Government. I should like to see him return with a proposal that moderate members of the Government, representatives of the Catholic Church, and other organisations in El Salvador should be brought together under the auspices of either the United Nations itself or the Organisation of American States. They should be brought together and world influence should be exerted to bring about both a ceasefire and, after a period, democratic elections which would allow the people of El Salvador itself to determine its future.

My Lords, I apologise if a cough, which becomes worse as the hour gets later, makes it impossible for me to stay to the end of the debate. I want to take up a point which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, emphasised at the beginning of the debate; namely, that El Salvador is of growing concern to many ordinary people in our country. I should like to approach that point by declaring a financial interest in El Salvador. I do so, associating myself with many millions of other ordinary people in this country who have a similar financial stake. It is not a financial stake invested in El Salvador for purposes of gain, however; it is a contribution made through Christian Aid to humanitarian services in that country. Perhaps I might remind your Lordships that £7 million was received by Christian Aid for disbursement in 1980, most of that from house-to-house collections throughout the length and breadth of our country. For example, 19½ million gift envelopes were distributed.

Of that £7 million, £150,000 went in aid to El Salvador, first to separate Protestant and Roman Catholic groups but now to the Salvadorian Ecumenical Association of Service and Humanitarian Aid. Let me emphasise the interests that those who make such contributions have in that country by saying that, in February, Christian Aid instituted a special aid for the needy of El Salvador, and in the few weeks since February £65,000 has been contributed to Christian Aid for distribution to the needy in that country. There is therefore wide interest in the goings-on within El Salvador—interest not, I think, stimulated only by contrary reports of this or that pressure group in the media, but simply because those who invest money in this way like to know how it is being used, and those who make those grants available seek to give honest and true reports of what is happening in the country. By these means, I think, ordinary people in this country have entered into some partnership of generosity.

People are disquieted. It is clear, for example, that in January 1980 the civilian politicians in the junta resigned simply because they had failed to bring the security forces under control as they had undertaken to do. The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has given personal examples of harassment, imprisonment and death in El Salvador. The information coming to Christian Aid from the legal aid office in the Catholic archdiocese of San Salvador is that 80 per cent. of the 8,000 non-combatants assassinated in El Salvador during 1980 were murdered by members of the security forces. Eighty per cent. of the 8,000 non-combatants assassinated met their death, by the testimony of the witnesses given to the legal aid office, at the hands of one of the four different security forces operating at the behest of the Government in that country.

Therefore, questions are being asked by ordinary people about the rightness of giving unlimited support to the junta Government from the United States—support which it is sometimes suggested we back up morally through our Government. Hence the British Council of Churches have quite properly, because of this involvement, made representations to the Minister of State. They did so in February, and they received from the Minister, Mr. Ridley, a personal letter. I want to conclude by referring to that letter, and by drawing attention to two passages in it. This was a letter addressed to the Secretary-General of the British Council of Churches, who was writing about these matters of concern. First, the Minister said:

"We do hope that some means can be found to bring about a negotiated settlement to the conflict, and to enable the Salvadorian people to determine their own future in a democratic way".

The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, referred to this in his speech, pointing out that there had to be a negotiated settlement between all parties in that country before there could be a move towards elections, if those elections were to be free and democratic. I would ask the noble Lord the Minister whether it is still the hope of the Government that there might be such a negotiated settlement, and whether the Government will press upon the United States Government to secure this negotiated settlement between all parties in that country. We have had a memorable example of what can be done through effort and negotiation in Zimbabwe, through the negotiated settlement there brought about by the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and his colleagues on behalf of the people of that country and in the name of our Government. I would urge our Government to press the significance of this upon the Government of the United States in the particular problems which now beset the people of El Salvador.

The second passage to which I would refer in the Minister's letter is this—and this has already been referred to by Lord Brockway. The Minister wrote:

"It is not possible to defend resort to violence and terror by either side in the conflict, though in the present circumstances there is rarely much objectivity in reports of what is happening. That is why a thorough and early report by a United Nations investigating team is desirable, and we supported the resolution calling for the establishment of such a team at the United Nations Human Rights Commission in Geneva on 11th March".

The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has already congratulated the Government on taking that step in support of that resolution, and we must ask the Government to pay the most careful attention to the report when it is made and to act upon the information which they receive through the United Nations sources.

Finally, I wish to ask the question: Is it not a tragedy that in such a small country as El Salvador it is quite impossible at the moment to establish the authority of the United Nations in the securing of a ceasefire and a negotiated settlement? The polarisation of the two great world powers is hindering this in the United Nations itself and within that country. Ought we not to be making it a priority in our foreign policy to seek to strengthen the United Nations and to secure for the United Nations the strength of authority and resources in personnel and necessary equipment so that they could intervene in such a situation as this, rather than leaving it to the two super powers making it, as it were, a battlefield of ideology in such a small country as El Salvador? I thank your Lordships for listening to me. I support this Question, and am grateful that it has been asked.

My Lords, it is natural that when an explosion happens like that in El Salvador we in this country should see it first through American eyes because it is from American reports that we hear of it; and that we should then ask ourselves, "What is El Salvador and what are its people like? Let us find out about the country"—and then we send our own television teams and our reporters and, that, thirdly, we begin to say, "What is the right course for the British Government to take in this umpteenth case of conflict between the super-powers with the umpteenth small nation standing to be trodden underfoot between them?" I propose to follow the same order this evening.

The House will remember that one of the first matters which horrified the American people and set the tone for what has happened since was the murder of the three nuns. The House will remember also that Mr. Haig as Secretary of State in an early Congressional hearing implied one day that they had in some sense almost deserved their death because they had been conducting themselves not as nuns and as medical missionaries but in some other capacity. Then, two days later, he withdrew that implication almost claiming that he had never made it. This history was traced with extraordinary skill, I thought, and assiduity, by the American press and particularly by the New York Times. It set the tone.

Then, again, early in the days of the Reagan Administration, Mr. James Cheek, one of the Deputy Secretaries of State, when describing the situation in El Salvador said, "It is like the first signs of a cold. You have to treat it seriously at once and jump on it to stop it spreading." Then we probably all remember the "Panorama" programme in Britain where there was an American expert, not a member of the Administration but one of the directors of one of the institutes for the study of foreign policy in Washington—I think, a former General. He was asked the question, "In what way does El Salvador differ from Vietnam? Why do you not fear that American military involvement in El Salvador might end up in the same way as in Vietnam?" His answer was, "Because it is a smaller country".

We remember how the Reagan Administration's almost first act of foreign policy was to sack its Ambassador in El Salvador because it did not like what he was saying and we may feel perhaps a certain recognition of likelihood in the assessment of the Chinese newspaper, the People's Daily not so long ago, that the reason the United States has chosen this situation—meaning El Salvador—is because it wants to take tough action in a place easily controlled by itself alone with the aim of letting Moscow know that "a new force has emerged in Washington and the days of hesitation and self-doubt are over". Then we note that the American aid to El Salvador at present is only one part military to three parts civilian. That is one way of putting it. If we try it the other way round and say that the military component of American aid to El Salvador is as high as 25 per cent., that strikes one again as an unhelpful presage.

