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

My Lords, civil servants who are on strike or who are temporarily relieved from duty are not paid and such unpaid absences do not count for pension purposes.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, may I ask whether he will also answer the other part of the Question dealing with the case of a civil servant who turns up at his office but who declines to perform his normal duties or the duties which he is asked to undertake? Will that day count as regards pension entitlement? For example, will it count in the case of a man who turns up for work in Newcastle but who will not work the computer which assesses other people's pensions?

My Lords, it depends whether he is doing some other work or not, but if not he would be temporarily relieved from duty; in those circumstances he would not be paid and so that time would not count towards his pension.

My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that, with the massive Whitley machinery that exists, if this House started indulging in trying to adjudicate every individual case of every civil servant, irrespective of grade, it would be taking on a mammoth task? Does the noble Lord the Leader of the House not also agree that perhaps the centre of this grievance is not so much the increase of pay which civil servants require but the fact that they feel aggrieved because their case has not been referred to arbitration for an independent judgment? Furthermore, does the noble Lord agree—and I am sure he will—that by and large we have an extraordinarily fine Civil Service and if this House were to become involved in any petty indulgences against them it would do two things: it would deny the great freedoms that we claim for this country and it would exacerbate an already nasty situation?

My Lords, I would not accept that the Question asked by my noble friend Lord Boyd- Carpenter was about a petty matter. Indeed, it was a question of whether or not the civil servants are paid, and whether time will count for pension purposes if they are not in fact working. That is a perfectly understandable Question and I hope that my Answer was quite clear.

Of course, we have a very fine Civil Service. As I have been lucky enough to spend some of my time in the international field I have worked with a number of Civil Services other than our own and I can speak with knowledge of the comparative effectiveness, efficiency and dedication to work of our Civil Service. Having said all that, it is the gravest pity that, in the present economic circumstances, with cash limits that were fixed for all the public services and the fact that 2 million other people have accepted those cash limits, this kind of industrial action has occurred, and I hope that it will not last. As to the future, to which the noble Lord referred, of course I hope that the position will be resolved. That was our purpose in setting up the Megaw Inquiry. I hope that it will serve its purpose towards a better understanding of both the Civil Service individually and the unions concerned.

My Lords, while recognising the proper concern for the Civil Service of the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, may I ask whether my noble friend does not also feel some concern—as perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Molloy, will too—for the millions of retirement pensioners, the children, the unemployed and the sick whose benefits are being put in jeopardy by the action of a certain number of people pursuing their own claim for more money?

My Lords, I think I must say that when civil servants indulge in industrial disruption and take action which results in our pensioners not getting what is their due it is a thoroughly bad increase in strike action and something which ought to stand condemned, and I am sure it does in all parts of the House.

My Lords, is not the whole situation due to the fact that the Government have refused independent arbitration?

No, my Lords, it is not. If that should be so for the Civil Service, why is it that the National Health ancillaries and the local government employees have all accepted pay increases within a 6 per cent. cash limit this year without any industrial action whatever?

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

My Lords, the controls which govern the supply of medicines and spectacles are designed to protect patients. The differences between the controls in each of these fields reflect the different considerations which apply. In the case of medicines, the Government, on the advice of the Medicines Commission, decided that people should continue to have the right to purchase freely universally accepted remedies to treat the everyday symptoms experienced by us all. In the case of spectacles, the Government considered that the optimum correction of an individual's eyesight could not be achieved by a standard form of spectacles and that a patient's defect of sight should be corrected by a personal prescription determined by a suitably qualified practitioner.

My Lords, while thanking my noble friend for that reply, I wonder whether I might draw his attention to the letter which the Minister wrote to me personally where he said:

"Medical opinion is that wearing the 'wrong' spectacles or indeed not wearing spectacles when you need them cannot damage sight or harm the eyes".

If that is so, why is a person not at liberty to go and buy, according to a prescription which he has already obtained, spectacles in shops, just as he can in the United States, and in any other country, save here? The Minister now having departed from his position that it could harm the eyes and put the health of the people at risk, in future I hope that the Department of Trade will tackle this restrictive practice and that the Office of Fair Trading will make sure that the public are not held to ransom by the present arrangements.

My Lords, I understand the noble Lord's point very well. Of course it does not harm the eyes if one wears the wrong spectacles; one may get a headache, but it will not harm one's eyes. On the other hand, as I have said many times before in the interchanges that we have had on the spectacle front, it is a great advantage to have your eyes tested by a qualified man in order to see that you have not started some incipient disease to the eyes, diabetes or hypertension. Of course, the main worry is glaucoma. As regards the Department of Trade, as I think my noble friend knows, my honourable friend Mrs. Oppenheim is anxious to have a review of the Opticians Act in co-operation with the Office of Fair Trading and is at present in communication with my honourable friend the Minister for Health.

My Lords, I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, on this matter. Anyone who has to pay—

Question!

My Lords, I apologise. Is the noble Lord aware that anyone who goes privately to a specialist is absolutely ruined when it comes to what he has to pay? Perhaps I could show the House what I have purchased from Boots, which is a very mild type of magnifying glass which costs £1·35. Noble Lords must have noticed that I use this the whole time. I have been to specialists and I have paid all that money, but if Boots can produce this, why should we not have spectacles sold over the counter? This item costs £1·35.

My Lords, I think that I answered that question when I answered my noble friend's question, saying that it was important to have one's eyes tested in order to ensure that one does not have some incipient disease.

My Lords, does the Minister recall that spectacles were sold at Woolworth's for 6d a pair and at ordinary watchmakers, chemists and so on? The result of that was that in 1949 the late Aneurin Bevan appointed a committee of inquiry to report on all these matters and appointed a Member of your Lordships' House as the chairman. After three years it reported very clearly about spectacles which were used not only for reading but, let us be clear, for a variety of other purposes, including driving a motorcar with the possibility of causing danger to the public. Does the noble Lord not recall that, although the report of that three-year inquiry could not be made to the same Government because the Conservatives had ousted the Labour Party at the end of 1951, in 1952 the Conservative Party had the good sense to do everything it could to introduce the safeguards in the interests of the public?

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord and, of course, the House will realise that the Member of your Lordships' House who presided over that committee was, in fact, the noble Lord, Lord Crook, himself.

My Lords, having obtained a pair of spectacles through the orthodox channels, having been reassured that I do not suffer from glaucoma or diabetes, and having dropped the aforesaid spectacles and broken them, why should I not be allowed to go to Boots and buy a replacement?

My Lords, I am sure that the noble Earl is sensible enough always to have a spare pair of spectacles with him and, no doubt, will have his prescription on him as well. If he takes the prescription to any optician—and quite a number of other places nowadays where they have qualified practitioners—he will be able to get another pair.

My Lords, is my noble friend's argument about having medical tests—whether they be barium meals, x-rays, or something else—a good thing? Of course they are a good thing, but such tests are expensive for the National Health Service; and no other nation has followed this procedure which was set up, I think, mistakenly, nearly a third of a century ago. We must come in line and save money for the public by having greater freedom. In view of the Government's desire that at least opticians should be allowed to display the prices of spectacles in their windows, which up to now has been forbidden by the kangaroo courts operated by them, can my noble friend say what progress has been made and how many opticians are now displaying prices according to the Government's desire?

My Lords, as my noble friend knows, on 1st May the ban on displaying prices was rescinded by the General Optical Council. A number of opticians are displaying prices, but I certainly could not tell the noble Lord how many.

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

My Lords, my right honourable and learned friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science announced on 22nd June that he was minded to allow a place on the Burnham Further Education Committee to the Association of Polytechnic Teachers. The organisations currently represented on the committee have been invited to express any comments they may wish to make on the proposal. Those views will be taken into account before a final decision is made on the association's application.

My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply and understand that the decision is not yet final. But it is not the Government's aim to strengthen responsible trade unionism and orderly collective bargaining? Is it not wise to avoid the fragmentation of unions, which pervades the school sector and which makes collective bargaining there so difficult? In such a delicate area as industrial relations, is not a change foolish when something is working well—as I understand the Burnham Further Education Committee is—and might this not be changed if this extra place were granted?

My Lords, a change on the Burnham Committee is bound to be discussed from time to time. I cannot agree that it is necessarily foolish. The House will recall that in my original Answer I said that my right honourable and learned friend was minded to have a change but I did not say that this was going to happen. Associations currently represented on the committee were invited to express their views on the proposal by today. Of course, I cannot pre-empt what may be in those replies, or indeed what my right honourable and learned friend may decide as a result of those replies.

My Lords, may I ask what representations the Secretary of State has had from the local authority associations and from the teachers' associations concerning the proposal?

My Lords, representations have been made. I am afraid I am not privy to the details of these, but if I may I shall certainly write to the noble Baroness.

My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us how many of the nearly 3,000 members of the Association of Polytechnic Teachers are non-academic members whose salaries are not subject to the Burnham Committee?

My Lords, I am afraid that again I have not got that information.

My Lords, would it be possible for the Minister to write that as well when he answers my previous question?

Yes, my Lords, certainly I will write to both the noble Baroness and the noble Lord on this matter.

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

My Lords, reductions in public expenditure are an essential component of the Government's counter-inflationary policy. As some programmes are being maintained or increased, others have had to be cut by more than the average reduction. But the planned reductions in several domestic programmes are more severe than that for overseas aid, the level of which remains substantial—£1,037 million gross in the current financial year.

My Lords, does the noble Lord recall that on 7th April this year, in cols. 433 to 436, I asked a similar Question of his noble friend Lord Trefgarne, and did not get an answer to the Question that stands on the Order Paper? Is he further aware that the average cut in Government departmental expenditure is 1.7 per cent, whereas the cut in overseas development is 15.3 per cent of GNP over two years? Nine times as high as the average! What I am asking the Minister to explain is why overseas development has been singled out in this way for such a large reduction in expenditure in comparison with the average cuts which the Government have been making, particularly when other countries in Europe are increasing their overseas aid. Countries like Sweden, Holland, Denmark, Norway and West Germany are all increasing their overseas aid, whereas apparently this Government are singling out overseas development for a particularly savage cut.

My Lords, yes, I do recall the previous exchanges with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on this subject. But, as the 1981 Public Expenditure Paper, Cmnd. 1875, made quite clear, total Government expenditure is planned to decline by just over 4 per cent. between 1980–81 and 1983–84, while overseas aid is to fall by 15 per cent. in that period. Agriculture, housing, industry, trade, energy, and employment are all due to fall by more than that amount. In other words, you can do anything with figures if you try.

My Lords, you can do anything with figures if you try, except feed poor people in the poorest countries.

My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that a great many economists take the view that much development aid has been misspent, and that there is a quite different case for helping the poor of the poorest countries and putting the money into the hands of Governments who use it on projects to improve their own standing, or on rash experiments such as the so-called African socialism which has made these countries poorer than they were before?

My Lords, I would agree that aid is better directed to specific projects. As to the amount of aid, of course this must be to a certain extent a guess because of the uncertainties in predicting both aid expenditure itself and the gross national product of this country, which our aid would depend on.

My Lords, is it not the case that aid provided by the Ministry of Overseas Development under successive Governments has been well monitored, has provided for sound projects and has not been abused in the way that the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, suggests?

My Lords, before we even consider granting aid in a particular case, of course many factors are taken into account, and I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Oram, on his point.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that those of us who have been associated with this plan since its inception have met a constant series of organised frustrations which nearly broke the Labour Party itself within a very short time because of the wholly shocking inadequacies of the preliminary allocation? Is he aware that we have been assured time after time that the only reason the money is not going is because they cannot spend it and that these schemes require detailed organisation, and so on? We have seen examples of wonderful work in the face of national emergencies and national disasters. I myself saw the all-too-soon destined to die British manager who had taken over the fund, and he assured me that there was virtually no limit to what could be spent on work for the children. He took me out to lunch and gave me pretty full details of the sort of thing that was happening, and the sort of thing he was hoping to start.

My Lords, many factors, as I have already said, make up for the amount of aid which is available, but there is also another problem on whether this aid figure is in fact taken up. For example, in 1980 no promissory note was deposited in respect of the sixth replenishment of the International Development Association because the then United States Congress had not ratified the agreement. Furthermore, sluggish drawings bilaterally by some recipients in relation to the resources available are another important factor.

My Lords, has the Minister noted the statement in the Brandt Report that a mere fraction of 1 per cent. of military expenditure could end poverty in the world within a decade? Will the Government, both nationally and internationally, seek to bring about that result?

My Lords, yes, I have noted this section of the Brandt Report, and I think that without doubt there is something in it. This is one of the many things which are currently being discussed and considered in the various aid ministries all over the world.

My Lords, I hope that the generalisations in the Brandt Report will not replace the hard and sensible thinking that is given to all of those matters. It is too full of clichés without the backing of research—

Question!

for me to accept it as the Bible, as so many people seem to be doing.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend, but I did say "considered" and I did not go further than that.

My Lords, I think there has been a long run of supplementaries on this Question. Important as it is, I suggest that we move on to the next business.

My Lords, is it not customary for the originator of a Question to have a second supplementary? This is the second time that I have been denied a second supplementary on this Question.

My Lords, I am most indebted to the noble Lord for raising this matter because I think that this is a misunderstanding. I do not think that it is. In fact, once there was a specific Question put to me on this very subject. The noble Lord was not actually in the Chamber, I remember, when it was asked.

I think it is the feeling of the House that it is not, as it were, a rule, albeit even an unwritten rule, of the House, that the asker of a Question who has then had a supplementary should have the right for a wind-up supplementary at the end. That is not to say it does not sometimes happen, and I said when I answered the Question relevant to this point that sometimes it would happen and sometimes it would not. I am only the humble servant of your Lordships' House and I intervene at Question Time only when I think the House has had enough supplementaries, which in some instances may be but a handful and in others quite a lot. I think that on this Question today we have had a long string of supplementaries—rightly so, because it is a matter of grave importance on which your Lordships feel deeply—and while I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising the matter, I do not think it is the wish of the House that there should automatically be for the asker of a Question the right to ask yet a second supplementary.

Hear, hear!

My Lords, I accept fully the explanation of the Leader of the House. However, does he realise that it leaves some of us in a difficult position? We deliberately do not rise while noble Lords in all parts of the House are asking supplementary questions because we assume that the convention will be followed that a final supplementary will be allowed to the initiator of the Question.

Rubbish!

Further, my Lords, I would remind the Leader of the House—and this will be borne out by his colleague, the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers—that on this very subject, this is the second time I have been prevented from following up the Minister's first Answer to my Question with a further supplementary. That has happened on this very issue. In other words, this is the second time I have been prevented from putting such a supplementary.

My Lords, if it is only the second time that the noble Lord has been inhibited from asking a second supplementary, then I am afraid that redounds to my discredit, because it must show that I have not intervened often enough before.

Just the second time on this issue, my Lords, but many other times on other issues.

My Lords, I have it in command from Her Majesty the Queen to acquaint the House that Her Majesty, having been informed of the purport of the Belize Bill, has consented to place her Prerogative and interest, so far as they are affected by the Bill, at the disposal of Parliament for the purposes of the Bill.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The purpose of the Bill is to make provision for the attainment of independence by Belize within the Commonwealth and for connected matters of nationality and the consequential modification of other enactments, and I believe it will commend itself to all parts of the House. The history of Britain's connection with this part of Central America is particularly interesting. It dates back to the mid-17th century. Although the region was administered by the Spanish Crown, the settlement was established by disbanded British soldiers and sailors who subsequently earned a living through the cutting and trade of log wood. Their rights in this respect were eventually recognised in a treaty with Spain.

De facto British control and administration matured into full sovereignty and Belize became a Crown colony in 1862. After the break-up of the Spanish Empire in the early 19th century and the emergence of the five Central American republics as independent countries, Belize's border with Guatemala was agreed by treaty in 1859. This was however unilaterally revoked by Guatemala, which early this century reverted to a claim of sovereignty over Belize. The persistence of this claim has remained an obstacle to the granting of full independence to Belize, but in 1963 a ministerial system of internal self-government was established. The Governor retains special responsibilities for defence, internal security and external affairs, but limited responsibility for the latter, particularly in relation to the Caribbean area, has in recent years been devolved. This system of internal self-government has enabled Belize to develop over a period of nearly 20 years experience and institutions which will place it in good stead to face the responsibilities of full nationhood. Perhaps I should mention that Belize changed its name from British Honduras in 1973.