Looking now at the country and what we know of the country—which for most of us is not very much and, for me, I share the ignorance of most people of this country—we see that it has burst into full-scale horror with massacres; and the case of the 1,500 peasants in a cave has been mentioned already by the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis; and there are others. We should not forget that, since 1931, military coups d'etat and civil war have been not the exception but the rule in El Salvador, as they have in other countries, and in one of the coups d'etat in the 1930s there was a massacre in which 30,000 died. Hard as it is to face, the horrors that we are discussing this evening are not new. They are not unusual. It is well known in the world that such things happen in such countries.

What kind of country is it? It is a coffee country. The price of coffee is going down on the world markets. It is a country where in the past few years the Church has been for reform. It is a country where on the whole business, including Lord Montgomery's multinationals, big international business, is against reform. It is a country where there is a long-standing anti-union law so that the workers are not free to organise or to obtain normal political expression. It is a country where only two years ago a junta was set up with the approval of the United States, rather quietly, rather efficiently and with very little bloodshed compared with other occasions. It is a country which is not abnormal either in its own internal, social and economic and political consistency, or in its relations with the United States.

So, what is the way out? Perhaps we may hope that some of the uninhibited approaches from Washington may be becoming tempered by the experience of office. Such horrible things are happening and are being expressed in the American press, not only the massacres but also what has been called the TV war, that is the competition between American television teams to get a bit of war to film and send back, that this is arousing feeling in America and will be something that will cause the American Administration to think again about what is going on.

There is the appointment, which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, reminded us about, of the UN rapporteur by the UN Human Rights Commission. This gives promise of objective reporting of what is going on which may then provide the basis for constructive debate and voting in the UN itself which has not really so far taken place.

There is the changing attitude of Mexico which to begin with went along to a pretty great extent with the uninhibited American attitude and perhaps was stimulated by the appointment of a new American ambassador to Mexico who is an actor and has been the star recently in an immensely successful horror movie. He is fluent in Spanish and it has been a great success in Mexico City and he is particularly identified with the brand of rum that he advertises in television publicity. But who shall tell? The Mexican attitude appears to be changing a little from day to day so that they may come to exercise a restraining influence on Washington.

There is also the fact that the European Community, standing aghast at what has happened, and having no locus to do anything direct, not in our hemisphere, have voted a certain sum. I have seen it quoted at different times as being 400,000 European units of account, that is about £200,000, and also £950,000. I do not know, may be there have been two different votes, first a small one and then it was increased. Perhaps the Government will tell us what the sum now is and what the history of that is. At any rate, they have voted this for transmission to the Salvadorian Red Cross to help refugees both in the country and outside.

The main question that I have is: How does the European Community know that there is a Salvadorian Red Cross? We hope that that money is in a bank somewhere for the right person to claim. How will the Community check that the person claiming it is the right person? How will they check on its administration on the ground in this country in flames?

What should be the attitude of the British Government themselves? We do not even have an embassy there. I do not think that we have an embassy in Nicaragua either, the neighbouring country. There is something unreal about the politics of El Salvador and Nicaragua. Nicaragua is the country which since the victory of the Sandinistars a couple of years ago has sent its Defence Minister to Kampuchea where he has stood up beside the Government of that country and said "We are ready if you permit us to struggle by your side weapon in hand against the Peking expansionists". That is the Nicaraguan policy on East Asia which is of course of interest to us all.

The German Parliament is rather sharply divided between the Social Democrats who back Dr. Ungo, the Salvadorian rebel anti-Government fighter, and the Christian Democrats, who back another anti-Government fighter in and outside El Salvador. I am not sure that the reflection of the German political party conflict in Salvadorian affairs is going to do anybody any good.

Therefore I hope that our Government, acting through the Community, will remember that what is happening in Central America is not unusual and that, though tragic and horrific, it is extremely difficult to understand, that we cannot be certain of understanding it with our own free understandings and that if and when we are invited by the United States to take up a very strong position we should agree only after the most profound reflection.

Central America is not in the NATO area any more then the Persian Gulf is in the NATO area. If we are invited to do this or that by the United States in NATO, prima facie we should do it for, in NATO, over many decades they have been the leading country. In the rest of the world that is not the case, and for the United States to be able to call upon our automatic support in areas outside the NATO area would require, I suggest, a process of democratic analysis and debate in this country as profound as that which preceded the signature of the North Atlantic Treaty in the late 1940s. So let us stand back, let us send money to help the oppressed, let us be sure it finds its way to the oppressed, let us stand back from the alleged misdeeds of Russia and Cuba, let us stand back from the hot-headed aspect of the United States policy, which now appears to be in decline. United States policy now appears to be becoming more sober day by day. Let us remember, above all, the extreme apparent unreality of Central American politics, which may be summed up perhaps by the fact that in the last few days the Nicaraguan Government have broken off diplomatic relations with Cuba because of an alleged Cuban invasion of Colombia, on the Pacific Coast of Colombia.

My Lords, the Question which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has asked this evening refers not only to the Government's policy concerning El Salvador, with which a number of noble Lords have dealt admirably, but to neighbouring countries as well. It is on that basis that I should like to call the Minister's attention to certain aspects of the situation in one of those neighbours—namely, Nicaragua, whose fortunes and future are bound to be affected by developments in El Salvador.

There are two aspects of Her Majesty's Government's policy towards Nicaragua which concern me—namely, our lack of direct diplomatic representation in that country, to which the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, has just referred, and our most inadequate record in respect of Nicaragua so far as economic aid is concerned. I believe we should approach both these questions with a proper appreciation of the delicate, not to say crucial, position of Nicaragua in the Central American situation.

It is some years now since I myself travelled in that part of the world as a junior Minister in the Ministry of Overseas Development. But from what I have read since, and from discussions that I have had with people who have been there recently, including Mr. Frank McElhone, the Shadow Opposition spokesman in another place on aid matters, I believe that the general lessons which I learned years ago are even more relevant to the present situation. Put simply and generally, in relation to the whole region of Central America, the task for all of us who are concerned with the fate of all the countries in that region is to enable the problems related to and derived from great poverty to be tackled and overcome without the continuance in office or the introduction of repressive political régimes, whether of the Right or of the Left. It is because I believe that in Nicaragua they are trying to do just that, that I am joining in this discussion this evening.

When the Somoza régime was overthrown nearly two years ago, the new government certainly represented a move to the left. Indeed, it is difficult to imagine any replacement of the Somoza régime which was not further to the left than it was. But the forces in Nicaragua which now support the new régime are certainly not extremist. They cover a wide spectrum of popular organisations, including trade unions, businessmen, professional organisations, church groups and academics.