The continuing controversy with Guatemala and the implicit threat this places to Belize's security have required the stationing of a British garrison in Belize, an increasing anachronism in the last quarter of the 20th century. Negotiations to try to resolve this dispute have been pursued with the Guatemalans by a number of British Governments over many years. The present round began rather more than a year ago and has now reached a promising stage. In March, we, together with Belize, signed the Guatemala heads of agreement which provide for the conclusion of a full treaty whereby Guatemala would recognise an independent Belize within its existing and traditional frontiers. These negotiations are currently being pursued in New York at ministerial level and it is our earnest hope that they will produce a positive result before Belize's transition to independence.

Noble Lords may ask why we are proceeding with the Bill before the results of these negotiations are known. It is the view of the Government that, in accordance with the United Nations resolution of November 1980, Belize should be taken to early independence. Indeed, that resolution set an effective target date for independence at the end of 1981. We believe that independence for Belize should not be conditional on the successful outcome of negotiations for a treaty based on the heads of agreement, but we also believe that it is not desirable to decide the actual date until these are completed and a referendum has been held. It is in these circumstances essential that we should be in a positition to assign a date without an unnecessarily long delay. It is likely that this date will fall within our Summer Recess. It is therefore our desire to complete the necessary stages of the Bill as soon as possible.

A constitutional conference was held at Marlborough House from 6th to 14th April at which the principles of the constitution which Belize will take into independence were agreed. The report of the conference was published as Cmnd. 8245, which I am sure many of your Lordships will have read. It is a matter for regret that the Belizean Opposition chose not to attend the conference, but the Belizean public were given ample opportunity to study the Belize Government's proposals before the conference and a number of written submissions from organisations and individuals in Belize were tabled at the conference and taken fully into account. We are satisfied that proper opportunity was given to individuals and groups in Belize to express freely their views on the Belize Government's proposals and thus to play a part in shaping the new constitution.

The draft constitution which has been drawn up, based on the report of the constitutional conference to which I have referred, contains comprehensive provisions for the protection of fundamental human rights and freedoms which will be specially entrenched, and other institutional provisions which will essentially preserve the basic institutions and procedures to which Belizeans are accustomed and which have served Belize well. Belize will be a constitutional Monarchy with the Queen as Head of State. There will continue to be a bicameral legislature to which the Prime Minister and his Cabinet will be responsible. The electoral system will be founded on universal adult sufferage. There will be provision for securing the independence of the judiciary and for final appeal in important cases to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. I am confident that the constitution will meet with general approval in Belize. The Bill confers power to provide a constitution by Order in Council, the constitution to come into effect on independence day.

I will briefly explain the provisions of the Bill. Clause 1 together with Schedule 1 provides for the cessation on independence day of the responsibility of the United Kingdom for the Government of Belize and for the enlargement of the legislative powers of the legislature of Belize. The actual date of independence, as indicated in Clause 6(2), will be appointed later by Order in Council. The United Nations General Assembly in the resolution which it adopted on the subject last November called for independence before the end of its next session; that is effectively by the end of this year.

It is our aim to adhere to this timescale, although the date itself will be decided in the light of progress in the negotiations with Guatemala. Clause 2 is the provision I have mentioned, which enables Her Majesty to provide a constitution by Order in Council. Clause 3, with Schedule 2, provides for the continuance after independence of laws operating in respect of Belize before independence and for the modification of certain United Kingdom enactments as a consequence of Belize's independence. Clauses 4 and 5 deal with nationality matters. These clauses gave rise to some discussion in the other place and it would be as well if I explain in layman's language what their purpose is.

Nationality is a complicated subject. The legal phraseology has to be exactly tailored and it is not always easy to follow. On independence day, when the new Belizean constitution comes into force, a new Belizean citizenship will be created. Those people listed in paragraph 18 of the constitutional conference report will become citizens of Belize. The Bill now before us has to provide, among other things, that those who become citizens of Belize should in general cease to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, in United Kingdom law. That is achieved by Clause 4. But there are certain categories of people who, because of their close ties with the United Kingdom or with a colony, should not lose their status as citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. This is covered by Clause 5. Clause 6 deals with interpretation and enables Her Majesty by Order in Council to appoint independence day. I am sure that all Members of your Lordships' House will want to join with Her Majesty's Government in welcoming this Bill, which paves the way for Belize's long overdue independence and will wish Belize, together with the Belizean people, every success and goodwill in their new nationhood within the Commonwealth. I beg to move.

My Lords, Parliament is usually willing to extend its welcome and good wishes to an independence Bill, for each one marks a further stage in the development of the old Empire into the Commonwealth. We should be particularly willing to welcome an independence Bill for Belize—a community that has ordered its own affairs well for some considerable time now and which, one has every reason to suppose, will continue to be able to do so provided that it is not interfered with from some external quarter.

While in general one welcomes the Bill, one is bound to question a number of points about the handling of this Bill by the Government and the arrangement of events. First, this Bill was put through all its stages in the other place on one day, or rather in one night. I wonder why that degree of hurrying was necessary? However, perhaps that is spilt milk now. At any rate, I am glad that the Government have not attempted the same procedure in your Lordships' House because I believe that a number of matters might crop up in the course of the debate which might cause the Government to ask themselves whether some amendments to the Bill might not be necessary. If that should prove to be true, the Government will have time to introduce those amendments and we on this side of the House will also have time to consider whether we wish to put down amendments, and then the House will be able to give the matter proper consideration. That is an improvement on what happened in the other place.

Secondly, the Bill is closely connected with a treaty with Guatemala which has not yet been made. The only reason why one could conceivably question Belize having its independence is concerned with its security and its relations with Guatemala. One could wish that the treaty was already made. As I remember it, when the colony of British Guyana became the independent country of Guyana, the treaty with Venezuela, with whom Guyana had a boundary dispute, was firmly made before the country proceeded to independence. I wish that could be so here.

Thirdly, there is to be a referendum on the treaty. The referendum has not yet been held and we do not know what its result will be. Fourth, the independence is to be brought into existence by an Order in Council, which the noble Lord the Minister told us—almost as a recommendation—will be made during the Recess. I doubt whether your Lordships' House will regard that as a recommendation—the more so as this is a rather unusual kind of order, because although it has to be laid before Parliament, so far as I can see Parliament is not in a position to do anything about it. The order becomes valid as soon as it is made, and since Parliament will be in Recess perhaps it is rather idle to complain that Members of Parliament will not be able to say anything effective about the order. I hope that there are not too many orders of this kind.

There are also complications about the citizenship of Belize and the rights of particular persons as a result of independence. This bill must be unique in that it contains references to an Act of Parliament that is not yet an Act—the British Nationality Act. I shall refer a little later to the rather complicated problems about citizenship as a result of the combined working of the British Nationality Act, if it becomes an Act, and this Bill. The final complication we have to take into account is that over the whole of this hangs the shadow of the security of the future independent state of Belize. I shall want to refer to that matter again.

I have mentioned certain reasons why our welcome to the Belize Bill is somewhat qualified, and from that qualification arise certain questions. First, how are the negotiations for the treaty progressing? If I may say so, what the noble Lord the Minister told us today was substantially what Mr. Nicholas Ridley told the Members of the other place a little while ago. Has there been any further real progress? Is the noble Lord the Minister in a position to give a more definite statement about when a fully-fledged, signed, sealed and delivered treaty will be available?

Secondly, I understand that independence day will be after the treaty is made, if indeed it is made, and after the referendum is held. But independence day is in any event to be during this calendar year. If the treaty were not made, or if the referendum rejected the treaty, it is apparently the Government's intention to proceed to independence before the end of this year whatever the situation in respect of the treaty and the referendum; but, if they can, the Government will get the treaty and the referendum through before independence. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will be able to confirm that I have got that rather complicated matter right.

Thirdly, what happens if a treaty is made and the Belizeans turn it down in the referendum? One might ask if the treaty would still be valid, although that is a question for international lawyers. What is perfectly clear is that the treaty would not mean anything if the referendum was against it. This raises a very critical point about the security of Belize. I should like to quote what was said by Mr. Ridley on this matter. At one stage in the debate on the Second Reading in the other place he said:

"Her Majesty's Government intend to make arrangements for the future security of Belize which will be appropriate in the circumstances, whatever they may be".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/81; col. 815.]

Does "appropriate in the circumstances" mean that the Government are determined to defend Belize if it is attacked? That is how I would interpret the word "appropriate", but we really ought to have that made perfectly clear. Mr. Ridley then went on to spell out the different circumstances which might occur. One set of circumstances is that the treaty is made and the Belizeans approve it in the referendum. That is obviously the most favourable set of circumstances. The very fact that that was done would be of considerable encouragement to the future security of Belize, and any preparations that the Government might have to make to ensure that arrangements were appropriate to the circumstances might not have to be very formidable.

But suppose that no treaty is made and that Belize proceeds to independence without a treaty with its comparatively powerful neighbour. Presumably then the arrangements for its security, if they are to be appropriate, would have to be rather more thorough-going than if there were a treaty. Again I hope that it would still be the Government's intention, if necessary, to defend the security of Belize, even if—which I hope will not happen—no treaty is reached.

Then we come to the third possible set of circumstances: that a treaty is made and the Belizean referendum rejects it. On that point Mr. Ridley had something very interesting to say:

"In that case",

he said,

"…it would be an extremely perilous independence, because who can guarantee security in an area like South America, with a rejected Guatemala and all sorts of other people trying to get in on the act? At a time like that, the danger would be great indeed, and I have told the Belizeans that the reaction of the United Kingdom Parliament and Government must not be taken for granted in those circumstances".—[Col. 816.]

That is rather different from what he said earlier as reported at col. 815: that the Government will,

"make arrangements for the future security of Belize which will be appropriate in the circumstances, whatever they may be".

Then he spelt out the circumstances, and if in fact a treaty is made but is rejected on the referendum, then he is not really giving any guarantee at all of future security. That is how I read those points.

The precise question that I am asking the Minister is: What will be the position if a treaty is made and the referendum rejects it? I agree that it would be very unwise for the Belizeans to do that, and I hope it will not happen. But we must know the answer to this question. If a treaty is made and the Belizeans do reject it, will Her Majesty's Government still consider themselves bound to defend, if necessary, the security of Belize? These matters are not as clear as they might be from the Government's previous statement, and one advantage of being able to have a debate in this House is to give the Government an opportunity to spell out the situation even more precisely.

I think that I have already raised the question of the order. It seems that I am right in saying that the only thing that Parliament can do with the order is to read it. So far as I can see, we shall have no opportunity to do anything about it, and even if we had, it would not be an opportunity that led anywhere. That might be all right if everything goes smoothly over the treaty and the referendum. But if we have all good reason to be unhappy about how things are going in Belize, can the Government provide any opportunity for us to debate the matter again after the Bill has gone through and when the order is laid before Parliament?

I come now to the question of citizenship, and I shall not attempt to go through all the various possibilities outlined in Clauses 4 and 5 of the Bill. However, there are one or two basic questions to which it is necessary to have the answers. The important thing is to make sure that after independence no one is left without any citizenship. Can we take it as clear that anyone now residing in Belize, and who in consequence is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, after independence will be either a citizen of Belize, or a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies? I want to be sure that no one finds himself without either of those citizenships. In the Commons the Minister gave an answer that should reassure me on this point. As reported at col. 819 of the Official Report of 30th June, Mr. Christopher Price asked him:

"Can the Minister give us a guarantee about Clause 4? Those who cease to become citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies will definitely, on independence, become citizens of Belize?"

Mr. Ridley's answer was, "Yes".

But the trouble is that that is not in the Bill. One can look as hard as one likes, but it is not in the Bill. Further pressed on the matter, Mr. Ridley said in effect that the point is not covered in the Bill but that it would be found in the report of the constitutional conference. But I do not think that that has the force of law.

Now I can see that it could be argued that since Belize is to be independent, we ought not in the Bill to lay down who is, or who is not, to be a citizen of Belize; that should be their business. But at least we ought to give the guarantee absolutely the other way round: that anyone who is now a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, and who for any reason finds himself not a citizen of Belize after independence, shall remain a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. The Government's position is that that is already so, but I would defy any layman, and possibly a number of lawyers as well, to find that definitely provided for in the Bill. Between now and Committee stage will the Government please see whether that can definitely be provided for somewhere in the Bill?

I would also ask another question about those who after independence are still citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. What will happen to them when the British Nationality Bill becomes an Act? Am I right in thinking that they will then become—what is the phrase?—citizens of dependent territories? I presume that that would be the case, but we ought to be sure about it.

In conclusion, I say that the Government should realise—I think they do realise—that there is much anxiety in Belize about this Bill. It is much to be regretted that the Belizean Opposition did not take part in the discussions. Speaking as an experienced politician in all kinds of fields, involving both home and international affairs, I think that it is nearly always a mistake to fail to take part in discussions. One is reminded of that devastating French proverb that the absent are always wrong. I think it a pity that the Opposition decided not to take part, but that they did so decide is proof of considerable anxiety. As the Bill proceeds on its way the Government must make quite sure that the anxieties of the Belizeans about their security, their relations with Guatemala—and I carry this a little further—and their relations with other powers on the American continent are allayed.

I think I am right in saying that at present the Guatemalan Government purchases arms from the United States. This is a matter on which we should be entitled to make certain representations to the American Government if it appears that Guatemalan activities are likely to threaten the independence and happiness of Belize. We all hope that it will not come to that kind of thing. But I hope that the Government will be fully aware of the anxiety that there is in Belize about the Bill and will agree that it is their duty to do all they can to allay it. Subject to those, I fear rather considerable, qualifications, I assure the Government that we shall be glad to see the Bill pass into law.

My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has said, we normally accord an unqualified welcome to Bills providing for the independence of countries in the Commonwealth; and we would do so in this case if we were sure that the status of Belize was fully safeguarded and that she could enjoy peace within her undisturbed borders as a result of the negotiations that are currently taking place with Guatemala. Everyone would be extremely happy if the long-standing dispute with Guatemala can be brought to an end, and if that enables Belize to proceed to her independence within the timescale that the noble Lord the Minister has mentioned. He pointed out that the United Nations had already passed a resolution calling for independence to be reached by the end of this year and that the United Kingdom had said that it would do its best to comply with that timescale. It is in our interests that we should comply with the time-scale because thereby Britain will be relieved of an obligation that has involved the maintenance of our troops in the Western Hemisphere to protect against the threat of aggression by Guatemala. As the noble Lord has said, there have now been signed between the United Kingdom and Guatemala heads of agreement which at least indicate the way forward to a peaceful settlement of the longstanding dispute.

There are one or two questions that I should like to add to those already put by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, about the progress that has been made since the agreement was signed on 16th March. In paragraph 2 of the heads of agreement there is provision for Guatemala to be

"accorded such territorial seas as shall ensure permanent and unimpeded access to the high seas, together with rights over the seabed thereunder".

What are the territorial seas that are to be accorded to Guatemala, and has the matter been fully agreed with the Government of Belize?

In paragraph 3, where it is said that Guatemala shall have the use and enjoyment of certain cays which are off the coast of Belize, again what rights does that give to Guatemala over the seabed resources and the fishing resources in the neighbourhood of those cays? Has that again been agreed with the Government of Belize?

Has any agreement been reached under paragraph 8 for the exploitation of the continental shelf for hydrocarbons, a matter which could be of some considerable importance for the newly emergent nation? And what about the draft Treaty of Mutual Co-operation on Security which is mentioned in paragraph 11? Has that yet been tabled, and, if so, has that to be signed before the referendum?

Paragraph 15 provides for a joint commission to be established to give effect to the matters dealt with in the heads of agreement. Has that joint commission been brought into existence yet, and, if so, when does it start its work?

It is important, I think, that we should have answers to questions such as the ones I have put, and the people of Belize would like to have them in front of them before they make a final decision. With goodwill on the part of Guatemala the questions I have put ought to be soluble, even though the example quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is not a very happy one in the sense that we may have signed a treaty with Venezuela prior to the granting of independence to Guyana on the territorial integrity of the latter country, but nevertheless he will have noticed that in recent months the Venezuelans have revived their territorial claims to the Essequibo which constitutes a large part of the territory of Guyana, and only the other day the Foreign Minister of Venezuela was in this country with a view to obtaining United Kingdom support for that claim.

It seems to me that the security of Belize depends not so much on the restraint of Guatemala, or exactly what was in this treaty, but as was pointed out in another place, on the influence of the Organisation of the United States to which Belize will belong; and in that sense the question put by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, is very relevant. The United States being the most powerful member of the Organisation of American States it does have a strong interest in the preservation of peace in the region. I would echo what he has said about the risks of current American policy in Central America, of supplying arms to regimes like Guatemala which have, in the case of Guatemala, murdered something like 70,000 of its own inhabitants over the last 10 years and which certainly cannot be trusted not to commit acts of aggression against their neighbours. I am hoping, as the noble Lord has suggested, that the influence of the United States might restrain Guatemala from embarking on such a course of action and, of course, he might also have added that the Mexicans have a strong interest, in view of their boundary, in the preservation of the territorial integrity of Belize. So I think the membership of the OAS ought to be a strong guarantee of Belize's independence, and I believe that it would be just as effective in safeguarding her integrity as the presence of a few British troops.

There is a matter which I should like to refer to which has not yet been touched on, and that is that during the run-up to independence some of us received letters from people in Belize concerning the electoral process there and the anxieties they had concerning the preservation of human rights. We have before us the report of the Belize constitutional conference, which, as the noble Lord says, was held during April. That report states that the Leader of the Opposition and representatives of the United Democratic Party had been invited to attend but had declined. I wonder if the noble Lord, when he comes to reply, can give us any indication of reasons for that refusal? I ask this question because of the anxieties expressed in writing concerning malpractices which they allege occurred in the 1979 election, and in particular their allegations that ballot papers were doctored.

I must add that they did not submit any election petition at the time setting out these charges, as was provided for under the Representation of the People Ordinance, although I understand there were four other election petitions submitted by other individuals to the election judge, two of which were dismissed: one was found to be not proven, and the fourth was struck off the file. So I am not saying that I necessarily attach credence to the allegations which were made; I merely say they were drawn to our attention by a number of people in Belize.

I did ask the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary in particular about the arrangements being made in the independence constitution to safeguard the independence of the judiciary, another matter of anxiety which had been drawn to our attention, and he pointed to the provision in the report of the constitutional conference for the chief justice to be appointed by the Governor General on the advice of the Prime Minister after consulting with the Leader of the Opposition. I am not sure whether the Minister can tell us if that arrangement has any precedent in other Commonwealth countries. It seems to me that the Prime Minister might, theoretically at any rate, appoint someone who was a party man, disregarding the advice of the Leader of the Opposition. It might have been preferable to say that the supreme court judges would have had the power to elect the chief justice.

The report of the constitutional conference says that the constitution will include a comprehensive section on human rights and freedoms, based on the United Nations covenants, the Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights. Will Belize become a signatory of the covenants, and is the noble Lord able to tell us whether she will become a signatory of the Optional Protocol to the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights which allows the right of individual petition?

The Bill only provides for the constitution to be approved by Her Majesty in Council, and we are obliged to accept that it will fulfil the spirit of these undertakings. As the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, has pointed out, there will be no further opportunity for us to discuss this, because the order will be presented during the Recess and, as I understand it, the Prime Minister, Mr. Price, has said he was aiming at an independent state some time in September.

As to citizenship, it is interesting to notice that the Bill preserves the rule of jus soli, which your Lordships decided earlier this week should be abandoned by the United Kingdom. One feature of the citizenship law is similar to that of other countries in the West Indies, and that is that a person who is born in Belize, and has lived in Britain for 20 years (or whatever the period may be) as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, is suddenly to become a citizen of Belize. Many of the people concerned will be totally unaware of the change in their status, and also they may not know that if they do not take the trouble to register as British citizens after the Nationality Act has been passed they will lose that right altogether; and this is something which I am really a little bit anxious about.

I would endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, concerning the need for assurances that no person who resides in Belize now is going to be rendered stateless by the provisions of this Bill: that one must either acquire citizenship of the newly independent country or must remain a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies. I am obliged to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that when you read Clauses 4 and 5 it is not at all clear that this is so.

Finally, with regard to the referendum, as I understand it that will enable the people to give their approval to the terms of the treaty with Guatemala. But the question has been asked: What happens if the people withhold their approval? Belize would then proceed, as I understand it, to independence all the same, but without the protection of the treaty. In the circumstances, I do not believe it can be said that the electors will have a free choice, bearing in mind particularly the words of the Minister in another place which were quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart.

But subject to obtaining satisfactory answers to these questions, we would again echo the words of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, that this is part of the process of decolonisation, of the transformation of the British Empire into the Commonwealth of Nations, and we certainly echo the warm good wishes which have been expressed for the future happiness and prosperity of the people of Belize.

My Lords, it is customary in the case of independence Bills to give a welcome. Unfortunately, I cannot give a welcome to this Bill today as it stands. Despite the various remarks of other noble Lords that we have heard in regard to this Bill, it does not commend itself to me, as the noble Lord the Minister said it should. We have 44 independent countries in the Commonwealth, and in another place I spoke in many of the debates on independence, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, will remember. I was absolutely astonished when this Bill was rushed through the other House in less than two hours, when there were only 64 Members present, including the four tellers. It would also be interesting, having read the debate, to know whether any of those who took part in it had actually visited Belize, and had real knowledge of what was happening there.

In regard to this debate, I noticed the statement made by the Minister:

"It was … a great pleasure to us all that we got as far as signing the heads of agreement with Guatemala…".—[Official Report, Commons, 30/6/81, col. 802.]

Then it was admitted—a very strange sentence—that the heads of agreement was not a legal document or a legal treaty, and that it is still necessary to turn these heads of agreement into a treaty or treaties. It was also stated on 30th June that there was going to take place in a week's time, which I gather was about 6th July, another conference or another meeting. Perhaps the Minister can tell us whether this is in being at the present time.

As the Minister mentioned, Belize has been fully independent internally since 1963; and I should like to suggest that it has one magnificent record: it is the oasis of democracy in South America. Another strange statement by the Minister was that he pointed out that the points that remained after the various debates, though thoroughly tricky and difficult, were not many and were not of such importance as the ending of the dispute and the settling of a secure foundation for the future progress of Belize. It seems very odd that if a great number of points remain tricky and difficult, he can be so hopeful in regard to this Bill.

It should be remembered, as has been mentioned once before, that the Opposition did not attend the conference. Also—and I think this has not been mentioned—there was an upheaval and turmoil in Belize following the publication of the heads of agreement. The Prime Minister, Mr. George Price, for whom I have much admiration, has provided—this was mentioned in the debate in the House of Commons—for a referendum; but it is rather odd, it seems to me, that it is going to be a referendum when the heads of agreement have been signed. I have read all through the document setting out the heads of agreement, and I do not want to go through it point by point, but I am certainly not happy about them—in particular, Nos. 3, 4 and 5, 12 and 15, which seem to be entirely on the side of Guatemala; and this, I think, is very unfortunate for Belizeans.

At the London Independence Constitutional Conference there was a saying when we were asked why the Opposition had not come. "The Cockroach Conference" they called it, because there is a proverb which says, "When a cockroach has a party he never invites the fowl". They were quite certain that they would be gobbled up, and they feel now that, if the Bill goes through as it stands, they may be gobbled up by Guatemala in less than 10 years. Strangely, the draft constitution grants citizenship with voting rights to a person who has lived in the country for only five years. I do not know whether people really realise how dangerous this is when there are only 160,000 Belizeans and 7 million Guatemalans—and they do go there for quite a considerable time.

Clause 6—I am talking now about the heads of agreement—says that there are to be three oil pipelines across Belize to three ports. These will have to be guarded, because we know that there are quite a lot of guerrillas who have come over from Guatemala. This will divide Belize up into four narrow cantons; and they will be separated by, I presume, Guatemalan military guards. Clause 3, about cays, is a very sticky point in my opinion, because I believe that the Guatemalans would have a right to build a naval base or an airstrip, and these cays are really meant for enjoyment. Guatemalans go there for tourism now, and, as tourists, stay for quite a long time. This could mean land cession, which for centuries Guatemalans have desired.

I should also like to mention a Question which was asked in this House on 12th May and answered by the Foreign Secretary, because it did not give the same indication that was given in the House of Commons. I understood from what the noble Lord said that there would be a referendum before independence, but now it appears there will not be a referendum. What is the point of having a referendum when everything is decided? At the present time Belize is a Crown Colony, of course, and has, as has been mentioned before, internal self-government. It has a constitution; and defence and foreign affairs are still the responsibility of the United Kingdom. I should like to suggest that perhaps there might be some agreement, such as there was with the Associated States of the West Indies under the Act of 1967, so that we should keep an open commitment about helping them for the time necessary in the future in regard to defence.

I should also like to know what financial aid Belize is likely to receive when she becomes independent. In regard to defence, I consider there is a very good case here for a training ground. We have no tropical training areas at the present time. For the northern areas, of course, we have Norway; and Belize would be a very advantageous place to carry out training.

I was really astonished to receive a document dated 2nd July which said:

"Guatemala threatens to break off talks with Britain about Belize".

One of the sentences was as follows:

"We will not recognise this new state if Great Britain unilaterally gives it independence".

It also said that Lucas Garcia told the congress:

"If this happens Guatemala will consider the negotiations (with Britain) finished".

He rejected all the terms of the tentative agreement which, he said,

"we consider contrary to the national interest or injurious to our national honour".

I should like to know whether this document has any real standing—it is quite interesting, and there is quite a lot more I could read about it—because this very much worries the Belizeans themselves.

Finally, I should like to mention Cmnd. 8245. We have to remember that perhaps it is not only Guatemala that is interested in Belize. As has been said, and as we know, part of Belize came from Mexico, and it has been said that if the Guatemalans walked in the Mexicans would not like that. I should like to know what is the exact position in regard to Mexico. Have discussion taken place with Mexico? Would they come in and cause a civil war, or is it that they have no wish for future action?

Then, we have in Cmnd. 8245 a statement by Mr. Rogers. Mr. Rogers was one of the delegation but he was not a Member of Parliament. He made the final Statement at the conference. He said:

"Comforting were your assurances that … there can be no question of Her Majesty's Government abandoning its rightful responsibilities for the security of Belize. Yet there are many forces at work"—

I do not think he understated that—

"which wish, even at this late hour, to forestall the rightful aspirations of the Belizean people for independence".

He finishes with this sentence:

"There remains much to be done, therefore, before we can celebrate the fulfilment of our destiny. We shall not be deterred, for the peace and prosperity of the future nation of Belize is too great a goal to be compromised".

I think we shall have to discuss this. I am glad that we are going to have a second day for consideration, because I am fearful. We do not know enough about the whole arrangements, we do not know about the agreement and the will of the people in Belize. We should have a referendum before anything is settled; otherwise I can see future difficulties.

I should be pleased to see this territory independent but I do not want to throw them to the wolves (shall I say?) of the other territories in South America. Therefore I want to be certain that there is every possible safeguard because I think that Her Majesty's Government will never be able to forgive themselves if, within a few years, this country is taken over by its neighbours. That would be tragic. I hope that the Minister will give some consideration to these points when he replies.

My Lords, I am glad to be able to follow the noble Baroness because, like her, I am glad that Belize is about to become independent and, also like her, I am worried that we are leading Belize into independence in the way we are. I am glad that we are not following the other place and having the Belize Bill going through all its stages in one sitting because I intend—and I told the Minister when I spoke to him a couple of days ago—to try to amend the Bill in two specific respects which may have the effect of delaying the date of independence; but I believe it would be a right and proper thing to do. First, I support the noble Baroness in saying that there should be a referendum not merely on whether or not they agree to the treaty with Guatemala but whether or not they want independence either with the treaty or without it. In other words, I think, in effect, that in the case of Belize it is necessary for the people to be invited to speak clearly and unequivocally as to what they want.

The noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, illustrated the different things that may occur. For example, the best thing would be if the people of Belize endorse the agreement with Guatemala and then go on to independence. That is the best. But, in fact, the people of Belize may reject the agreement with Guatemala and we have to decide where we are then. Therefore, in effect, I think a referendum, not merely on the agreement with Guatemala but also on whether or not the people of Belize want to go on to independence at this stage, is necessary. I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider that even if it involves delaying the independence date by a couple of months.

It need not necessarily do that, because there is a referendum to be held in any case. The Prime Minister of Belize has given an undertaking that the agreement with Guatemala will be put to the people in a referendum so that there will be a referendum in any case. As I see it, the referendum can have several questions including a question about independence with the agreement of Guatemala or without the agreement of Guatemala, with a clear understanding by the people of Belize as to what are the implications.

The reason why I have come to that conclusion and why I will try to press your Lordships on this is that I have had representations made to me about the fears and suspicions of the people of Guatemala. At least those who communicated with me think that, as things are, Guatemala will absorb Belize within 10 years or perhaps five years without using force merely by the process of sending Guatemalans into Belize to settle and vote at elections. The noble Baroness pointed out that, as the constitution now stands, if you are living in Belize for five years you have a vote. There are only 110,000 people in Belize (the noble Baroness said 160,000, and she may be right) and 7 million in Guatemala; so that the people of Belize see that as a possible way in which Guatemala will absorb them because, once a majority of the people of Belize are Guatemalans, they can pass a resolution in Parliament inviting Guatemala to accept them as a province.

This is one way that they have seen it. They have also seen the possibility of these pipelines which were mentioned by the noble Baroness dividing the country into four cantons each of which has Guatemalan troops around it as another way in which Guatemala can absorb Belize. In effect, I should have thought that in the negotiations it is necessary to get undertakings on both of those points. I am glad that the question of the USA has been mentioned because I think the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right that the Organisation of American States would be Belize's best protection. But the country that carries the weight in the Organisation of American States is the USA and so, since there is this special relationship between us and the USA, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will endeavour to get a clear agreement with the United States that they would support an independent Belize and support this haven of democracy in this particular area of dictatorship. Therefore, I hope that we get all this settled before we fix a date for independence. Therefore, I would want to move an amendment to the last clause of the Bill. Clause 6(2) of which at present reads:

"In this Act 'Independence Day' means such day as Her Majesty may by Order in Council appoint; and any Order in Council under this subsection shall be laid before Parliament after being made.".

I would like to add: "and Her Majesty's Government will undertake to ensure the people of Belize have indicated their acceptance of this day in a referendum". That I would like to see done.

The other thing that I would like to do—and I would like to do it because again I feel we need to reassure the people of Belize as much as possible—is that I should like the constitution order to require the affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It is that particular bit which, as I have said, would delay independence; unless it is possible to lay it before we adjourn for the Summer Recess. Whether rightly or wrongly—and I am not going into the rightness or wrongness of their fears and suspicions; I am merely indicating that they exist—the people obviously have fears and suspicions and this led them to civil disobedience in Belize immediately the heads of agreement were announced. The fears which lead people to take those steps must be borne carefully in mind before final action is taken.

The act of creating an independent Belize is a final one. Before we do it we must not only be satisfied in our own minds but do as much as we can to satisfy the people of Belize that we have taken their interests fully into account; that when we grant them independence it is an independence which will last; that we have made sure that the issues that have stood in the way have been taken care of, and that we are prepared to continue to support them after they become independent. Therefore I shall try to see whether we can agree to amend the Bill in the ways that I have suggested. I am glad that the question of nationality has been raised. It is important that assurance should be given that nobody living in Belize will find themselves stateless after independence.

I also think it is necessary to let the people of Belize living here at this moment, citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, know the implications of the independence of Belize. I am almost anticipating an amendment I intend to move on the British Nationality Bill. If they do not understand and we pass the British Nationality Bill as an Act at the end of this year, five years from now they will have lost the right to register as British citizens unless in the process we change the Bill. It is the duty of Her Majesty's Government to make sure that the people of Belize who are now going to have their status changed know what the new status is and understand the implications of this new Bill.

My Lords, I have said enough. This is an occasion when we should be rejoicing. For 18 years we have been trying to find a formula for getting Belize independent. It is sad that on an occasion when we should be rejoicing there should be a need to express all these worries. I feel that when making these decisions Her Majesty's Government have a responsibility, and we in Parliament have a responsibility, to make sure that not only what we do is right, but that the people affected by them are satisfied that we have done what is right.

My Lords, I apologise that I did not have my name down on the list of speakers but I was not certain that I could be present. Speaking in the cool comfort of this Chamber on what might seem sometimes esoteric points of nationality law and constitutional affairs looks very different and feels very different to the steamy jungles of Belize. I had the privilege of being in Belize for some time, particularly to see how our troops were carrying out what could have been a very difficult job. I should like to start by saying that I heard nothing but praise and gratitude from the people of Belize for what our forces were doing. On that occasion there were two Scottish regiments on turn of duty. But I was assured that it was not only the Scottish soldiers who were popular and were accepted warmly in Belize.

The conditions, of course, are very difficult. The weather is almost impossible to bear for people who are not used to it in that climate. The co-operation, friendship and the way the soldiers helped the local people in welfare and medical services was most impressive. I do not know how some of them did it, but it was certainly a joy to see Scottish soldiers teaching Mayan Indian boys football in the jungle and then to see the soldiers in their off-duty time exploring the Mayan archaeology and taking a serious interest in the country in which they were temporarily living and working.