The task which that government faces is enormous. The country was already impoverished before the civil war. The bulk of its population were living below the poverty line, as generally reckoned by international agencies. Then, the burden which has been imposed by the war has been tragic in both human and material terms—50,000 people dead; twice that number wounded; 40,000 orphans to be cared for; physical damage to property of crippling proportions.

Surely, such a country facing such problems should have a prior claim for aid from us, as from other donor nations. Yet I understand that official aid to Nicaragua last year from this country amounted to no more than £128,000—a mere drop in an ocean of need. But fortunately that is not the way in which our European partners approach the problems of Nicaragua. Substantial official bilateral contributions come from Holland, from Sweden, from Germany, from France, and from Italy. They are generous contributions, but still inadequate to meet the need that is there. Yet so far as this country is concerned it is the voluntary agencies, not the Government, which realise the nature of the problem there and the need to do all that their limited resources allow.

We have heard references in connection with Christian Aid's activity in El Salvador. In Nicaragua, Christian Aid is also generous in its activities. It combines with War on Want, with Oxfam, and with other agencies, and these have together sent some £600,000, which is in striking contrast, I suggest, to the contribution from official sources. It is probably more than these voluntary agencies ought to spare, having regard to the very many other calls upon their funds from troubled areas throughout the world, but no doubt they feel that they have to make that extra effort in helping Nicaragua because their own Government do virtually nothing.

Different people have different critieria to justify the provision of aid for developing countries. Some say that it is justified if it finances exports from the donor. Some urge that aid should go to the poorest people. Some may say that it should be applied to ensure political stability. These are different approaches to the question of overseas aid. But whatever the reasons that one applies, whatever the critieria, it seems clear to me that Nicaragua can advance and, indeed, has advanced an urgent claim for British official aid. Yet, as I have said, practically none is forthcoming. I believe that to be wrong and I believe that it is a wrong which should be righted.

Finally, I wish briefly to turn to the question of diplomatic representation in Nicaragua. I recognise that when the embassy was closed in the mid-1970s, that decision was part of the pursuit of economies in the diplomatic service generally. I suppose it was natural that a group of small countries in the Central American region would be considered an obvious area in which representative services could be shared. But if I am right, as I believe I am, that Nicaragua is something of a test case as to whether a moderate political régime can become firmly established in that region; if I am right, as I believe I am, that a much larger aid programme is needed; and if I am right as again I believe I am—that shared diplomatic services with Costa Rica are proving inadequate, then I believe that it all adds up to a case for re-establishing at least a small embassy in Managua. When, therefore, the Government consider action in relation to this evening's discussion, as they must, and when the Government consider, for instance, the points which the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, raised in his opening speech I hope they will also consider the two main points which I have raised in connection with Nicaragua: the need for a much more generous aid programme and, in that connection, the need for diplomatic representation in that country.

My Lords, like all noble Lords I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for having put down this question because I think it is a subject which this House should very properly investigate deeply and carefully. I have been only to Mexico and Venezuela. I have never been to San Salvador. I should also like to mention, before I speak in detail, that I am speaking having been approached by the Catholic bishops and many Catholic organisations who have given me much information about this sad subject, information which I am afraid has often led me to the sad conclusion that our great ally, the United States, for whom I have the greatest respect, is not exactly on the same lines as I would like to see it.

The scale of killings in San Salvador is absolutely appalling. The population is about 4 million or 5 million and in 1980. 12,000 people were killed. That is 3 per cent. of the population, which is equivalent to 150,000 being killed in one year in our own country. These were killed by the security forces and the other Right-wing groups—very often the security forces, so to speak, in plain clothes. In this year, 1981, 5,000 have already been killed. I am not forgetting that of course there have been murders and kidnappings by the Left-wing guerrillas at the same time; but the vast majority of the terrible deaths have taken place at the hand of the Government.

In San Salvador there is the awful problem of terrible poverty and injustice, common to many Central American states. Fifty per cent. of the population is illiterate. There is malnutrition of 75 per cent. of the children under five. These are appalling things to say. Sixty per cent. of the land is apparently owned by 2 per cent. of the population and this, to my mind, sets a situation which I cannot believe is right.

The Catholic Church, which as your Lordships know I belong to, has taken a line in that country which, as has already been quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, resulted in Archbishop Romero being machine-gunned and then that ghastly killing of further people when they rallied to the memorial service of his funeral. The shootings undoubtedly came from the Government palace. Six Catholic priests have been shot recently and we all know about the American nuns and the other missionary who were raped and killed the other day.

What is really significant about this is that there has been no effort on the part of the Junta to try to find out who did these things. That is what makes it incomprehensible to me.

One noble Lord said that the American Ambassador was sacked. That is not true, my Lords. The American Ambassador, Bob White, is a marine general—and marines in the United States Army are like the Brigade of Guards in our army, if I may make a little joke in this sad moment; they are very tough people. This marine general, Bob White, resigned. He said he could not go along with the policy that was being asked of the Reagan Government. He resigned in January 1981, and as I understand, he has been replaced.

My Lords, will the noble Duke allow me to apologise to the House for having misled it on that point. Of course he resigned and the noble Duke is quite right about that, but there are resignations which amount almost to dismissal when the policy that a man is expected to enunciate is one which his masters know he cannot agree with.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord very much for that. What we are really saying is that there was a great disagreement between the Ambassador on the spot and the State Department in Washington. I see the noble Lord is nodding approval, which is what I want.

Another thing that has been talked about is the question of Nicaragua. We all know what happened and how there is a new Government in Nicaragua. But I do not believe that it is becoming a totally communist Government at all, as is hinted by some of the announcements of the American Government. I have two little almost amusing things to say on this. The Foreign Office is run by a Foreign Secretary who is a Catholic priest, Father Miguel D'Esto, a Mary Knoll father—that is like a white father. I do not believe that the Mary Knoll Fathers are communists. The Minister for the Arts and the literary side of it is a Jesuit. I do not think the Jesuits are communists. I am not saying that Nicaragua is not more friendly to Cuba than I would like if I was American, but I do not believe—and I am informed that is right—that Nicaragua is totally in the hands of the Cubans and that they are putting clandestine arms across the estuary into San Salvador.

What we want, and what I hope the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will say he is hoping for, is a negotiated peace. That is what we must all try to achieve. I do not believe there is any chance of El Salvador becoming another Cuba. If it did become another Cuba, I know what that would mean. If you become a communist state you remain a communist state, with the Politburo and the Red Army dominating you. We have seen that in Poland, we have seen that in Lithuania, Latvia, right down to Hungary. I know about that subject. I served for two years of my 30 years in the British Army commanding the British State Mission with the Soviet Forces in Germany, and I toured East Germany for two years of my life. I know exactly what the tyranny of the Red Army is, and what a powerful Red Army it is too, and the awfulness of the East German régime. I do not believe there is any likelihood of that spreading to El Salvador. I think there is a much greater likelihood of the Americans supporting such an extreme Right-wing régime that there would be a revolution and this would encourage that to happen. The new archbishop, who replaced Archbishop Romero who was murdered, is called Rivere y Damas; he has been to Washington and told the State Department that he thinks the junta and the guerrilla rebels are willing to talk. This was reported just the other day in the Herald Tribune, reporting the New York Times. And this archbishop has said he hopes that they will take that line of encouraging this talking going on.