When I tried to raise the matter of independence and withdrawal with many of my contacts in Belize, and particularly the Mayan Indians (who are a very gentle, peaceful people) who have no tradition of defence or fighting, their only hope was that independence would not be accompanied by any threat to their safety and that when independence came, as it had to come, they would not feel deserted. This is a very real feeling. It is not a feeling that comes from lack of experience. These people are just a few yards away from Guatemala. They know what goes on in Guatemala. We only know what Amnesty International and other organisations tell us. When I say to this House that many of these people are afraid for their lives, I am not being over-dramatic because they know what has happened to many people in neighbouring countries and they have had the experience of the Guatemalan policies.

One of the key factors in all this is the United States of America. I must say to that usually friendly nation that the new régime in the USA makes me even more frightened. I think the people of Belize are right to be frightened. I think it absolutely outrageous that we have a partner in NATO but I see our soldiers in Belize being forced to confront Guatemalan soldiers armed and trained by the United States. I raised this with the American Consul in Belize who gave a cynical laugh and said: "Well, it is no use sending them the stuff if you do not send people to teach them how to use it". If the American Consul can say that in that context, against whom are the Guatemalans to use these weapons? It was against the British soldiers. I think that that must be raised very sharply with the Americans because unfortunately, due to all sorts of complicated troubles in Central America into which we cannot go this morning, it seems that there is likely to be a stepping up of American arms to El Salvador, and arms all over Central America are bought and sold anyhow. If America sends arms to any part of Central America, we cannot be sure that they will not be used against Belize.

I asked a Question on 18th June of the Foreign Secretary about the present state of negotiations and the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, said:

"Talks with Guatemala to negotiate the instruments necessary to give effect to the heads of agreement signed in March are expected to resume in early July."—[Official Report, 29/6/81; col. 76.]

We are about halfway through July. If these matters are to be concluded before the House rises for the Summer Recess I feel that we should have some further information this morning.

Other noble Lords have raised the question of the status of the referendum. The referendum, as I understand it, is to be held in Belize at the wish of the Belize Government and Mr. Price; but it will be a referendum on a treaty which was arranged between Britain and Guatemala. Therefore it could be argued that it will have no status. I thought I understood the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, to say that it could not have a decisive effect. That is certainly how I read what was said in another place: that it really was quite meaningless in terms of independence.

I am glad we are taking a little longer over this very important matter that concerns the future of thousands of people, their safety and their lives. I think one could say of the other place that they legislated in haste and may repent at leisure, but I hope not, because I agree very much with what my noble friend Lord Pitt and the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, have said. We ought to try to get some of these things put right because not only would it be a disaster for the people of Belize if these things did not work properly, but it would be a constitutional disgrace to this country if an order were to be brought in during the summer holidays on a Bill which I think almost every speech this morning has indicated to be in need of serious amendment.

My Lords, I am very glad that your Lordships, on this occasion if on no other, are giving very serious consideration to, and exercising your proper function of review of, laws which the Government are passing through Parliament. I know full well there are a myriad of questions, and certainly a myriad have come to light during the debate today. I shall do my best to answer most of the points raised but, if I fail to do so, I promise to write to any speaker whose points have not been answered.

If I may begin wtih the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, I would tell him that it is precisely because there are a number of circumstances in which Belize might go to independence that my right honourable friend the Minister of State used the language quoted by the noble Lord. Clearly the arrangements made for Belize's security, if there is a treaty under which Guatemala has formally renounced its territorial claim, would be different from those which might be necessary if there were no treaty. In the specific circumstances mentioned by the noble Lord in which a treaty might be rejected by the Belizean people, I believe that noble Lords would agree that such an outcome would carry considerable risk for the Belizeans themselves. It is right that the people of Belize should appreciate that, and I must repeat that in those circumstances the position of this country should not be taken for granted.

Several speakers have mentioned the nature and timing of the Bill. The date of independence is not specified there because it is considered undesirable to fix it until negotiations with Guatemala have been completed and a referendum held on the terms of any treaty based on the heads of agreement. However, we may wish to set a date as early as September: that is the Belizean Government's target. In terms of the United Nations resolution, it has to be before the end of the year, so the decision almost certainly will have to be taken during the Summer Recess, as we have all said. It is important that legislation sbould be completed before the House rises, leaving the date to be specified by Order in Council. This, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart noted, is not subject to parliamentary scrutiny but it is laid on the Table of the House so that Members of Parliament can at least see it. I should add that this is not at all unusual: it is the same procedure as was followed for Vanatu, Zimbabwe, Malta and Cyprus. We have, of course, accepted the fact that the Belize Government have undertaken to put the terms of the final treaty to referendum.

The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, also asked about the negotiations which are currently proceeding in New York. Since they have not yet been completed, I think that, with his long experience, he will appreciate that I cannot pre-empt what may still be said and what signed paper—I cannot think of the phrase at the moment—will come out of it in the end.

Almost every speaker today has referred to security after independence and, for the first time, there is now the real prospect of Belize proceeding to independence free from external threat. The outcome of the present negotiations with Guatemala will clearly influence the defence provisions that will need to be made. I want to repeat what I said at the beginning: that Her Majesty's Government, for their part, intend—and here are the magic words yet again—

"to make arrangements for the future security of Belize which will be appropriate to the circumstances, whatever they may be";

and "whatever they may be", as I have already explained, does mean exactly that. This will be in addition to the security provided to Belize by virtue of membership of the United Nations and of the OAS, both of which Belize intends to join.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked about the heads of agreement, referring to security. I would tell him that there is nothing in those heads of agreement that would allow Guatemalan troops on Belizean soil, whether for pipeline duties, as an act of war, or anything else—

My Lords, do I understand this correctly—that the Guatemalans therefore will not be able to protect the pipelines by stationing troops around them? That is a point, you know.

My Lords, I shall have to check this, but my understanding is that it would only be at the invitation of the Belizean Government. If I may, I will write to the noble Lord about that.

The cays were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, and by my noble friend Lady Vickers, and I can say that military use by the Guatemalans is not provided for in the heads of agreement, which include the phrase:

"the use and enjoyment of the cays in question".

The definition of that is one of the things now being discussed during the current negotiations.

My noble friend Lady Vickers also asked about aid. Of course figures for British aid following independence have yet to be decided, but aid will continue for a number of years and we are considering suitable ways in which that might be done. It is a matter that will need to be discussed with the Belizean Government when the actual date for independence is fixed. Independence will enhance Belize's ability to attract aid from multilateral and bilateral sources, as with any other newly independent nation.

Regarding the question of oil round the cays, we do not know whether there is any, but the heads of agreement provide for exploration jointly with the Guatemalans. Belize has a healthy and expanding economy and there was strong economic growth in the 'sixties and 'seventies—

My Lords, may I interrupt for one moment? The areas adjacent to the cays are to be explored jointly, but that does not say who has sovereignty over the areas, either adjacent to the particular cays mentioned in Clause 3 of the heads of agreement or elsewhere in the agreement where it is said that in the high seas generally in the neighbourhood of Belize there will be arrangements for joint exploration for hydrocarbons. Can we have assurances that Belize will retain sovereignty over these resources even though exploration may be a joint venture?

My Lords, as I said before, I am not in a position to give assurances while the current negotiations in New York are going on, but that is one of the things that is being looked at. The potential for further satisfactory growth exists in the Belizean economy and with under-population in rural areas there is considerable scope for agricultural expansion of land not yet cultivated.

I am not quite sure whether this is the right moment to raise this, but the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, to my great surprise, mentioned the matter of jus soli. What I would say is that jus soli is not appropriate to this country, as, indeed, the House decided the other day—because we are a fairly full country—whereas it is appropriate in the case of Belize, because it is a comparatively under-populated country. This is the reason, as I see it.

Human rights in Guatemala were also raised by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The Government are aware, from a variety of reports, of the disquieting situation in Guatemala and strongly support the observance of full human and democratic rights there. As the Guatemalan Government broke off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom in 1963 over Belize, we are not usually in a position to make direct representations to them. However, we have consistently pressed in the United Nations, and in other international fora, for the adequate protection of human rights throughout the world and will continue to do so.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, also asked about the opposition's attitude to the constitutional conference. The reasons given were dissatisfaction with the Belize Government's constitutional proposals and the heads of agreement themselves. We regret that they did not come to make their points at the constitutional conference, but the conference did have written submissions, including submissions on behalf of opposition groups, and these were fully taken into account. As I have said several times, there will, of course, be a referendum on any treaty based on the heads of agreement. I was asked whether the constitutional provision regarding the chief justice is quite normal. Yes, my Lords, it is quite normal. There are many precedents for appointment by Prime Ministers, after consultation with the Leader of the Opposition. Indeed, there are precedents for appointment by the Prime Minister without such consultation, so that Belize's constitution is, in this respect, more liberal than some others.

My noble friend Lady Vickers talked about citizenship. This is an extremely complicated subject and I rather doubt whether, at this hour, the House would like me to go into it in detail. It seems that your Lordships would like me to go into detail. As well as citizenship laws, Belize will have immigration regulations. It is unlikely that it will wish to admit such large numbers of foreign citizens as to make this a real danger, but, in any case, the provision for granting citizenship after five years' residence is discretionary.

The nationality implications were raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, who said that it is not clear that anyone in Belize will be either a citizen of Belize or a citizen of the United Kingdom. The constitution, which is to be made by order under this Bill, will provide for those who will become citizens of Belize at independence, in accordance with paragraph 18(g) of the constitutional report. Almost all the population will become citizens of Belize. Those with a grandparent born, naturalised or registered in Belize, but who have a second nationality as well as citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, will not become citizens of Belize.

At independence, these people will retain their nationality; and I can give this undertaking, at least, to the House that no one will be left stateless by the Bill. Some will become British citizens when the Nationality Bill becomes law, if, indeed, it does—for example, those who have the right of abode in the United Kingdom—and some will become citizens of British dependent territories; for example, those who have close connections, such as birth or father's birth, with another country. It is very unlikely that anyone will become a British overseas citizen, though the possibility cannot be ruled out.

Still on citizenship, the noble Lord, Lord Stewart, asked a whole range of questions about the subject and I am not sure where to start. Perhaps I may say that we think the citizenship provisions, which are embodied in the proposed independence constitution, are entirely satisfactory. All those who owe their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to a connection with Belize, which is the overwhelming majority of the population of the territory, will become citizens of the new country on independence day. The Belize Bill provides for the withdrawal of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from those who automatically become citizens of Belize, and will except from loss of our citizenship those people who have a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency. These provisions follow those in previous independence legislation.

Additionally, the Belize Bill provides for the withdrawal of our citizenship from those who do not become citizens of Belize at independence, but who owe their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies to a connection with Belize, provided they are, at independence, also citizens of some other country. The specified connection with Belize is that one grandparent was born, naturalised or registered as a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies in Belize. Citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies having that connection will become citizens of Belize at independence, only if they have no other citizenship. If they have another citizenship, they will not become citizens of Belize.

The Belize Bill further provides that a person who would otherwise lose our citizenship is to retain it if, immediately before independence day, he has the right of abode in the United Kingdom under the Immigration Act 1971; that is to say, as a patrial. The logic of this provision is that citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are patrial will, when the British Nationality Bill becomes law, become British citizens. This is the new category of citizenship to be accorded under the Nationality Bill to those citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies who are closely connected with the United Kingdom. It is consistent with the policy of that Bill, which regards patrials as having a close connection with the United Kingdom, to recognise in the Belize Bill that patrials also have a sufficiently close connection with the United Kingdom to retain our citizenship.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt, asked about the status of Belizeans in the United Kingdom. Persons who are resident in the United Kingdom at the time of independence, but who are not patrial and who lose citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies, will not, in consequence, have any additional conditions attached to their stay in the United Kingdom. After five years' ordinary residence, including such residence before independence, they will be able to apply to recover our citizenship by registration or naturalisation, according to their date of settlement in this country. Those who become citizens of Belize automatically on independence, and who, because of a sufficiently close connection with the United Kingdom, retain our citizenship, will enjoy dual nationality. That is a synopsis of Clauses 3, 4 and 5 of the Bill. Should noble Lords feel that I have not dealt with them sufficiently, I should, of course, be delighted to send them a better, and perhaps fuller, explanation of it.

My Lords, would the noble Lord confirm that what the noble Lord, Lord Pitt, said is true? That was that somebody who becomes a citizen of Belize, and who is living in the United Kingdom, will have no way of knowing that his status has changed and that, if he does not take steps to obtain registration within five years, he will forfeit that right and will have to pay a very large sum of money, indeed, to become naturalised, if he is qualified?

My Lords, what I was asking was whether the Government would undertake to make sure that people who are citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies, because of coming from Belize, will know of this change in status. That is what I wanted, so that those people will know that they need now to register as United Kingdom citizens if they want to stay here.

My Lords, I am afraid that I am not able to give an answer to that, at this moment. But I should imagine that under the Nationality Bill, which is extremely complicated, there will be many explanations given of people's rights and so on, and that there will be advertisements in the papers. But, again, for a definitive answer I shall have to write to the noble Lord, Lord Pitt.

My Lords, the kind of thing I was talking about was that all these islands have organisations. Surely, there will be a Belizean Society in Britain, and if the Foreign Office would just let the Belizean Society in Britain know that this is the situation, that would help.

Yes, my Lords, but I do not know how many people this involves. It might be vast numbers, in which case it would be impracticable to send a letter to each individual.

My Lords, I was referring to sending a letter to a society.

In that case, I can certainly make sure that this is done.

The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, mentioned the United Nations, the Commonwealth and the OAS and said that Belize has expressed the intention to join all three. We hope that Belize might be admitted to the United Nations during the course of the 36th United Nations General Assembly.

Several noble Lords asked whether it is true that the Belize Government have indicated a preference for a date in September, Yes, most certainly this is true and we do not rule it out. We expect to complete the constitutional procedures—for example, the passage of the legislation through both Houses—by the Summer Recess, but the completion of negotiations and a referendum in Belize are also needed before a firm date is set.

Mr. Price's Government has been repeatedly reelected on an independence platform and we are confident that the majority of Belizeans favour independence. On the constitution, the Belizean public were given ample opportunity to scrutinise the proposals of the Government of Belize. A joint select committee set up by both Houses of the Belize legislature canvassed public opinion and the matter received oral and written evidence in all district towns of Belize. Their report was adopted by the Belize House of Representatives. The evidence submitted to the committee was made available to the constitutional conference. So I do not think it could possibly be said that the opinions of the Belizean people were not taken into account. The UDP opposition are also committed to independence as an ultimate goal. Some members of the UDP claim that the moment is premature. To some extent it must always be the wrong moment when opponents are in office. To the extent that misgivings arise from doubts about the terms of the proposed treaty, I believe that they are largely based on misconceptions. I hope they will be dispelled when a full treaty text emerges which will offer secure independence without damage to the essential interests of Belize.

The heads of agreement signed on 11th March provide a basis for a just and honourable settlement. Their essential feature for Belize is that, subject to negotiation of a full treaty, Guatemala will recognise Belizean independence and territorial integrity within its existing frontiers. The treaty will involve no surrender of Belizean territory or restriction of sovereignty. In return, Guatemala will receive guaranteed access to the high seas through her own territorial waters, use and enjoyment of the two southernmost groups of quays on the Belizean barrier reef on terms still to be agreed as well as free port facilities in Belize and transit facilities through Belizean territory for imports and exports. Belize and Guatemala will collaborate on a range of matters of mutual concern.

The constitution will contain a comprehensive section on the fundamental rights and freedoms, with all its usual checks and balances. Entrenched clauses will require a three-quarters majority in the House of Representatives to amend. No amendment will be possible until after the first general election following independence.

My noble friend Lady Vickers asked about the position of Mexico. I can tell her that although Mexico has a traditional claim to part of northern Belize which has never been formally renounced, Mexico has consistently supported Belizean self-determination and would not wish to pursue its claim if Belize became independent.

The noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said that the order providing for the constitution should be subject to Affirmative Resolution. Again, there are several precedents for constitution orders not being subject to any parliamentary procedure. Barbados, Guyana, Kiribats, the Seychelles would be examples.

The noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, asked about United States military aid to Guatemala. There have been rumours that the United States Government is considering resuming limited military aid to Guatemala, but at this point I would not put it any higher than that. So far as I am aware, no decision has yet been taken. The purpose of any such aid would be to help the Guatemalans to tackle the problem of insurgency. So long as the Anglo-Guatemalan dispute remains unresolved, it would clearly also have implications for the defence of Belize and is therefore a matter of concern to us. The United States Government are well aware of this fact.

Finally, it has been almost intimated in the House this afternoon that we in Britain are selling Belize down the river. I really do not believe that this is so and hope I have said enough today to prove my point.

rose to move, That the order laid before the House on 14th April be approved.