The United States Catholic bishops, led by Archbishop Hickey of Washington, on 2nd March called on the State Department, and asked President Reagan and his Government—and I quote—"for the termination of all military aid to El Salvador and for new efforts to facilitate a negotiated political solution to the conflict ". So they asked that there should be the termination of this military support to the junta. I say that I hope the Government will follow the initiative that is being given by some of the other states we know so well, such as Germany and Sweden and Austria, and I believe Mexico and Venezuela, in calling for an international conference to try and achieve a lasting peace by international mediation between the two sides in El Salvador, to enable democracy and free elections to take place in that country.

I do not believe that President Duarte is in need of the support that America is giving him. In fact, he has said quite openly that he wishes to receive the American 126 million dollars he is getting for land settlement, but he does not want this 35 million dollars for arms that he is having forced upon him.

My Lords, in view of the interesting and informative speeches that have been made by all of your Lordships I think that the whole House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for initiating this debate. One thing that it has done is to provide the opportunity for the focussing of attention on a part of the world about which—as regards some of us, at any rate—very little detail is known. For myself I admit that my knowledge of Latin America is very limited indeed. Had it not been for an approach from a certain quarter which I shall mention in a moment or two, I doubt very much whether I would have regarded myself as sufficiently knowledgeable to take part in a debate on Latin America.

This debate provides the opportunity to bring to the attention of your Lordships' House and the Government and as many people as are willing to listen the situation of miners in that area. The observations that I propose to make concern mainly the country of Nicaragua. Most of the speeches tonight have been about El Salvador, and as I shall base my remarks almost exclusively upon Nicaragua and the miners I shall, perhaps, be out on a limb.

However, it is now less than two years since the Somoza régime, after 40 years of dictatorial rule, was overthrown and in that short space of time my information is that the first decisive steps are being taken towards social and economic reconstruction in that country. Nowhere I gather is this more evident than in the mining sector. It might quite properly be asked, "How do I know this?", not having been there. The source of my information is from people who quite recently have visited this country, certainly since the revolution of 1979. The channel of communication has been the Miners' International Federation who very recently sent a European delegation to visit miners in Latin America, and Nicaragua was one of the countries that was visited by this delegation. I am pleased to say that the National Union of Mineworkers of Great Britain was part of that delegation and the NUM, as a result of that visit to Latin America, feels—and this has already been demonstrated in the debate by many of the speeches tonight—that Britain can and should do more to help Nicaraguan miners; hence its desire that this particular matter of the mining situation and miners in Latin America should be ventilated. As almost everyone will know, unlike Britain's the mines in Nicaragua are gold and silver mines, whereas ours are coal mines. One thing has struck me about miners: that wherever they mine a product—whether it be gold, silver, copper or coal—there is an affinity, a kind of fellow feeling; it may be more pronounced among miners than among any other body of workers. I think that it is because they face the same hazards and dangers in extracting nature's treasure for the use of mankind.

I am led to understand that during the 40 years of the Somoza régime, the mines in Nicaragua were owned by foreign countries, and mainly by North American interests. The verdict upon what they were doing in that country for the working conditions of the miners, their health and their wages, proper exploration and investment in the mines and in machinery, was that it was negligible. The new Government have inherited a host of problems connected with mining. For instance, just after the revolution ended and the new Government took office most of the foreign technicians left the country, and plant and machinery have been allowed to deteriorate. In fact, the new Government inherited the mining sector of the economy in a state of collapse.

As I understand it, the position is that immediately after the end of the revolution and the coming to office of the new régime one mine was completely lost; another is only operating at a third capacity and another mine, during or just after the revolution and the taking over by the new régime, was completely closed after an attack of arson.

The NUM delegation, for which I am really speaking tonight, on its visit to the country was able to witness the conditions of the miners in the mine that it visited. For instance, it drew attention to the fact that miners were carrying drills and other heavy equipment in temperatures of 47 degrees centigrade. I am told that that is hotter than a Turkish bath. The delegation reports that safety measures were appalling and that ventilation, which is so necessary in any kind of mine, however deep it might be, is an absolute must. It seems to me that if temperatures are of the nature that I have just mentioned—47 degrees centigrade—it is because the ventilation is not what it should be. Drainage, which is often a problem in all kinds of mines in any part of the country, was totally inadequate. Coming to the social life of the miners in this country, the report says that the layout of the towns and the housing were very poor indeed. The miners themselves were suffering from silicosis, tuberculosis, rheumatism, and skin diseases. The delegation, in the light of what I have said, and other things besides, presents a sombre report relating to the miners and to the industry itself in that country.

There is one bright aspect. I understand that the new Government has increased wages to a basic, decent level. Before the Liberation Front took over, miners in the appalling conditions described in the report had a daily wage of 60 pence. The hours worked per shift under the new régime have been reduced from eight to six. They have also set about improving and modernising the mines, so far as resources allow, as was pointed out by my noble friend Lord Oram.

In view of the detailed report of the MIF, new machinery, technical appliances and safety programmes are urgently needed in this country. The NUM is hoping to help with advice and assistance particularly on the question of safety measures. Also the British Volunteer Programme is trying to obtain the services of mining engineers and geologists which are so necessary. I ask the Minister who is to reply to the debate: Can our own Government give some help? The delegation thinks they could and should. May I, in conclusion, put this point to the Minister. A geological laboratory is a high priority in this country. Will he confirm or otherwise that the Bolivians were helped with such a project? Could the same be done for this country of Nicaragua?

My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has raised the question of El Salvador and what is going on there. He indicated that some of the later speakers might widen the debate. I should like to attempt to place El Salvador in the general picture of Latin America, and particularly of Central America. I can best do so by recounting to your Lordships three episodes which are vividly in my mind from visits that I have made to that part of the world.

The first is of an evening party to which I was invited in one of the major cities of Central America. We drove from my hotel through the centre of the city and soon we had emerged from the great buildings of offices, banks, and shops and were passing through slums which were of a sort which those whose knowledge of slums is confined to this country, or even to Europe, cannot possibly imagine. There were no houses, but dwellings. The best of them were made of metal—beaten out of tin cans of various sizes and shapes—and the worst of them, the majority, were made of cardboard, old cartons which had contained goods for the shops and which had been broken apart to form the walls of the places where families (human beings; old people, children, working men and women) were living. They had no floors, just the mud on which those rickety shelters were erected.

Soon we came to some high walls and the iron gates in them were flung open and my car drove up the gravel sweep to some marble steps. I mounted them and great doors were opened and inside was my host. We had been to the same school together; he was wearing the old school tie. He was standing on the marble floor with marble columns around him. His guests were there and white-coated footmen were carrying silver trays of champagne and caviar. In the course of conversation he mentioned that he owned two Rolls-Royces. Fortunately he was a shipowner also because there were no facilities for servicing his Rolls-Royces in the country, so he put one of them on one of his ships and sent it back to England for servicing and, when it returned in perfect order, he put the other one on so that he was always able to have a well-serviced Rolls-Royce. Then I drove back through the shacks of the shanty town.