My Lords, I wonder whether I may say a few words on this order. I take it that we are speaking to the five orders together? They all concern the vesting of areas of land in the Merseyside Development Corporation, land being transferred from the British Railways Board, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and from local authorities. Though the subject is of a rather limited nature, it gives the House an opportunity to discuss briefly the context in which they are being processed.

I understand that the matters involved in these orders have been the subject of detailed examination and consultation with the authorities concerned, both local and statutory. It seems that the results of the discussions have been taken into account to some extent and incorporated in this version of the documents.

As the House is aware, the corporation and its activities involve several authorities, including those with elected representatives, and there is naturally an expectation that the corporation should not only consult, as indeed it does, but that there should be stimulated a feeling of continuing involvement with others, which of course is the real basis for successful partnership.

It is encouraging that the development corporation seeks to use the services and resources of local authorities, including engineering services, road design, computer and administrative services, planning and development aspects. So while there may be no particular aspects of concern now, there will I think be seen the need to keep close liaison always in mind to ensure that real partnership leads to even greater progress. There must be a continual effort to avoid duplication, with local councils performing those functions and supplying those services for which they are by long experience and local knowledge well equipped.

Having stressed the importance of the need not only for consultation but the growth of a feeling of involvement by all concerned, I would only make two further points. It appears that the vesting orders do not include all the areas of land within the designated area and I understand that negotiations are going ahead for the remainder. On the Liverpool side, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has an area known as the Albert Canning and Salthouse Docks. I should like to know from the Minister what is the state of play with regard to that area of dockland. I believe also that listed building consent may be involved, as some of the site was the subject of discussions earlier this year, on which decisions are awaited. I believe that there are also proposals for the use of the facilities of the Victorian Albert warehouses. Can the Minister give information on these aspects?

I am wondering whether the Minister would also comment on some of the relevant aspects of the 25th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments which includes some of the points I have already raised. It is recognised that the objectives of the corporation include the regeneration of under-used and derelict docklands on both sides of the Mersey, encouraging the development of existing and new forms of industry and commerce, with suitable and adequate housing and social facilities in a greatly improved environment. These are so urgently needed in the Merseyside area at this particular time and in the future. Therefore, it is essential that adequate financial resources are readily available if the corporation is to act—as indeed it must—in a pump-priming role for both private and public sector investment.

So while at present there may be little anxiety about this aspect, we all know that limited and initial investment can lead to much greater demand from the public and private sources and having started on this desirable project there must be confidence that sustained progress can be maintained. That is absolutely essential, if we are to get people to come and invest in this project in this particular area. Of course, the corporation will be well aware of the economic difficulties with which it has to contend at the present time.

Finally, in the light of the present situation in the Liverpool area and indeed the effect of some of Her Majesty's Government's policies there, we welcome this further report on the progress of the corporation's programme for regeneration and we wish it well. What it seeks to achieve can be the means of providing new opportunities for private and public development, and that means more jobs and new hope for thousands of people who desperately need what the projects offer. So, while we are vesting land in the Merseyside Development Corporation, we are in fact investing in people, and there can be no greater priority than that. I hope that the Minister will be able to comment on some of the points that I have raised.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for his warm welcome to these orders. The orders put before the House would vest in the Merseyside Development Corporation 508 acres of land owned at present by public bodies. It is mainly discarded and derelict dock and railway land within the Urban Development Area which the corporation has been established to regenerate. The orders are made under Section 141 of the Local Government Planning and Land Act 1980. They cover land in three separate public ownerships—namely, the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company, the British Railways Board and the City of Liverpool—and situated in three districts—Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral. Noble Lords may have had an opportunity to study the maps which show the areas concerned.

These orders mark an important step forward in the progress of the Merseyside Development Corporation, which was established on 25th March this year by an order approved both in this House and in another place. Freehold ownership of these areas will enable the corporation to get ahead with a comprehensive yet sensitive and flexible approach to the redevelopment of a large part of the Urban Development Area. It will enable the corporation to compete on more equal terms with other areas in attracting investment and it will help the corporation to meet the requirements of the investment institutions. The vesting procedure avoids delaying action on the ground since the assessment of compensation and much of the detailed work involved in compulsory purchase order procedure or a purchase by agreement, do not have to be undertaken until after a vesting order is confirmed, thus giving relatively speedy landlord control over the land.

It may be helpful to the House, and I think it will answer one of the points raised by the noble Lord, if I recall the events since the orders were made and laid before Parliament by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, together with my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Transport in the case of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and British Rail Orders. As expected, the judgment was reached that all five orders were hybrid. Anyone whose private interests were affected had an opportunity to petition against the Orders. Eight petitions, four each from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and British Rail were laid. Those petitions were not against the principle of the orders. The petitioners were concerned about various matters relating to rights over the land, access, severed parcels not covered by the orders, services, statutory and other obligations and other matters which are not dealt with by vesting orders themselves. Discussions with the owners have resulted in agreements being signed and the subsequent withdrawal of all the petititions. It is possible now therefore to proceed with the discussion and, I hope, the approval of the orders by the House.

I shall describe briefly the land covered by the orders. The three orders relating to Mersey Docks and Harbour Company land deal with sites in Liverpool, Sefton and Wirral respectively. In Liverpool there are 378 acres of Mersey Docks and Harbour Company land in the South Docks, the disused oil tank farm at Dingle and other vacant lands at Riverside. These areas covered by the first order, especially the South Docks, need to be dealt with in an integrated way, and a series of tasks will be undertaken to bring the land back into active use: some filling of docks, repairs to lock gates and walls, reinstatement of the working machinery to trap the tide in some docks, refurbishing buildings, road and environmental improvements and the provision of basic services.

The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company No. 2 Order vests six small sites in the portion of the Urban Development Area which lies in the Borough of Sefton, in total 6·6 acres. These sites, together with some larger tracts of railway land to be acquired under the British Railways Board Order, are subject to less severe problems of site preparation and will offer some of the earliest opportunities for attracting private sector investment.

The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company No. 3 Order vests the 19-acre Scott's Field on the Wirral; this is a prominent site fronting the River Mersey directly opposite Liverpool city centre, with potential for industrial development. Ultimate use will depend on the outcome of discussions with the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company on other land in their ownership within the Wirral part of the Urban Development Area and with the North-West Water Authority who have long-term plans for a sewage treatment works in the vicinity, but not necessarily on this site, as part of a programme to clean up the River Mersey. Interim industrial use is a second option.

The British Railways Board Order covers sites in all three district council areas. The largest sites are those in Sefton which I referred to earlier and these total some 34 acres. The sites in Liverpool are adjacent to the South Docks, while, on the Wirral, some six acres of land at Egerton and Woodside offer opportunities for much-needed environmental improvements, and are important also in land assembly and to secure access to larger areas which the corporation hopes to see redeveloped.

Before dealing with the sites in the Local Authorities Order, I must apologise to the House for a discrepancy between Schedule 2 to the order and the accompanying map. Plot 3 (0·76 acres in Sefton) has inadvertently been omitted from the vesting order map. The effect of this will be, if the order is approved, that plots 1 and 2 would vest in the corporation but plot 3 would not do so as a result of the order. Arrangements are in hand for the corporation to purchase the site by agreement from the Borough of Sefton.

The remaining two sites are land owned by the City of Liverpool; the leasehold of a small plot in Sefton and the freehold of a large 54-acre site of tipped foreshore at Riverside which, together with the adjacent Mersey Docks and Harbour Company land, the corporation intends to landscape and develop for recreational use.

The compensation payable for vesting of land cannot be specified at present; it will be assessed in accordance with the provisions of the 1980 Act, which are based upon the open market value of the land assessed in accordance with the Land Compensation Act 1961. The cost of acquisition of the land vested by these orders will be financed by grant-in-aid from the Urban Development Corporation Vote; the fairly extensive reclamation works required on the land will also be grant-financed. The financing of subsequent development on the land will depend on, among other things, the nature of agreements with developers.

The land in these orders, together with a further 50 acres which the corporation has approval to acquire by agreement, constitutes a substantial proportion of the fairly tightly defined Urban Development Area. Further possible acquisitions from the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company on the Wirral are currently under discussion. That again answers one of the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, that there is other land under consideration. In addition, the corporation will be concerned to see that the key Albert/Salthouse/Canning Dock area close to Liverpool centre is redeveloped. That site remains the subject of negotiations between the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company and an interested developer, and the result of a listed building inquiry will be announced shortly. For the moment, however, we are concerned with the vesting of some 508 acres.

The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, asked me specifically about the Albert Dock. As I have said, there is a listed building consent application relating to the Albert Dock before my right honourable friend, and a decision is expected shortly. At the moment I ought not to comment further than to acknowledge the importance of Liverpool for the future of this whole area.

The noble Lord also touched on the subject of consultation, and I agree with him fully in all he said on that. The corporation is keen to consult and co-operate with other bodies locally. Both during the shadow period and since being established, the board and chief officers have held many discussions with MPs, local authorities, chambers of commerce, trades unions, representatives of business and many other bodies. In March this year the corporation produced its initial development strategy. This provided a vehicle to explain the corporation's intentions and to hear the views of others about what should be done.

Under Section 140 of the Local Government (Planning and Land) Act 1980 the Mersey Corporation is required to prepare a code of practice on consultation within 12 months of its formal establishment. The corporation is well aware of this requirement. The corporation intends to work closely with other local planning authorities on Merseyside in handling planning applications, through consultations with the corporation, which it will carry out both under the orders and under the terms of the Merseyside Development Corporation Directive 1981 issued by the Secretary of State on 13th May. Similarly, the corporation should be consulted about relevant applications in adjacent local authorities' areas which may affect the urban development area under the terms of the Merseyside Directive 1981.

The question of financial resources was raised, and the total resources for the two urban development corporations amount to £82·245 million at 1981–82 out-turn prices. Of this, the Merseyside Development Corporation has been allocated £17·18 million at the same price basis. There is scope for an increase of this money. Most of the Merseyside Development Corporation budget, £16·49 million, is expected to be met from grant in aid, with £0·69 million being raised by loan from the National Loans Fund. This reflects the front end investment which is needed to acquire land, halt the decay of the area and undertake reclamation work.

The main advantages in attracting private sector investment to the UDC area will be the corporation's ability to market prime industrial and commercial sites in prestige locations close to the city centre and adjoining the Mersey. The corporation will be able to adopt a single-minded approach to the regeneration of its area and to adopt a vigorous marketing policy. Attraction of investment will be aided further by the speed at which the corporation will be able to make planning decisions and the flexible and sensitive approach which will be the keynote of the corporation's activity. The usual range of incentives available in a special development area will be on offer and the UDC will also be able to make loans and grants similar to those made by neighbouring authorities under the Inner Urban Areas Act.

These areas of exceptional dereliction and decay require a single-minded and comprehensive approach which also builds upon the assets of existing firms and the geographical advantages of a city centre/riverside location. The corporation faces a challenging task; it is equipping itself with key staff, and it has a board which incorporates much local knowledge and expertise. The resources which the Government are making available in this and subsequent years will provide the basis for dealing with the difficult job of securing the regeneration of the deteriorating and derelict areas covered in the orders. It is the Government's belief that a corporation such as the Merseyside Development Corporation is the only means capable of bringing new life back to these neglected areas. In doing so, co-operation with existing agencies will be a keynote. The corporation expects to make an active start on sites in much of its area in this financial year. Some engineering and borehole survey work has been undertaken already and some initial projects in co-operation with the Manpower Services Commission have started. If the House approves, as I hope it will, the vesting of these lands, the corporation stands ready to get ahead with its statutory duty: securing the much needed regeneration and additional job provision on Merseyside. I commend the order to the House.

My Lords, although the noble Earl has spoken to all the orders, I understand that they must be moved individually.

The first Motion is, That the Merseyside Development Corporation (Vesting of Land) (Local Authorities) Order be approved.

My Lords, I beg to move that this order be approved.

My Lords, I beg to move that this order be approved.

My Lords, I beg to move that this order be approved.

My Lords, I beg to move that this order be approved.

rose to move, That this House takes note of the Report of the European Communities Committee on new information technologies (27th Report, H.L. 176).

My Lords, first, on behalf of the Opposition, may I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and his colleagues for the timely and thought-provoking report that we are considering this afternoon. I should also like to thank the noble Lord for his explicit and wide-ranging introduction, as it certainly will reduce the length of time that noble Lords may have to listen to my speech this afternoon, which is always a useful start.

I should also like to say how much we are looking forward to a maiden speech by a very great scientist and industrialist. We look forward with a great deal of anticipation to the maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, this afternoon. There can now be few people who do not recognise the importance of micro-electronics and information technology, but I doubt whether many people realise the tremendous impact that these new technologies will have on their daily lives—in the home, in the school, in the workplace and in their leisure activities; and I believe that the most fundamental changes will come about in the workplace, whether it be in the office or the workshop. On an international basis, these technologies are developing at quite frightening speeds. A recent estimate of the world trade in micro-electronics is between £50 and £60 billion per annum—an enormous sum; but what is even more important is that the projected growth rate for the next decade is between 10 and 15 per cent. per annum, which means that by the end of that time the economic scene will be dominated by these technologies.

There is a race on the international scene, led by America, closely followed by Japan, who are catching up rapidly; a failure to enter that race, or to do well in it, will result in other industrialised countries, such as those that make up the Community in Europe entering a decline in industrial output, in employment and in the standard of living of the whole of their population—a decline of a nature never before experienced except perhaps in the Weimar Republic for other reasons. I believe that in the measured language of the Commission and of the committee, a good deal of this message is spelt out. They say that it has been referred to as a second industrial revolution, and I think that "revolution" is the right word. The Commission draws attention to the information society of the future, and I recently listened to the newly-appointed Minister for Information Technology describing new standards of national achievement based on information-rich countries and information-poor countries. On the basis of the Commission's comments that European industry is lagging behind the United States and Japan in these technologies, I thought that there must be cause for concern that the United Kingdom and other countries in Europe may become the new poor.

The committee drew attention to the world leadership enjoyed by USA industry and to how much it owes to the procurement power of the United States Federal Government, and the massive support given to defence and space research and development for these technologies. It gives as an example the 200 million dollar funding for one project alone, namely, very high speed integrated circuits. The committee also draw attention to Japan's remarkable progress stemming from a long-term national plan supported by large Government funds. The committee then describe some of the support provided in Europe. But in paragraph 13 they say that despite this expenditure these European programmes have not redressed the imbalance compared with the United States and Japan and they comment that Europe has so far failed to mobilise its major asset, that of Continental scale.

I should now like to turn to what I consider to be the three most important paragraphs in the report; namely, paragraphs 33, 34 and 35. In paragraph 33 and later in the report the committee welcome the initiative of the Community for their detailed proposals in the three major fields outlined in his introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield. They are the fields of micro-electronics, infrastructure activity, and for standards in telecom, data processing and peripherals. But they go on to comment that as the Community Budget is now structured, only meagre resources, if any, can be made available for objectives such as these. The committee would expect the UK, in common with other member states, to continue to develop, but on a larger scale, their support for information technology and collaboration between member states. In paragraph 34, the Committee note the lack of planning and the market weakness. In paragraph 35 the committee were depressed by the fragmented nature of the European industry as a whole and even in individual countries compared with the position in Japan, and they state the need for an integrated structure to be on competitive terms later in this decade in the world market place. But they go further. They say, "Indeed, if this does not happen, there must be grave doubt that Europe, which has already fallen behind, will ever be able to catch up", and they recognise that the Commission has neither the resources nor the authority and "clout" to exert pressure for the required restructuring of the industry. In view of the enormity of the problem we are facing, and its crucial effect on the future economic wellbeing of this country and of Europe, those are indeed grave words that the committee have put before this House, and I hope the Government have taken note.

May I now turn to one aspect of the problem which was not considered by the Commission and, therefore, not by your committee, and that is the enormously important influence of defence activity in this field. One must recognise the very large sums that have been spent, and are being spent, by the American Government in this area. In fact, the very chip itself was developed within defence contracts for research and development in the great technical universities of America. One must also recognise that the money being spent in these technologies within defence programmes in Europe are probably greater than the money spent in civil programmes, but the EEC has no defence dimension; it is not within its remit, and whereas the USA can integrate and co-ordinate its programmes with industry, taking account of both civil and defence spending, this is not possible on a European scale and is a further fundamental weakness.