My second recollection is of a day I spent with a self-made man, a public works contractor who had made many millions of dollars building roads, dams and so on. He showed me his plantation; his bananas, his scores, probably hundreds, of workers hardly clothed at all, the naked children playing about in the dust in front of their hovels, too. There were no water, no schools and no health services of any kind. He told me he had divided his fortune of many million dollars into three parts; one-third he retained in the country for his own business; one-third he had invested on Wall Street in New York, in Zurich and in London; and he told me that one-third was available to ensure that the government of his country remained as it was so that he could continue his way of life and continue to make money in the way he had made it for the first 50 years of his life.

My third recollection is of a conversation I had in Cuba on my second visit there—my first had been in the days of Batista—when I spent several days with Fidel Castro going round the island, looking at the progress that had been made there—or the changes that had been made, perhaps I should say—in his day. I told him, "I like a great deal of what you have done. You have made great progress, you have abolished the grinding poverty, glaring inequalities and corruption and you are bringing about education and health services for all. But," I added, "I abhor the methods you use; your violence and cruelty and the fact that people are incarcerated without trial for political offences, if they are not shot out of hand". He said to me: "You do not understand. You are European. You in England had your revolution, with its violence, 300 years ago, and now you can afford the luxury of constitutional change and democracy. But we here—we are Latins, we are Americans. We cannot have changes by your European constitutional means. We have to use violence and repression".

I do not know whether it is true that that is right; I hope that it is not and that it can be proved that he is wrong. But I cannot help thinking, with regret, what a change has come across our allies in the United States. Two hundred years ago when there was a bloody revolution in France, when the downtrodden peasantry rose against the affluent and isolated aristocracy, the American people were on the side of liberty and equality, and they supported the French Revolution. What would those people who took that attitude then feel today about the countries that I have just described to your Lordships? Would they in fact be supporting my public works contractor, my old Etonian with his two Rolls-Royces, or would they be supporting those who lived in the cardboard hovels at the gates of great houses? We know perfectly well who they would be supporting. But today they are not doing that and we must try to understand why they are not.

There are, I believe, two reasons. One, which I put forward as a minor reason, is the fact that American big business has great influence in both Washington and the countries where it operates, and it has done well out of the existing régimes. It does not want any form of revolution. It does not want any serious social change or economic change, and it uses such influence as it has on the policies of its country.

The second, and to my mind the more important, reason and the more dangerous reason, is that the United States is rightly obsessed with the fear of Soviet imperialism, but it is unable to distinguish between Russian imperialism and the Marxist doctrines and the socialism (or whatever one wants to call it) that the oppressed people are trying to bring about in their own countries. Therefore wherever the United States sees anything remotely resembling an attempt to create a socialist state close to its borders, it immediately says, "We must crush this because it will be a springboard for the Soviet Union, our enemies". It has done that in Cuba, and it has in fact created a springboard—not a very effective one—for the Soviet Union, and Cuba now looks towards the Soviet Union for its support.

If the United States continues with this policy eventually, increasingly, the smaller countries of Central America, and then some of the larger countries of South America, will go the same way, and they will come to realise that the United States, far from being the bastion of freedom, is in fact the bastion, and the supporter, of the small group of oligarchs who condemn the rest of the population to poverty and oppression. That is not what the United States wants. It is not what its people really stand for; and it is a tragedy. It would not be a tragedy if its fear of the Soviet Union did not lead it into this form of reversal of its own true feelings.

All I would say to the noble Lord who is to reply to the debate is that I hope that he and his colleagues, in particular the noble Lord the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, will use all their influence—and Lord Carrington's influence is far from negligible—to convince the United States that the safety of the West, quite apart from the welfare of tens of millions of human beings, will be best served by, at least, an attitude of neutrality and, at best, an attitude of sympathy towards those who are trying to redress the balance in favour of the oppressed and the poor, rather than appearing to the world at large—not only in Latin America but in the whole of the third world, in South-East Asia and in Africa also—as the champions of the oppressors, the champions of the few and the champions of the privileged. That, I hope, will be the successful task of the British Government, both in El Salvador and in the other countries of Latin America.

My Lords, I would be very tempted at this late hour to withdraw from making a speech, even a very short speech, were it not for the fact that Christian Action, and also the British Council of Churches, have hoped very much that there would be a debate about this and that it would be the state speaking in terms of what Christian Action are saying and in terms also of what the British Council of Churches are saying. Because they have both of them—I think I am safe in saying this—come to the conclusion that they must deny the present Government in El Salvador and that they must make it perfectly clear that they are doing so and that no good can come from attempting further to speak with them.

For instance, Christian Action are most concerned to feed the people, but when talking with the representative of Christian Action and, indeed, of the British Council of Churches, with whom I had a conversation and who has been twice in El Salvador since this year came in, I found that the only result from the present Government in El Salvador was that these people were simply concerned, not to feed the poor but to help the insurgents and the people who are opposed to the Government there. It is true, also, that the Government have invited members of the old democratic parties in El Salvador to be joined with them, but it is equally true that most of those members have resigned because they could not go on dealing with this army group who are in charge. Indeed, two of those who resigned have been murdered, one is now in prison and tragedies of the kind referred to have taken place.

It is true that the police control the situation on behalf of the Government in El Salvador, but it is also true that they have two other well-organised groups who are not the Government police but are there, in fact, to put across the murders that we have heard so much about. It is true that the Government there are now talking about land reform. But it is also true—and I have this from somebody who has just come back—that, in that land reform, this redistribution of land to which there has been reference is going to be made simply to those who at the present moment are in favour of the present Government in El Salvador.

What, then, must we do? There is no solution going to come from the Government there, or from conversations with them, and I am suggesting that there is one thing that we must do. That is really to face up to the USA, without any kind of hesitation and without any side remarks of any kind, and ask them to get out of this business and not to make such fools of themselves. The most terrifying thing that has come from the President of the United States of America has been his idea that he should attack Cuba because Cuba is giving armaments at the present moment to the insurgents in El Salvador. Can your Lordships imagine anything more akin to the final straw than that they should speak in those terms?

It is not long ago since terrible things happened in Afghanistan—and they were terrible things. This led to Russia being cut off the list in regard to the Olympic Games. Why not tell America roundly that we will not take part in the next Olympic Games (which are to be held in America) because of what they are doing at the present time in this situation? There is a need for raw speech, definite speech, for having nothing further to do with them because of this playing around. It is up to Britain, to NATO and to the West to say, "If this goes on and they go on backing these sort of people in various states in South America then they are enemies of all possibility of peace at the present time".

My Lords, I should like to join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for giving us the opportunity to debate the sombre and violent situation of El Salvador and of some of its neighbours. The social background to El Salvador has already been sketched in and I should like to add one point. The extremes of deprivation and violence have resulted in something like a quarter of a million people being displaced from their homes. It is estimated that 150,000 of these are refugees within El Salvador itself and the other 100,000 have been obliged to flee to neighbouring countries. In addition, there are some 10,000 orphans, it is thought. It was for these reasons that in February this year the World Council of Churches launched an appeal for £1 million for immediate relief and welfare.

Several estimates have been made tonight of the number of people who lost their lives in 1980 in El Salvador. The estimates vary from a low figure of 8,000 to a high figure of 20,000. It is necessary, I suggest, to ask why it is that the peasants have suffered most and why one archbishop and many priests and religious and catechists, including four American missionary women, have been murdered. I believe that the late Archbishop Romero gave the answer when speaking at Louvain University on 2nd February, 1980. He said then:

"It is a simple fact that our Church has been persecuted for the past three years. It is most important to observe why. They have not attacked just any priests or institution. They have attacked that very part of the Church that has sided with the poor and come out in their defence".

The late Archbishop Romero and Bishop Rivera Damas had previously stated in August 1978:

"Institutional violence occurs when the majority of men, women and children find themselves deprived of the necessities of life".

The two bishops went on to say:

"peace and happiness cannot come from wealth accumulated at the expense of others".

I hope to be able to strike a slightly more constructive note in addressing a number of questions to my noble friend on the Front Bench. I should like to ask what representations the Government have made to the United States concerning arms supplies. What consultations have our Government had with Sweden and West Germany, who have proposed, I think formally, that a negotiated settlement should be brought about? And, as my noble friend the Duke of Norfolk has mentioned, I believe that some other countries have also joined in this plea. It is perhaps worthy of note that the most recent number of the Economist states that the Salvadorean opposition is now ready for negotiations.

I should like also, following in the footsteps of the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, to ask what is the position concerning food aid and help for refugees from the EEC. One cannot be in the presence of a large surplus of milkpowder at a time when children are dying. This seems an absurdity. I should also like to ask whether Her Majesty's Government will match pound for pound any voluntary sums which are raised in this country through the appeal launched by the World Council of Churches.

Finally—and I follow my noble friend Lord Montgomery—will the Government consult with the Organisation of American States to see whether an impartial and Spanish-speaking force could maintain order in El Salvador until the paramilitary groups are disbanded and free elections can be held? As an additional supplementary question, may I ask whether, if a request comes in, the Government will help with the training of a modern democratic police force for El Salvador?

Perhaps more fundamental than any of those matters is the question of information. At the moment it seems that there is a considerable cloud of propaganda hanging over Central America. Will Her Majesty's Government and their European allies make sure that they have independent and objective sources of information on El Salvador and its neighbours? I say this at a time when the British Embassy in San Salvador is closed but I do not mean that the sources of information should be simply diplomatic ones. There are other possible channels. I have given my noble friend notice of these questions. I am sure that I shall receive one of his usual most helpful replies.

My Lords, your Lordships will be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for raising this Question. Our first concern must be for the people of El Salvador itself. They are the prey of brutal elements of the so-called Left as well as the Right who, by intimidation, rapine and murder—amounting in some areas to extermination and genocide—seek to impose their will on the people of that country.

The condition of El Salvador and its people is indeed horrifying. The situation there, however, is of almost equal concern to the other states of Central America which, like the Middle East and Southern Africa, has a sobering importance for the rest of us. Indeed, whatever happens in El Salvador, affects Central America, affects Latin America and indeed the United States, which has a proper and legitimate interest in peace and stability on its southern borders.

The question arises as to how we resolve an intolerable situation—intolerable for the people of El Salvador—and very dangerous indeed for the general region and ultimately for the rest of us. What contribution can this country make together with its friends, partners and allies, to a solution? A contribution to a solution is not the same as an intervention on one side or the other. The dreadful danger in El Salvador is that it may become another Vietnam through the overcommitment of the super-powers either directly or by surrogate.

I join with those who wish to bring persuasion to bear on our friend and ally in Washington not to go too far, if at all, in sustaining the nominal Government of Premier Duarte.

The situation is in urgent need of solution before it deteriorates into something which imperils a much wider area and we must seek the right agency to bring about a solution by conference. This is not impractical idealism. I was very glad to hear my noble friend Lord Chitnis draw what I thought was a very useful parallel between the possibilities in El Salvador and what was achieved last year in Rhodesia. A problem which seemed almost impossible to solve in Rhodesia was in fact solved because we found the right agency of conciliation. For years, people denied the possibility of bringing together around the same table the various warring elements in Rhodesia, together with the interested countries contiguous to it. But it happened, and it happened because our Foreign Secretary recognised that in the Commonwealth, in this particular case, lay the agency of conciliation.

Where lies the agency of conciliation in El Salvador? I was very glad indeed to hear more than one speaker refer to the United Nations. The United Nations, by its own charter, is entitled to intervene in a situation of this kind. Under Article 2, this is definably a situation which imperils peace. Unfortunately, under the system of veto, it is highly improbable that the United Nations as such can intervene directly and effectively in order to achieve a solution. It will almost certainly have a role to play in following up the efforts of the right agency.

Now which is the right agency? The Commonwealth, unfortunately, has no real presence in this part of America. It has in the Caribbean, but not in Central America. We may count on the United Nations later to fulfil a very useful role, as I have said. Here I very much welcome the suggestion made by the noble Viscount, Lord Montgomery, and backed by the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that the Organisation of American States would seem to be a possible agency of intervention.

I would mention in particular the countries of Mexico and Venezuela. There are others, of course, just as important; but Mexico and Venezuela have shown themselves over a fairly long period to be growing in diplomatic and commercial strength. Indeed, they have achieved a prestige in Central and Latin America and in the United Nations, as I have seen for myself, as countries which genuinely have been developing their own resources and their democratic institutions. They are looked up to, they are listened to; and it occurs to me that if we use the OAS as the agency for helpful intervention, then the role of those two countries would prove to be very important indeed.

In passing, may I refer to the very fine contribution made by these countries globally?—for instance, the role of Mexico in ensuring that at least we had a partial ban on environmental warfare. It was very largely the work of Mexican statements. Similarly, in the field of oil research and in the more enlightened assessment of oil economics, there is much to be said of the policy of Venezuela as well as Mexico. So that perhaps is where the agency of concert may be found, and I think it is for this country, as a member of the EEC, of NATO, of the Commonwealth and, certainly, of the UN, to promote in every possible way the formation of this kind of intervention.

Time is short. The situation in El Salvador is worsening day by day. As recently as October 1979, there was a broad-based government—admittedly, brought about by a coup displacing the Romero Government; but, nevertheless a broad-based government—which encompassed the Democratic Socialists under Senor Jungo on the left, the Christian Democrats, elements of the Church, many of them reformist radicals of the most genuine nature and elements, also, of the trade unions and even of the military. That lasted only a few months. It fell prey to the suspicions of the peasants' trade unions who hardly believed that the proposals for reform would be carried out, and, also, to the sabotage of the unusually rapacious landlords of that country.