Even taking the financial and technical strength of Germany, France and the UK, coupled with the academic ability, as the Commission says, and your committee concur, we are falling behind in the race. In the out-turn, we must be aware of the dire consequences. In the period of their presidency of the Council of Ministers, the Government have a unique opportunity to organise to reverse this unsatisfactory situation. Recognising that the Commission has neither the resources, not the authority and clout, recognising the fragmented nature of the European effort, recognising the important defence dimension, there is need for a new agency within the Community and within the NATO Countries recognising this common theme, and such an Agency should be given the authority and the clout because the problem is so urgent and so important as to require it. I was indeed disappointed by the statement of the Foreign Secretary to the European Parliament when he launched his themes for the European Communities development, and setting out the aims of the six months' British Presidency. This subject was not even among them, and I would urge the noble Lord to seriously reconsider his priorities. If we spent the money presently being handed out on the common agricultural policy on this technology instead, we might, but only might, be able to rejoin the race for our industrial survival.

My Lords, we from these Benches wish to welcome the committee's report and to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, on his brilliant introduction to what is a complex subject. It was a pleasure serving with him on this committee. I too look forward very much to hearing what the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, has to say in his maiden speech, when his wisdom and experience in this field will be available to our own benefit and education.

Noble Lords will see from the report of the Select Committee that the subject of new information technology is both complex and varied, and under the firm chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, the committee were able to be directed to what was perhaps the most essential elements that should be drawn to the attention of the Commission. However, before asking Her Majesty's Government to support some of these points in detail, I should like to preface my intervention this afternoon with some general observations with regard to the new technologies brought about by the development of the micro-processor.

The reason I have asked to do this is that it would not appear that the Commission are filled with an adequate sense of urgency to become involved in these new information technologies that are sweeping the world, or to be more precise, Japan and the United States. The Commission could be under the impression that there is plenty of time to try and unite the independent national efforts in Europe in order to compete and in order to survive in the commercial world of the new information technologies of the 'eighties and 'nineties.

We are now familiar with the micro-processor in many forms, but is the Commission really aware of the effect on, say, education? To give a simple example, while I commend Her Majesty's Government in recognising the need to provide every school in this country with a mini-computer by 1982, is the Minister aware that the children of 1992 may be playing with electronic toys and games which their parents cannot operate, and certainly not repair?

An article in the latest New Scientist says that this problem is already appearing between schoolchildren and school teachers who are having to teach children these new computer technologies. It would appear that the pupils are already in advance of knowledge of their teachers. I should like to ask the Government whether anything is going to be done under the new British presidency of the EEC to stimulate a standard procedure of teaching young people a standard computer language in order that the Community children, so to speak, may at least be at one in learning the same basis of how to deal with a new industrial revolution, which has been referred to by the earlier speakers.

The Commission also would appear to be ignoring some of its own word processing problems, which were referred to in Section 283 of the report. I wonder why they seem so slow to be able to use the tools already available, like word processors, which are at their disposal even today. It occurs to me that possibly one of the reasons why the Commission appears to lack the sense of urgency on the subject of the new information technologies is that they do not, and indeed cannot, understand the full implications of them. I believe that anyone over the age of 40 must have difficulty in fully appreciating the power and capabilities of information technology as it exists today, and therefore must have been greater difficulty in comprehending the technologies of tomorrow.

I am prepared to admit to being over the age of 40. I also, as a hobby, design devices that include integrated circuits and micro-processors, yet I am prepared to admit publicly to noble Lords that I still need assistance in order to programme an alpha-numeric pocked-sized calculator that is available on the market today. The danger is that the people who have the power both in Europe and in this country are able to talk about micro-processors but they do not really fully understand yet, in spite of all that has been said and written about them, what this revolution is all about.

I am really wondering, to take up the point of the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, whether or not the Commission requires a new team of advisers of possibly a younger age who are able to explain to them some of the wonders that are available to them and which they can fully understand. In that case they might be more enthusiastic about trying to get more funds than there are presently, as has been said before, being transmitted to agriculture, which is an industry that has almost reached the full peak of its technical development. Is it not time that the Commission combed the straw out of its hair, looked in the mirror, and found out that we are in the 1980s and are looking forward to the 1990s in order to survive, and not just as an industry but as a nation and as a Community?

Another fact which comes out clearly in the report is the need for all Euro-based industries involved in the new information technologies to work together to produce products that will at least compete with the equivalents imported from the United States and Japan. Again, there is a requirement for speed in the execution of a policy of this kind because, by the very nature of the industry, changes take place so quickly through the outdating of products and circuits. Can the Minister convince the House that enough is being done in the United Kingdom to back up the work already being achieved through the National Enterprise Board and by the latest developments of INMOS?

Thirdly, are the Government able to say, in spite of rejecting amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran to the Telecommunications Bill, that every effort is being made to harmonise and standardise the United Kingdom telecommunications network with our counterparts in Europe? Will the Government also work closely with the Commission in the harmonisation of the entire telecommunications industry throughout the Community, so at least that can be achieved quickly?—whereas it is accepted that many of the peripherals to this network will be more difficult to standardise at the outset, as is covered in the report.

It would be interesting to hear from the Minister whether a telecommunications authority needs to be set up to look into this matter simply to speed it up. I am not suggesting another Quango be arranged to slow down everything; I am asking for an authority to speed it up. If the noble Earl does not like the idea of a new authority, may I ask how the Government propose to speed up this harmonisation? Unfortunately—if only to repeat what has already been said—if Her Majesty's Government are unable to give the undertakings which have been sought or to be as depressing as some of us feel about the Commission's changes of achieving these objectives, it seems that the EEC will have no other choice but to standardise on a combination of American and Japanese equipment, both for their network operations and perhaps even for a majority of the peripherals that are attached thereto.

Even supposing the Commission is able to be given more powers and money and to be galvanised into greater action, and even supposing there is an agreed policy of harmonisation of electronic equipment within the Community, will there be an adequate number of operators to use the equipment to the best effect when it becomes available? I should be grateful if the noble Earl would report on what progress the Standing Employment Committee of 5th February 1980 (Com. 80/16) has to report on this matter.

Going back to what I said earlier about the technology changing and the requirement for younger people to operate microprocessors and computers, are the civil servants in Europe training an adequate number of properly qualified personnel to maximise the use of these new devices? I have already referred to Brussels having a word processing problem, as mentioned in the report, and apparently not having an adequate number of word processors.

It is not just the United Kingdom, but every country in Europe that is suffering from the crushing unemployment problem affecting young people, and I feel that greater priority and emphasis should be given to training young unemployed people in the basic skills of computer programming and computer awareness. I am not being facetious in saying that, because many of the unemployed have been criticised for playing Space Invaders and other amusement park games, when in fact that is as good a way as any to get through the understanding barrier of how the machines of the future will work. Some young people I have spoken to have a great knowledge of how to win at Space Invaders simply because they understand how the machine works. This is an area about which I should like the Minister to give an opinion as to where the Government are going and whether they realise the urgency about it.

I have only two short points to make about the question of computer language and what was, I believe, a mistake and a deliberate mistake, an example of which was given in the report. The mistake appears in the glossary under "'A' for Ada", which is the European language, devised by the American Department of Defence. It is creditable that the name given to it is in recognition of that noble and talented lady, the Countess of Lovelace, but I feel that as she was Lord Byron's sister—and not Lord Bryon's sister, as mentioned—perhaps the noble Earl, who is well versed in these matters, will confirm that the American Department of Defence has got it right, because if they are to give her this credit, at least they should do so properly.

Secondly, on the question of the deliberate mistake, I come to the computer language machine. I was very sceptical as to the viability, or indeed the desirability, of such a machine. I am now more than partially persuaded that there is need for it, but it occurred to me that in mediaeval Europe the then data bases, the monasteries, were faced with the same problem; namely, the problem of how to harmonise and keep the administration, both secular and clerical, going through the Dark Ages. They did it through a dedicated team of monks and the use of Latin. It occurred to me whether Latin might be the possible language of the Europe of today. I am advised by certain professors who are having to work on the problem of the language machine that that is impractical.

A point which has perhaps not come out in the report—unfortunately, I was not able to be there on the day the evidence was being given—will be apparent if noble Lords refer to what I call the deliberate mistakes and amendments of the system on page 126, especially item No. 7. This is an example chosen by the Department of Industry and it is a very good one. Number 7 is a sentence without a subject and without a verb and with one mis-spelling. Even the best machine in the world does not have a chance to translate that very well, and I do not understand it even in English. Considering the disadvantage from which the machine was suffering it did an extraordinarily good job. Unfortunately, during the correction, both the machine and the corrector missed out the last three words of the translation.

Obviously, there is a long way to go before we get somewhere to help the translators who are objecting to the drudgery of having to translate, because we shall be spending more time correcting. However, I feel there is hope for such machines, though it is quite beyond even the most advanced computers to obtain an A-level in English, because they do not think that way. Computers can absorb information only if it is presented in a proper manner. If a computer is told to translate a sentence, then the sentence should at least be constructed in a conventional way that can be understood by humans, before being translated by a machine.

There is a hope that this machine might actually encourage Eurocrats and civil servants on both sides of the Channel to prepare much shorter and more intelligible documents; documents which are much better written in the sense that they will have to be to go through a machine that is extremely dim-witted. At least this will be a great help to those of us who have to read a large number of documents emanating from both Europe and our own country and who have trouble in understanding them even when written in our own language. I support the EUROTRA project in the hope that when the translators have to become the compilers, both the use of English and the general presentation of documents of all kinds which originate from European government will be improved.

My Lords, perhaps I may begin by expressing my appreciation for the kind remarks which have been made by my predecessors in this debate when they referred to my baptism in your Lordships' House. It was an inspiration, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, said, to sit under the chairmanship of my noble friend Lord Sherfield in conducting this quite complex inquiry. It was also depressing, as I believe was stated in paragraph 34 of the report, to realise, as the witnesses answered questions, that the future was slipping from our grasp. We were in fact contemplating the further decline in both European and British strength.

The proposals from the Commission are in them-selves constructive, as the committee concluded, and are worthy of support. They are, as my noble friend Lord Sherfield has said, very minimal proposals. In this regard the Commission is short of both money and qualified staff. We are faced with a huge, growing industry, as the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, has said, with a current turnover of £55 billion, which looks like doubling in less than five years. This country's share of that is very small and is falling. The United States dominates, for reasons which are well known to us all, but what I think is worth touching upon is the extraordinary growth of Japan. Japan had a standing start only 15 years ago, but by carefully choosing her objectives and through an integration of Government and private industry, Japan has made remarkable progress.

It can be said that the Japanese are currently accelerating their technical progress so that the Americans themselves now fear that the Japanese will overtake American technology within the next five years. The fact that there has been Government and industrial collaboration in Japan does not mean that there has been no competition. There are many large Japanese firms competing with each other and for the appropriate ear of Government. The successful firms in Japan have now become extremely large—much larger, in fact, in their turnover and resources than the largest companies in the electrical industry in this country. One of the Japanese companies announced only the other day that its current research strength of 6,000 scientists is to be doubled to 12,000 in five years and that its research budget, which is already 500 million dollars per year, is also going to be doubled over the same period. The Japanese are carrying out a vast multi-faceted research effort and are pulling ahead on a world scale.

It is said that for us to keep pace will be difficult. On the basis of the evidence which was given to us it will not be difficult—it will be impossible. It has been disclosed recently that there are one or two areas where we do have a lead, such as Ferranti's Uncommitted Logic Arrays. But it is equally clear that British companies are reconciled to seeing that lead disappear and only having a tiny fraction of the future world market for this particular development.

On electronics grounds we seem to be relatively prosperous; that is because a lot of business comes from captive markets such as defence and telecommunications in this country. Most countries keep telecommunications as a protected area. There is some export bonus from the defence contracts but so far there is practically no bonus in the telecommunications contracts, and the efforts of industry and the Post Office to develop an export capability in up-to-date telecommunications has made very little progress indeed so far. It is a popular thesis these days that small businesses are going to be the salvation of the country—and this area of specialised applications, especially software, is one in which small businesses have been founded, have got off the ground, and have made rapid progress. But in totality they are very small in the overall scheme of things; they really do not matter all that much.

I thought it was a typical reflection on the British attitude to technology that one of the most successful flotations of recent times has been with a company which distributes imported material in this field. It employs practically no staff, has a high turnover and high profits, and when it comes to the Stock Market is vigorously supported. We need to see that the support that manufacturing industry receives is very much greater than at the moment.

An initiative that has been set up just over a year ago, and which is making very good progress, is the National Economic Development Unit, which is dealing with electronics. There is taking place there a very fruitful dialogue involving industry, the Government and the various people concerned to secure faster growth, faster integration of our electronics effort. But like most things in this country it has a tremendously long gestation period. It is making a good beginning in deciding what it wants to do, but so far it has made practically no progress in actually doing anything.

A point that I think we must be aware of in considering what are called the "sunrise" industries, of which microelectronics and information technologies are prime examples, is that in themselves they do not provide very many jobs. In the committee, when the British Telecommunications people were questioned about their own employment prospects over the next decade, they said that they thought they would be lucky to keep the figure roughly where it is today. Anyone who read the IBM annual report (which came out recently) will have seen that last year IBM—a very dynamic firm and very important in this country, as has been said—is keeping its employment stationary; in fact it dropped a little last year. Similarly, Plessey, one of our great companies in this area, is contemplating a reduction in employment over the next few years. So whereas we must be in this business—this is where the prospects for our future prosperity lie in the creation of wealth—we must also recognise that these new industries will not create jobs in volume.

The application of technology really does assume that there is a very strong independent industrial base and we must halt the decline in our traditional base. We have taken steps in this direction for steel, for instance, as well as for vehicles, and in view of my former long association with it, perhaps I may be permitted to say that I hope there will be the same approach to textiles. Textiles lost 120,000 jobs in the last 18 months or so but, in one form or another it still employs 10 per cent. of the total workforce in manufacturing in this country. It provides a field for the application of this advanced technology. But we cannot apply advanced technology in a vacuum, and we need a very strong general industrial base to take advantage of the new technologies.

We must also remember that technical training will be of increasing importance. Many times we all see the illustrations of British inventiveness and the way in which British inventions are developed elsewhere. But already in the field that we are now discussing—the subject of the committee's report—we are short of trained personnel, and, if I may say so, it seems a very odd time that some thought is being given about, or action is being taken on, possibly reducing the availability of trained personnel from our institutions of higher learning. To me that would seem to be counterproductive on a massive scale.

Although some of my remarks might seem to be critical of what the Government have, or have not, been doing, in conclusion I should like to say that I feel that they are moving in the right direction; slowly, deliberately—but in the right direction. I think that their efforts to get micro-electronics and computers known in schools are absolutely first-class and, as the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw said, they should be encouraged and emphasised, and given more support.

The programme to increase the awareness in industry of the potential of micro-electronics again has been very well thought out and applied, but needs to be very much increased. It is encouraging that the NEB initiatives on INMOS and other activities in microelectronics have been kept on and further support given to them. Having had something to do with the formation of the company in its early days, I am personally delighted that support has been given to ICL.

One feels all the time, and one felt it on the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that the potential, the possibilities for this country, are as great as, perhaps greater than, they have ever been. But we must still find the will, the purpose and the determination to make the best of the talents of this country. The initiative in this field of information technologies on the Brussels Commission is to be warmly welcomed. But it is only touching on the fringes of what needs to be done. We need a massive rethinking, a massive reorientation, a massive concentration, and I hope that in his reply the Minister will be able to give us some comfort in this regard.

My Lords, Sir Frank Kearton, as he then was, was created a Life Peer in 1970. Some bashful maiden, this! we might have thought had we not heard the characteristically forceful speech which has now just emerged. We were delighted when, on his retirement from more arduous pursuits, the noble Lord joined us on Sub-Committee F and began to devote more time to the affairs of the House. He brings with him experience, at the highest levels, of atomic energy, the chemical and textile industry, and of the British National Oil Corporation, of which he was the founder chairman. Recently he was also welcomed into the world of education by becoming the Chancellor of the flourishing University of Bath in succession to the noble Lord, Lord Hinton of Bankside. I was glad that, like my noble friend Lord Tanlaw, he spoke of the need for training in the field we are discussing this afternoon. Noble Lords from all parts of the House will wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on his speech, and we will hope to hear him speak here many times from his vast wealth of experience.

The report which we are debating today concerns itself with some very complicated matters. That it deals with them so clearly is entirely due to the leadership of the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, and I am glad to support him in all that he has said this afternoon in his masterly introduction. I only wish that our remit had been wider, for there could be few subjects more deserving of the noble Lord's penetrating attention than the new information technologies, and the effect that they may confidently be expected to have on technology and society everywhere.

As it is, as the noble Lord has said, our study was confined to the three aspects which have been singled out for attention by the Commission of European Communities. They concern matters of no little importance, to be sure, but one is entitled in this debate, even as a member of the sub-committee, to wonder whether these particular problems encompass the most important which Europe faces in its development and adoption of information technology, a full appreciation of which would go far beyond the report which is before us.