So we cannot look inside El Salvador for the beginnings of a reconciliation, any more than we could in Rhodesia. It was impossible to reconcile the parties in Rhodesia, until an agency from outside brought them together and, also, brought them in concert with neighbouring countries. The similarities are striking. I strongly urge the Government to examine the possibility of a genuine, strong diplomatic thrust aimed at creating an agency of conference through the OAS, using, in particular, some of our very best friends in that part of the world; namely, Mexico and Venezuela. Perhaps when the Minister comes to reply he will give us some indication of how Her Majesty's Government are thinking about this question.

My Lords, I must first echo the sentiments of every noble Lord who has spoken this evening in recording my appreciation of the opportunity that the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, has given us to discuss this important matter again this evening. I say "again" because, of course, I have answered questions on the subject of El Salvador and, indeed, my noble friend the Foreign Secretary has made statements both inside your Lordships' House and elsewhere about the problems of that country and its neighbours. Recent events relating to the unhappy country of El Salvador, as such it is, have focussed attention on the plight of the population and the need to seek an early end to the violence and the suffering which has engulfed them.

The position of Her Majesty's Government concerning El Salvador was made clear by my noble friend the Foreign Secretary in a Statement that he issued on 25th February. The Statement condemned the supply of arms to the insurgents: the United States had provided ample evidence that certain countries were supporting the guerrillas in this way. We regard this as gross interference in El Salvador's internal affairs and have called for it to end. We condemned unequivocally the continuing violence in El Salvador and called upon the Government of that country to protect its people from violations of basic human rights and, in particular, to exercise firm control over the actions of all Government institutions and organisations, including especially the security forces. A copy of this Statement was handed to the Salvadorean chargé d'affaires in London and to a visiting official Salvadorean Government delegation in London on 26th February.

Your Lordships will recall that on 9th December of last year my noble friend sent a message to the Salvadorean Foreign Minister after the abduction and brutal killing of six moderate opposition leaders, expressing a firm hope that those responsible would be found and brought to justice. These murders, the assassination of Archbishop Romero and the murders of the three American nuns and a lay social worker last year, are all crimes which have rightly caused widespread indignation. To these must be added a shocking catalogue of atrocities by both sides, of which the innocent have been the all too frequent victims. We deeply regret the continuing civil conflict in El Salvador and have made our views abundantly clear to the Salvadorean Government. We shall continue to do so.

If I may add a personal note, a memorial service was held for Archbishop Romero here in London, and I myself represented the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary at that service.

Her Majesty's Government have long held the view that a proper investigation by the United Nations Human Rights Commission should be held into the reports of human rights abuses in El Salvador. We felt unable to support a resolution adopted by the United Nations in December last year criticising the Salvadorean Government because that resolution was unbalanced, in that it did not condemn all factions involved in human rights abuses, but we supported that part of the resolution calling for an investigation. Furthermore, we supported a resolution passed by the Human Rights Commission at Geneva on 11th March of this year which was more balanced. A special rapporteur is being appointed and will conduct an investigation, presenting his report to the Commission at its 88th Session early in 1982, with an interim report to the 36th Session of the General Assembly later this year.

Her Majesty's Government have also been mindful of the need to provide aid for those refugees who have fled the fighting and the terror. Many are now in camps in Honduras, while others have sought refuge in sanctuaries within El Salvador. We take the view that it is right to channel aid to refugees, provided all possible precautions are taken to ensure that it is delivered into the hands of those for whom it is intended, the refugees themselves. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, was particularly concerned about that point. So far the European Community have given aid worth some £900,000 to be distributed through the International Committee for the Red Cross and Catholic relief agencies. Again the noble Lord, Lord Kennet, raised that matter. I think I am right in saying that the total sum that has been given is made up of more than one donation and that the total has only recently reached that figure.

My Lords, this is all very interesting, but where is this money, in good solid cash, going to? Is it going into the treasury of the so-called Duarte government?

No, my Lords. It is money which is being channelled to the International Red Cross and to at least one other aid agency. The cash which has gone to the ICRC is 400,000 European units of account, and 1,050 tonnes of cereals and 200 tonnes of milk powder have been sent. The Catholic relief services have received 950 tonnes of cereals, 500 tonnes of milk powder and 200 tonnes of butter oil.

My Lords, I am obliged and most encouraged by that information.

Her Majesty's Government's share of that aid is substantial. Aid has also been given through the United Nations High Commission for Refugees, to which of course the United Kingdom contributes. We naturally believe that a political solution to the conflict in El Salvador is greatly to be preferred to the continuation of the present fighting. We would of course support any realistic proposals to bring this about.

However, in rejecting the move by the Organisation of American States to mediate between the Salvadorean Government and the Opposition Revolutionary Democratic Front, or FDR, as it is called, President Duarte made it clear that he was not prepared to accept mediation in what he regards as El Salvador's internal affairs. He has however stated that he is prepared to negotiate with the FDR, an offer which they do not so far appear to be prepared to accept. It has been suggested by more than one noble Lord tonight and by the media that the United Kingdom with its recent experience in Zimbabwe has a role to play in any negotiations. We have a long association with Africa and had a mandate to settle the dispute in Zimbabwe. The situation in Central America is very different and we have no such mandate. We think it would be more appropriate for El Salvador's neighbours to use their influence in this matter.

President Duarte has publicly pledged himself to work for the earliest cessation of violence in El Salvador. He is attempting to press ahead with a reform programme despite the extreme difficulties of doing so in the face of guerrilla hostility and Right-wing opposition. The aim of his programme is to redistribute land on a more equitable basis, thus attempting to solve one of the problems contributing to the present conflict. Financial reforms have also been introduced. For this programme, the United States is giving considerable economic assistance amounting to some 126.5 million dollars.

President Duarte has also established an electoral commission charged with arranging elections in 1982, and the Salvadorean Government has expressed a willingness to see international observers present during the elections. This electoral commission has already stated that all previously registered parties, including the party led by the FDR leader Guillermo Ungo, the social democratic MNR and the communist UDN are eligible. We are well aware that organising fair elections free from intimidation by political extremists will be an exceptionally difficult task. But we consider that President Duarte's efforts to find a political solution to the conflict deserve support.

Her Majesty's Government urge both the extreme Left and the extreme Right to forsake the path of violence and give those who seek a peaceful and democratic solution a chance to make their voices heard.

In supporting the democratic path in El Salvador, it is our policy to call upon El Salvador's neighbours to do likewise. In Nicaragua—a country which interested particularly the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and others, and the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, who I see is not now in his place—we have seen in past years the overthrow of a dictator of the most unattractive kind by a revolution which clearly had the support of the overwhelming majority of the population. We would of course not wish to see a return to the previous situation, but the present state of affairs is worrying. We consider that the Government in Nicaragua should allow the population to voice its opinion of the progress and policies of the present Government through properly constituted elections. We reluctantly conclude that the current system of government in Nicaragua allows only the Sandinista movement through its nine-man directorate to decide policy.