In the report we made it clear, as several noble Lords have already stressed, that our chief competitors are the United States and Japan. "Competitors" is hardly the correct word, for, as the witness has made plain, we in Europe are several years behind those countries and we shall have to make a colossal and co-ordinated effort if we are ever to catch up. Perhaps one example will suffice to illustrate the point. I have recently seen proposals for the development in Japan of a fifth generation computer system for introduction during the 1990s. It is a very comprehensive document, and it may be this to which the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, was referring. I so agreed with what he said.

I am in no position to pronounce on the practicability of this Japanese proposal, but it is the sheer magnitude of their endeavour that is so disconcerting. It is rumoured that the Japanese investment in this system during the 1980s might be as much as 1 billion dollars, including 200 million dollars to be spent on software development alone. Compared to that, as we point out in paragraph 35 of our report, the joint European effort is both small and diffuse. In the words of our report:

"Europe has so far failed to mobilise its major asset—continental scale".

As so often in Europe the member nations still prefer to compete with each other than to pool resources in order to meet the global challenge. We are "divided by differing standards, products, and methods of application", and are therefore unlikely to be able to compete in world markets. It is not as if we had no experience of collaboration. In the Airbus, to take another field, we successfully built a genuinely competitive European product. We have been successful in various scientific ventures, of which CERN is the most famous. Recently we put up a geostationary satellite with the Ariane rocket, and no doubt this new capability will be of great importance to telecommunications in the near future. These achievements came about by a pooling of skills and resources in a common venture. We do know how to go about it, for these, surely, are lessons enough—none of which, incidentally, required the sacrifice of national sovereignty. But not, it seems, until we have first failed, at great expense, to achieve the impossible on a purely national scale. I therefore hope that the Commission of the European Communities will raise the sights of Governments and of industries and aim for our own fifth generation computing system for Europe in the 1990s. I am absolutely confident that we are capable of it. Between us we have the skills and we have the resources: we need only the foresight and the determination to work together in a common cause.

I therefore see the programme of the Community in the information technologies as deficient and unexciting, unlikely to make a significant world impact. Nevertheless, the present proposals are useful and should be supported. In micro-electronics they are intended to provide the tools which are needed for component manufacture, rather than the components themselves. It is the infrastructure industry that it is intended to support by Community action—the equivalent in micro-electronics, as Mr. Christopher Layton put it, of the machine tools industry in normal manufacture— such things as electron beam fabrication and computer-aided design. These will undoubtedly help with hardware manufacture.

But the other side of the computing coin, my Lords, is software—the complex system of concepts, languages and instructions whereby the hardware is made to perform the tasks required of it. The word "software" occurred hardly at all in any of the documents presented to us. Most of our witnesses freely acknowledged that software played but a small part in Community thinking. Yet increasingly software is beginning to dominate the computing scene in effort and in cost. Time and time again, computer manufacturers have failed to provide viable systems not because their hardware would not work but because their software was inadequate. I very much fear that this lesson has still not been learned, either in Britain or in Europe generally.

I cannot stress too much that the success with which the new information technologies can be applied, potentially to an enormous range of practical and social problems, will depend crucially upon the effectiveness with which software can be developed for each application environment, and can then be maintained effective as that environment evolves in accordance with need and experience. It can be argued that the software should be provided by the computer manufacturers, on the one hand, and by applications specialists, on the other, and that may well be so. What seems to me to be lacking, just as with the hardware, is the equivalent of the machine tools; software developed especially to enable designers to construct major software systems reliably, responsively, maintainably and economically; tools by which an application can be analysed, a requirement can be stated, a system can be specified and later validated.

Ability to do this will, in turn, depend upon the development of an engineering discipline—let me call it "software engineering"—with its underlying scientific base, its proven methods, its tools, its professional standards and its trained people. In the United States, the Department of Defense initiated a major activity of this kind with its Stoneman project, an integral part of the Ada concept referred to in our report and to which Europe contributed. This approach has now been identified under the generic term "Programming Support Environment" in many circles, including some of our own departments of Government, industry and the community.

But, with few exceptions—and even then often with American support—current work in Europe seems to lack clear objectives and adequate scale as compared with Japanese and American endeavours. If the Community wishes to be concerned with the provision of tools so that others can finish the job, let us not forget the software tools. I hope that the Minister will tell us what the Department of Industry propose to do to encourage their colleagues throughout Europe to pay more attention to software support. I apologise to him that I gave so little warning of my question. Let me add that the same problems that beset software are now being met in developing and describing the logic that is to go on the chips, except that the problems there are even greater for the languages that chips understand (speaking very loosely), are even more remote from normal human usage.

Thus, as the level and density of integrated circuit technology increases, the chip manufacturer will increasingly face the same problems, and unless something is done, he will make the same costly mistakes. What I have been saying about software, therefore, applies equally to telecommunications and to micro-electronics. Whatever the progress made with the standardisation and compatibility of hardware will be of little avail unless more emphasis is placed on software development. I can, for instance, see System X running into very serious software difficulties with the system software doubling every two years or so and rapidly becoming unmanageable. Professor Antony Hoare of Oxford recently drew attention to this kind of instability in the context of "Ada" in his Turing Lecture quoted in The Times of 1st July.

I come now to the subsidiary programme, "Eurotra", for a machine translation system of advanced design. It is a continuation of a research programme that has been under way for some years, and it is intended to help with a major problem of the Community, the need to translate and to issue documents in many languages. Undoubtedly the multi-lingual character of the Community contributes greatly to the cost and complexity of its administration, so there is no doubt about the need. The question is whether one can hope to find a solution in the foreseeable future. It is a problem that does not lack for enthusiasts. It would, indeed, be wonderful if one could speak into the telephone in English and have it come out at the other end in French or Greek, or, perhaps, both at once in different places. Technically that could certainly be done; it is merely that the meaning would not be what had been intended, and it is the meaning that matters in communication.

Personally I do not believe there will ever be such a thing as automatic machine translation. The reason has to do with language and the human mind rather than with machines. Language is full of allusions, associations, ambiguities and imprecisions. Without them, sophisticapted discourse between human beings would be impossible. Can one imagine what would happen in diplomacy or love if what was meant was precisely said? We but rarely define the meaning of the words that we use leaving it to the general context to make our meaning clear. If I utter the simple sentence, "walking to the bank I lost my money in the grass", what is the meaning of the word "bank"? Is it a house of commerce, or an excrescence in the landscape? Only the context will make the choice clear. If my sentence is to be correctly translated the computer must, therefore, be able to take into account the context intelligently. Perhaps that simple choice would be within its capacity. But if, with its laser eyes, it were to read:

"Twas in the season when th'Eternal Light entered the Beast that workt Nemaea's woe"

how could it possibly know that the poet merely meant the month of July? Poetry is different, you might say; but I will hazard a guess that the proceedings of many Community meetings are much more obscure and allusory than that.

Of course, we can programme a computer so that it can accept its input and its instructions in, let us say, the English language, or Latin, if you prefer. It is, however, only the English language at first sight. It is really a computer language employing symbols which happen to be English words, each precisely defined, each having within a given context a one-to-one relationship (as the mathematicians say) with some aspect of the system's operation and content. That is not how human beings normally use language, and if we did it would be impossible to convey anything beyond the most simple ideas. So it is only in that very restricted sense that automatic translation is possible, between restricted languages recognised by the computer because each has been put into one-to-one relationship with it in a given context.

Fortunately, Community regulations are just of that kind, or at least they should be. They deal with precisely defined activities and products and they say, or should say, precise things about them. So automatic translation of regulations from one language to another is clearly possible in principle, and the Eurotra programme has made some headway, as the example given on page 126 of our report illustrates, although even there much human intervention was still required.

I rather regret that so much of the work of the Community appears to be concerned with issuing routine regulations. If the drudgery is too great, I would rather reduce the number of regulations. But to the extent that regulations have to be issued it does seem that a measure of computer assistance is possible which may lead to a reduction in the number of translators, or at least in the drudgery of their work. I ask only that the success of the Eurotra programme should be judged not only by the enthusiasm of its protagonists but by the extent to which it does in fact reduce the load on the translation services. I personally doubt whether it will.

My Lords, as can be imagined, I rise with some diffidence to speak in this debate as I am the only speaker other than my noble friend Lord Gowrie who is not a Member of Sub-Committee F. However, I rise to thank the Committee for their thoroughly excellent and wholly fascinating report. I particularly welcome the opinion expressed in paragraph 13 of the report. I believe that this is a key opinion and I also believe it is of such importance and is so cogently expressed that it merits quoting:

"Europe has so far failed to mobilise its major asset—continental scale. Its total informatics market is half as large as America's, but is divided by differing standards, products and methods of application. In telecommunications the separate national monopoly administrations have developed their own distinct technologies, procure from firms based in their own countries, and implement distinctive tariff and service policies of their own. The result is that trans-national business services do not exist of the character, low cost and scale of those in the USA."

I believe that one of the keys to righting this wrong lies in the example of Her Majesty's Government in their liberalising the telecommunications monopoly within the United Kingdom. I can only hope that the Commission do everything in their power to encourage member states of the Community to follow suit.

While I appreciate the problems created by shortage of time available to hear and examine witnesses, I was a little surprised to learn that IBM United Kingdom was not invited to give evidence. My surprise arose for two reasons. First, it must have been inevitable that reference would be made to perhaps the major corporation in the field, both in America, this country and Europe—and indeed it happened. Secondly, not to invite, either directly or as a member of a trade association, a leading contributor to the information technology industry of this country and Europe, I respectfully suggest, could be likened to not inviting British Telecommunications to give evidence. They of course did give evidence.

In the course of their excellent evidence delivered to the committee. the Department of Industry, at paragraph 8, stated that the United Kingdom certainly do not share the Commission's apparent obsession with the problems caused by the multi-nationals and specifically by the United States multi-national corporations. That view was similarly stated later on in the evidence of the same witness from the Department of Industry where he said:

"We regard companies like IBM and other multi-nationals which manufacture in this country as a very important part of the national electronics scene".

That is a view with which I entirely agree. It reflects a view held by many that a company is British to the extent of its contribution to the employment in this Kingdom and its internal generation of capital, both direct and indirect. Provided there is goodwill towards the host nation, the nationality of the proprietorship or control is, I believe, of minor importance. However, further on in its evidence, the department said:

"… although the multinationals are very important in terms of jobs and in terms of technology, their record in terms of helping the balance of payments is pretty poor. I cannot remember what the turnover of IBM is but its contribution, I think, to the balance of trade has never exceeded more than about between £5 million and £8 million, which is really just double that of some of our software companies".

I believe that last observation could be quite seriously misleading. In 1980 the United Kingdom balance of trade figures for computer hardware in the country as a whole showed a deficit of some £200 million. The contribution of IBM (UK) showed a surplus of £60 million. In addition, to compare their hardware contribution with that of United Kingdom software companies could hardly be described as comparing like with like. It so happens that the contribution of their development laboratory at Hursley to United Kingdom invisible exports amounted to some £35 million in 1980.

In answering a most pertinent question put by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, in paragraph 42, I believe that the Department of the Environment did scant justice to IBM (United Kingdom) by answering in part,

"I really do not know what happens in IBM, and they have in this country in Hursley a science centre, and in France they may have manufacturing facilities of various kinds".

In fact, the IBM has two manufacturing plants in the United Kingdom at Havant and Greenock, employing nearly 4,000 people, in addition to the development authority at Hursley and a scientific centre at Winchester. Altogether, IBM (United Kingdom) employ in excess of 15,000 people and provide in addition nearly 3,000 jobs through supply companies. This performance is in fact nowhere near matched by United Kingdom software companies.

If I may just finish by turning to the radio side, it is a well-known fact that just after the war 80 per cent. of the British domestic radio market and 60 per cent. of the export market was provided by British firms. Today's figure is approximately 5 per cent. in both cases. This leads me to beseech Her Majesty's Government to transfer the responsibility of planning the use of the radio spectrum from the Radio Regulatory Department of the Home Office to the Department of Industry. Efficient use of this vital resource is becoming increasingly important in the light of development, information and telecommunications technology. I believe this move would command widespread support throughout the industry and would be in line with the excellent ACARD report on information technology which was published last September.

My Lords, having sat in committee many a time with my noble friend Lord Kearton, when I saw the letter "M" after his name on the speakers' list I could not believe it. Having listened to the charm, assurance and authority with which he addressed your Lordships' House this afternoon, I still feel that it was almost a printer's error. But, none the less, I shall look forward to hearing him on many occasions in the future, as I am sure your Lordships will, too.

Getting on for 20 years ago, there was a wisecrack going the rounds to the effect that, after a brilliant period of gestation, the computer was now entering upon its infancy, and that wisecrack could be equally true today. The headlong pace of development has been continuous from the start, with the effect that the leads and lags between the most advanced technology and the tail end following on are getting larger and not smaller.

Many a time, I have said in this House and elsewhere that the pioneer producer is helpless in a world of stick-in-the-mud consumers, and if you want to get the consumers up from down under you must have some kind of general staff that can specify what he needs. Nobody knows what he needs, but in the field of American procurement, as mentioned in paragraph 10 of the report, you have the equivalent of a general staff and if it does not know what it needs, at least it can specify what it will pay for. Anything which is a means to that end will have the necessary finance and boost put behind it.

Whether history will regard astronautics as an obsessional neurosis, or a high scientific adventure, there can be no question but that the development of micro-circuitry has been a by-product thereof. It was the firm determination of those in charge of the space programme to control it with computers, with a degree of reliability which only micro-circuitry could achieve, which led to the immense expenditure on them—expenditure which could have never been supported by industrial investors in the ordinary course of events. At times, it was thought crazy, and the chances of success very slender, and yet the cost per unit came down and down until it fell into the commercial range.

That was only part of the story. My memories of this subject are rather like geological strata; they go back, decade by decade, to the beginning of the story. In the 1950s, the great boost was based on the radar defences of America with a string of duplicated computers. It was known as Project Sage. I think there were 35 of them strung along the Arctic Circle in Canada, as part of the radar defences of North America. The contract for that went to IBM and the massive recruitment of first-class personnel in which they were able to indulge, all paid for ultimately by the American taxpayer, left them with the pick of the very finest technological staff, and they fell free for redeployment when that project was finally consummated. The counterpart of these situations simply cannot be postulated as foreseeable in Europe, and we have to accept that the Americans have an unbeatable lead in some of these fields.

As regards the Japanese, in the early 1960s I was part of an OECD mission to Japan to study the relationships between industry, the universities and government in that economy. It became clear to me that, in Japanese industry and administration, decisions are taken by very few people, but having been taken they are followed up on the lines of military campaign planning. The ruthless efficiency with which Japanese commercial industry has captured the market in high-grade cameras, binoculars, telescopes, transistor radios, music centres and now computers is, from the standpoint of military campaigning, wholly admirable. But it is certainly not our industrial lifestyle, as it were.

Again, we have to remember that the Japanese struck very lucky at the time of the Korean war, when the American electronics industry was beginning to be overladen with weapons work and sub-contracted a very great deal of the entertainments side of the industry to Japanese manufacturers, who got the benefit of all American designs and know-how as of that date. They got, from that point of view, a flying start. We must not suppose that we can reproduce this frame of mind in Europe. Decisions here are not taken by very few people, and it will require more than a boost of the telecommunications industry to overcome our national and international propensity for having too many cooks stirring the executive broth.

In this field I am reminded of the old Chinese proverb that if rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it. We might as well accept firms like IBM, Sony and others here as British manufacturers. Provided that the goods we buy are made here, there is no real deterioration in our economy. All that we should ask in exchange is that our designers should have a fair place in the design teams. Do not let us be ashamed of the situation in which we find ourselves. Transistors are an American device and will remain so, and all the micro-circuitry which goes with it. But the jet engine is British and Rolls-Royce can still design world-beaters. Let us be proud of the things which we do well, and go on doing them, and not try to compete, ineffectively, with those things which other people have had a better start on.

For years past, the computer as such has been the software-dominated switchgear at the centre of a data processing complex. Attached to it are peripherals, and its arithmetical facility is merely one of those peripherals. As I have for many years been chairman of the Software Committee of the Science Research Council, of which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, was the executive chairman overall, he and I are, as it were, "old buddies" in the field of software. I can economise on anything I want to say by merely saying that, as he would well know, I agree with everything which he has told your Lordships about it.

There then comes the question of strengthening the industry in peripherals. This is one of the matters where what the report has to say should be studied very carefully. It is an activity which is open to us, not an impossible one such as catching up on an "uncatchable-up" lead taken by others in certain fields.

Standardisation is another activity where what the report says could be studied with great profit. We must pursue it in Europe. Typically, the laser-based optical systems for telecommunications channels are a field in which our own Post Office is well to the fore, but, if it is going to fall into the shallows of unstandardised data communication systems, of course nothing could come of it.

There is a field for public intervention, both European-wise and nationally, in some of the big quantum jumps which have to be made in computing systems, where whole systems like the IBM 360 series of the ICL 1900 series have not, more often than once a decade, to be replaced with something else. This is a very, very sensitive area of decision-making, it is a very costly operation and it seems to be a proper field for seeing whether or not public finance can be put at the disposal of the entrepreneur.

It is important, too, to help wherever we can people with original ideas. It is very important that we should not allow the big lead that firms like IBM have in the field of installation and hardware to become an intellectual monopoly of the growth of ideas. That is something which we should resist. The typical instance has already been mentioned by one speaker. He instanced the advances made in this field by that admirable firm Ferranti Limited.

Speaking as I am towards the end of the debate, anything else I might have wished to say has already been covered by other speakers. Therefore, may I end with an apology to the noble Duke who is to follow me and to the noble Earl who is to reply for the Government? My afternoon engagements are such that I must slip away at three o'clock. I therefore apologise if I am unable to sit through the whole of the proceedings to follow. I regret having to make this apology but there is no alternative.

My Lords, in the first place I wish to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on his very interesting and highly instructive speech. I trust that now that he has begun, we shall hear him frequently.

My Lords, I do not believe that the general public have any real understanding of the effects that electronic technology will have on the future development of our civilisation. They do not realise that it will prove the most revolutionary new industrial technology since the invention of the steam engine. The prospects offered by electronics in terms of increased economic activity, employment, wealth and the quality of life are boundless, but these benefits will accrue in the first instance to those countries whose Governments and industrial leaders fully realise that it is necessary that they should take urgent and effective steps to participate in the development of this technology.

The European Economic Community have issued a number of reports which were examined by sub-Committee F of the Select Committee on the European Communities and form the subject of the report now under consideration by your Lordships. But I fear that the advance of micro-electronic technology is not being viewed as a matter of the utmost importance, and there is little realisation of the fact that if the European Community is to co-operate effectively and to be in a position to face up to Japanese and United States competition, they will have to pay for it.

As previous speakers have reminded us, the United States and Japan are both far ahead of Europe in the development of electronic technology. That the United States should be in this position is due largely to the electronic requirements of their defence and space programmes. On the other hand, the Japanese Government were determined that Japan should be independent of, and able to compete with, the United States in the electronic field. They are therefore encouraging and financially supporting co-operation between leading Japanese firms. That was admirably set out by the noble Lord, Lord Kearton. As an indication of the success and the good prospects of the Japanese I would mention that the German Seimens company, for whose management I have considerable admiration, have formed a joint electronic components company with Fuiji Electric, I presume on the principle "if you can't beat them, join them."

The total aid which it is proposed that the Community shall give to assist research and development projects in the electronic field amounts to a paltry £28 million over four years. It will probably be said that there are no prospects of fresh European Economic Community funds becoming available, but surely it is more desirable to devote such funds as are available to furthering and speeding the advance of new industries that are acknowledged to be of vital importance, than to allocate those funds to propping up industries that are unfortunately moribund.

I submit to your Lordships that there is another aspect. When the Treaty of Rome was concluded and the European Economic Community was formed, funds were made available for the reorganisation of European agriculture. On the whole, that has been a success, albeit an expensive one. Surely it is time now to devote similar funds to making electronic technology and its fruits easily available to the industries of the European Economic Community countries in order that they may reorganise so as to take the best advantage of the technological revolution that is upon us, whereby the industries and services of the Community will generate new products and services on such a scale that the new jobs created will far outnumber those lost. If the Governments and industries of the European Economic Community do not take swift and determined action, theirs will be the responsibility towards future generations if an irreversible economic decline relegates Europe to a third world status of once-industrialised countries.

My Lords, may I add my words of congratulation to the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, on his maiden speech, which came as a surprise to me too, because once when from the Opposition Benches I was making a speech about the British National Oil Corporation I think the noble Lord almost got to his feet but on that occasion he contained himself, to our benefit today. I may say, in retrospect, looking back I think it will be no surprise to the House that he was right on that occasion and I was wrong, and I am sure that will occur again. It seems to me that it is typical of the noble Lord that he is associated so strongly in our minds with energy issues, atomic energy and of course oil, but that he reserves his fire, so to speak, not for a present and past success but for what we all hope will be a future success, and he looks ahead as we would always expect of him. I hope he will not wait a further 11 years before he contributes to us again, if only to keep us on our toes on the development of this subject.

I welcome very much the Select Committee's report and would like more than conventionally to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, on his chairmanship, on the way it was introduced this afternoon, and indeed the many noble Lords who have spoken in this debate and who sat with him. It seems to me that I have nothing to add except agreement about the importance of the issue. I endorse entirely as an employment Minister what my noble friend the Duke of Portland has just said about the job generating potential of these new industries. Of course, there will be transitional pains and transitional job losses, but the net effect in job terms can only be very large, and very devastating to us if we do not move apace in this area.

The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, expressed some anxiety because the time of the debate had been changed, and I will of course draw this point to the attention of my noble friend the Chief Whip. Nevertheless, I think it has been a very good debate. The House of Lords is perhaps at its best when a relatively limited list of speakers all with expert knowledge are talking to a specific subject. Therefore, I cannot really regret that this debate has taken place today. I would just say to the noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, that he will, I am sure, appreciate, in respect of my friends the business managers, that the nature of our year in Parliament is that the legislative pressures are very heavy on this House in July and that therefore general issues, however important, usually have to give way to legislation.

The Government of course recognise the importance of this rapidly growing industry. Perhaps the greatest earnest of their interest is the appointment of my honourable friend Mr. Baker as Minister with special responsibility in the field. Our recognition of the importance applies, of course, not merely in this country but throughout the European Community. But, as many people have referred to it, may I start with what we are doing in this country.

In the United Kingdom we have taken a number of initiatives to try and stimulate and develop our information technology industry. We have put proposals before Parliament which will enable a substantial liberalisation of the Post Office's telecommunications monopoly and so have a determining influence on the provision of the modern telecommunications that are so important to the application of information technology. We have provided £80 million of direct support. That has been put aside over the next four years to help industry research, develop and manufacture new products and processes in the information technology field. This is, of course, in addition to the £110 million provided for the Micro-processor Applications Project, known colloquially as MAP, as well as the Micro-Electronics Industry Support Programme, this, as I say, absorbs £110 million.

The distinction between them—to remind the House—is that MAP helps you adapt your industry to this new technology whereas the Micro-electronics Industry Support Programme helps you if you are acually in the business of providing the hardware, as it were. The Government have also said that whenever appropriate we shall encourage indigenous technology—such as Viewdata and Prestel—and the "pulling through", so to speak of innovative products by means of public purchasing.

A major awareness campaign, where information technology is concerned, through 1982 has been launched by my honourable friend the Minister and 1982 has been designated Information Technology Year. This will involve exhibitions, seminars and special events, and will be supported by appropriate studies, trials, demonstration projects and supporting literature. The highlight of the campaign will be a major conference on information technology in December 1982. Any ideas which noble Lords may have as regards how we can use this year to promote greater awareness will be most gratefully received.

I am grateful, too, to the reference that the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, made to our work in the education field, and the Department of Industry's "Micros in Schools" scheme which aims to put a micro-computer in every secondary school by the end of 1982. That scheme is being implemented in parallel with the Education Department's Micro-electronics in Education Programme and it is hoped that it will be extended in due course to primary schools as well as schools for the handicapped. My own department, the Department of Employment group, including, of course, the Manpower Services Commission, are heavily involved in this field and currently there are over 4,500 people doing TOPS—Training Opportunities Schemes—computer courses. We are spending about £7·25 million on TOPS courses in computer training alone, and naturally we would hope to augment that as needs and resources permit. That, I hope, answers Lord Tanlaw's question about the MSC's attitude towards promoting the understanding of these new machines.

Turning to Europe, the Government have welcomed the "Davignon initiative", because of the importance of information technology and because we consider this to be an area where action at Community level is essential. We endorse the Select Committee's assessment that the Commission may not have the resources to implement all of the plan. We have, therefore, urged the Commission to press ahead with practical proposals where results are likely to be achieved quickly and perhaps act as a kind of pump-priming operation for further stimulus in this area.

Ideally the Commission's recognition of the importance of information technology should be reflected in the resources allocated to it and, of course, I must acknowledge that it is unlikely that large-scale funds will be available in the short-term. We shall therefore have to concentrate on areas which do not involve substantial funding and on working through existing organisations—for instance, where competition rules are concerned and where standards are concerned. I refer the House back to an interesting debate on standards in this respect in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, and the noble Earl, Lord Shannon, I think at the end of last year.

In the three areas where the Commission has produced proposals the United Kingdom Government have taken a positive attitude. We believe that microelectronics is not only a vital technology but one where European co-operation could be fruitful. If that seems a pious wish I can tell the House that before coming to the House this morning I was engaged in discussions about our Presidency with the Danish Labour Minister and we were debating among ourselves how the Presidency could be used to get more social funding for the field of information technology education. That certainly is something which we agreed should be pushed hard during our Presidency. So we are trying to get on with that. But no one will be surprised in this country at this time, as well as in the many European countries—all, in fact, who are facing great difficulties with unemployment—at the immense competing claims in the fields of social spending. One must recognise how important it is to spend money on the engine, as it were, as well as on the repair of the carriages.

The multi-company, multinational approach proposed is one which could not be undertaken by any national Government acting alone. I agree with the committee there very much. Although the proposed finance is, as I have said, relatively modest—52 million units of account—and is unlikely to have a massive impact, nevertheless it is a good first step and will be encouraging a form of industrial activity which has never before been undertaken in Europe on a significant scale. The Government believe that within our overall policy of restraint of public expenditure, in order, in fact, to release resources for the very industries which we are discussing, and within our policy about the United Kingdom's contribution to the Community budget, this expenditure should indeed be given priority in budget discussions. It will be our objective to bring forward the regulation for decision during our Presidency, and we welcome the Select Committee's support for our position.

It is unrealistic to believe at present that it is practical for Europe to be entirely self-sufficient in strategic technologies. Nevertheless, it is a fair objective and the micro-electronics regulation is a useful first step towards achieving it.

My Lords, if the noble Earl will forgive me, will he inform the House whether the 52 million European units of account, to which he has referred, are payment appropriations for the year 1982 or commitment appropriations?

My Lords, no, not without notice, but I shall write to the noble Lord on that point. On the telecommunications recommendations, the Government intend to continue to endorse the principles of the Commission's proposals. We should like to see the recommendations strengthened, though we have some doubts about the practicability of some aspects. Nevertheless, the recommendations could be an important contribution in Europe to our efforts to secure assurances on reciprocal market access following United Kingdom liberalisation. We wish to see substantial progress on that during our Presidency. Our aim in negotiations will be to reach a practical compromise quickly and we fully endorse the importance which the committee attaches to reciprocity, and we welcome again the Select Committee's support there.

In conjunction with these recommendations we are taking an initiative with British Telecom and the United Kingdom suppliers to overcome some of the practical problems currently obstructing genuine European cross-border trade in telecommunications equipment. For instance, it is currently very difficult for manufacturers in one member state to design equipment for the network of another member state. We are therefore encouraging British Telecom and British suppliers jointly to seek European-wide discussions and, where appropriate, under Community auspices, in order that some of these underlying technical and practical problems may be resolved.

Although outside the maintsream of the Commission's activities in information technology, the Government welcome the Select Committee's support for the Commission's machine translation proposals. Translation costs account for some 60 per cent. of the staffing costs of the Secretariat of the Council and about 40 per cent. of the staffing costs of the Commission. There will always be a need to translate documents which contain legislation applicable in member states. The proposed research programme is comparatively modest here, but provided that it is kept—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, put it—to the very restricted possibilities for language translation by machine, the approach seems sensible. When the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, said how useful it would be to be able to pick up the telephone, speak in English and have someone in Greece understand one in Greek, I thought how useful maybe, but also how awful, knowing well that questions of language and nuance are quite different from those which a machine can cope with. But the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, I am glad to say then answered his own proposition and went into the importance of context and indeed poetry. Personally, I would be sceptical whether in this direction much can be done. It would still seem to be a far safer bet for people to learn each other's language than to rely on a machine to do the job for them.

There is an area which the Select Committee have touched upon and which the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, also touched upon in his speech, and that is the lack of support for software in the Commission's plans. Of course, the Commission has recognised the importance of software. In other areas, the multiannual programme in the field of data processing has provided 15 million ECUs for a support scheme to promote the development of software and applications of data processing. 6.4 million ECUs have been allocated to developments of the "Ada" language, and a further 4 million ECUs was allocated last year to 14 projects concerned with software or applications of data processing. The Government have also recognised that software is important, and the Software Products Scheme was introduced to develop this area in the United Kingdom. Approximately £1 million a year is spent on this scheme. I can also say that we have played a major part in pushing the multiannual programme through the Council's machinery.

The noble Lord, Lord Sherfield, asked me how INMOS was getting along. I think it is too early for me to give any indications of commercial success but I can say that my advice is that the technical progress has been good and has been well received. I very much welcome Lord Gregson, from the Labour Benches, stressing the importance of defence and defence procurement. I shall draw the attention of what he and other noble Lords have said in that respect to the Minister of State for Defence Procurement, who is my noble friend Lord Trenchard.

With the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, I am not sure that a new authority is always the way of speeding things along. We have, as I said, made a new Minister, and I really would prefer to leave it at that. I am not sure whether—though I do not share everybody's anxiety about Quangos in all cases—a new one would necessarily get the speed that we all want. I shall write to the noble Lord, if I may, on the question that he posed to me in respect of the Standing Employment Committee, as, without notice, I do not know the answer.

To sum up, the Government attach considerable importance to information technology. We acknowledge, with many noble Lords who have spoken, that the future trading performance and hence the jobs outlook of the United Kingdom and Europe will be affected by the speed at which business takes up this technology, and the ability of manufacturers to develop innovative products which are competitive in world markets. We believe that there is a role in this field for the Community organisation, and the areas that the Commission have identified seem sensible.

But as many speakers have warned us, an important aspect is time. If we are to compete effectively with Japan and the United States over the next decade—and that is our overall objective—it is vital that we act at once. We have urged this on the Commission. We shall continue to do so, and I have given some indication of what we ourselves are doing at home. I should like finally to thank again the Select Committee for their efforts in producing such a clear statement of their views, and such an overall supportive and helpful report.

My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I draw attention to something I said in my speech and ask whether he would give it consideration? The problem about the European activity is that it has no defence dimension. We all know that very much more money is being spent in this area in the defence field than in the civilian field. It really is a crippling situation that the European Community should be attempting to drag Europe, if you like, into the new technology without this other dimension being available to them. Will the Government give consideration to the possibility of promoting a new agency within Europe that can take the defence dimension into account in promoting this technology?—because, without it, it really is a sham.

My Lords, there may not be a common defence programme, as it were, but of course the European countries have substantial defence industries, and their own procurement, not least our own—and one thinks of the French—have had an important role in the life of GEC, Racal, Ferranti and many of our great companies in this area. But that said, I shall of course examine what the noble Lord said, and perhaps in return he will bring his very sensible views to bear on some of his rather less sensible colleagues in another place.

The countryside beckons, my Lords, and I shall be brief. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that the debate, late though the hour, has been well worth while. I thank him for his opening remarks and for the substantive and informative statement he has made to the House. I also thank all the speakers who have taken part, first and particularly the noble Lord, Lord Kearton, for his effective and weighty maiden speech; I greatly value his support on the sub-committee and I hope that the tributes that have been paid to him will encourage him to come more often and participate in the debates in this House.

I welcome the references by the noble Lord, Lord Gregson, to the important aspect of defence in this matter, and the emphasis placed by the noble Lord, Lord Flowers, on the importance of software. I can confirm from my own experience the risk of launching products on the market for which the software has not been sufficiently developed. The noble Lord, Lord Morris, expressed some surprise that IBM had not been invited to give evidence. There was in fact a frequently repeated general invitation to all interested parties to submit written evidence to the sub-committee (as indeed there is to all sub-committees) and several large firms took advantage of that invitation to submit written evidence, but IBM did not choose to do so. I will not repeat what I said in my opening speech, but of course the sub-committee is well aware of the major contribution that IBM and other multinational companies make to the industry in this country.

A number of references were made to machine translation, and indeed this formed an interesting part of the debate. The examples given in the report remind me of nothing so much as my juvenile efforts to translate English into French. The result, I think, was always intelligible, but the French was very poor.