There are now many "advisers" in Nicaragua from Cuba and other communist countries. We have been that Nicaragua has allowed itself to be used by Cuba as a means of channelling arms to insurgents in El Salvador. In our Statement issued on 25th March we called for this to end, and I am pleased to report to the House that there are indications that the flow of arms appears to have diminished. But there are disturbing indications that militarism in Nicaragua is increasing with the establishment of a regular army of 50,000 and the mobilisation of a large militia of up to 200,000. To the south, Nicaragua is bordered by Costa Rica, unique in the region in having no armed forces at all, and to the north by an under-populated Honduras with an armed strength of 11,000.

Her Majesty's Government believe that it is legitimate to ask whether the people of Nicaragua are able to express their opinion freely about these developments. Indeed, there are disturbing signs that those who express dissenting voices are being intimidated and silenced. In response to these developments the United States Government has recently suspended its aid to the Nicaraguan Government, though it is continuing to support the private sector there (responsible for about 60 per cent. of the economy) and non-government development organisations.

Following the overthrow of President Somoza in 1979 the Nicaraguan people earned significant goodwill from their neighbours and the West who responded with a considerable amount of aid. Through international bodies and the European Community, the United Kingdom contributed some £2·7 million. That goodwill has been sadly eroded by recent events. I have a little more information about our aid to Nicaragua, which perhaps I can turn to in a moment.

I should also like to say a brief word on the situation in Guatemala which particularly concerned the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. Your Lordships will appreciate that our relations with Guatemala are dominated by our need to see Belize to an early and secure independence. As your Lordships will know, significant progress has been made in that direction recently. But we are aware from a number of sources, including Amnesty International, of a disquieting situation in Guatemala. We have constantly pressed at the United Nations and at other international fora for the adequate protection of human rights in Central America and throughout the rest of the world.

May I now turn to some of the individual points that have been raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, in opening this debate, referred to our attitude towards the opposition party in El Salvador. It is not true to say that we have ignored the FDR; we have indeed received their delegations which recently toured Europe. These have included Sir Ruben Zamora, Luis de Sebastian and a Mr. Hector O'Kelly. Turning again to the question of Guatemala which Lord Avebury covered in some detail, the noble Lord raised some detailed points about the Heads of Agreement which have been signed with Guatemala in respect of the forthcoming independence of Belize. They are detailed points, on which, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will write to him.

The noble Lord also referred to the lack of comment, as he saw it, in the press of both the United Kingdom and the United States about the situation in Guatemala. The noble Lord will, of course, appreciate that what goes into the British press, much less the American press, is no responsibility of the Government's, and of course we have no more means of getting things into the papers than we do of getting them out.

The noble Lord asked me specifically for an assurance about the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, which I gladly give him. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, asked me about the possibility of re-opening our Mission in Managua. The embassy there was closed in 1976, for reasons of economy. Recent events have caused us to consider re-opening the embassy, but in view of the present financial climate, which is, I fear, even less satisfactory than it was when the Mission was closed, a decision has not yet been taken. The noble Lord asked me about the question of aid to Nicaragua. I have some more details here. Perhaps, in view of the lateness of the hour, he will allow me to write to him with those details, which I gladly undertake to do.

The noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Mansfield, unhappily is not in his place, but I will, if I may, deal with the point he put to me. It was in connection with the National Union of Mineworkers, who were recently in that part of the world. I should like to say to the noble Lord through the medium of the columns of Hansard at least that, if the NUM wants to submit its recommendations to the ODA for consideration, consideration will most certainly be given, although I should perhaps say that in the present climate it is unlikely that any recommendations could be acted upon in the immediate future. We have received no request for aid in the mining field from the Nicaraguan Government, but again, of course, it would be considered when and if it was received.

My noble friend Lord Hylton asked me a number of questions, and I shall deal with as many of them as I can. First, on the question of United Kingdom aid to Salvadorean refugees, as I said earlier, it is our policy to direct aid to refugees through multinational agencies, such as the UNHCR which is operating in Honduras. On the latest figures available the Government have provided £5.4 million towards pledges totalling 140 million dollars to the UNHCR general programme, from which some 3 million dollars have been allocated to the programme for El Salvadorean refugees in Honduras. That is, of course, in addition to the aid which the European Community has channelled through the ICRC and Catholic relief agencies, to which I referred earlier.

My noble friend also asked about joint funding with the United Kingdom voluntary agencies. We have received no application for funds on that basis. The joint funding scheme with voluntary agencies is, generally speaking, for development work only and is not designed for relief and welfare programmes. On the question of European mediation, which my noble friend raised and which I think at least one other noble Lord raised, we certainly support any realistic proposal to bring about a political settlement in El Salvador, but we are not aware of any initiative by Sweden or West Germany, for example, to bring about such a settlement.

Several noble Lords raised the possibility of an Organisation of American States' peace-keeping force. That would be a matter for the OAS itself and the Salvadorean Government, but, as I said earlier, President Duarte has made it clear that he would not accept OAS mediation in what he regards as El Salvador's internal affairs. Again on the points raised by my noble friend Lord Hylton, we have received no request to train a modern democratic police force in El Salvador and we could, of course, only consider such a request as and when it was received.

On the question of sources of information which my noble friend raised, I can say that the Government and their European allies maintain their own independent and objective sources of information through their embassies and consulates in Central America. We maintain embassies in Panama; in Costa Rica, which is accredited to El Salvador and Nicaragua; and in Honduras, and we have a consulate in Guatemala.

The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, gave me notice of one particular point that he wished to raise. I can say that it is our policy to support any initiative likely to bring about a peaceful and democratic solution to the problems facing El Salvador. Neither side has so far asked anyone to act as a mediator in the conflict. We think that it would, therefore, be more appropriate for El Salvador's neighbours to use their influence to stimulate such an initiative.

Finally, my noble friend Lord Montgomery of Alamein—a somewhat lone voice, as he pointed out, from the Benches beside and behind me—spoke from the depth of his own experience, particularly in El Salvador but also, of course, in the area of Central America generally. I was not quite sure about the reference to my noble friend's multilateral—or was it multinational?—company which one noble Lord made, but no doubt the point will not be lost on my noble friend.

I should like once again to thank the noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, for raising this subject at such a timely stage. It is right that we should debate a subject of such immediate humanitarian concern. But I would ask those who criticise only the Salvadorean authorities for the callous and repellent acts of violence that have been reported, to remember that there are two sides to this conflict. Violence will achieve nothing and will solve nothing. A truly democratic outcome in El Salvador is long overdue. In urging encouragement for President Duarte's efforts to end the bloodshed, we do not, of course, condone the use of force and terror. We strongly believe that all who seek to impose their will on others by force of arms and who show indifference to suffering should feel the weight of the universal condemnation which they deserve.