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

My Lords, while the Government are aware of some instances in which the performance of particular cartridge type powder fire extinguishers has proved inadequate, no evidence has been brought to their attention which would appear to warrant alerting the public generally on grounds of personal safety, or depriving them of the use of these extinguishers by prohibiting their supply under the Consumer Safety Act 1978. The Government do not consider that a case has been made out for forbidding their use on farms or in other workplaces under the Health and Safety at Work Act 1974.

My Lords, may I thank my noble friend for that reply, and ask him whether he would do all in his power to alert the public to the unreliability, particularly of the cartridge type fire extinguishers, especially on agricultural vehicles? Bearing this in mind, I wonder whether my noble friend would agree that, perhaps, we would all be a lot better off if we reverted to sand and water and a bucket and spade?

My Lords, my noble friend asks whether the Government will alert the public to the different merits of the cartridge type extinguishers and other extinguishers on agricultural vehicles. The Home Office has conveyed advice to the National Farmers' Union and I believe that this advice has been passed on to NFU members. In essence, the advice was that dry powder extinguishers of the stored pressure type are better suited than those of the cartridge type for use out of doors and for use on farm vehicles. That, I think, exactly follows the concern which is being expressed by my noble friend.

My Lords, bearing in mind that most domestic accidents happen in the kitchen, could my noble friend tell me how the housewife can test whether or not her fire extinguisher is working?

My Lords, I would advise my noble friend: use extinguishers manufactured to the appropriate British Standard; use extinguishers which are regularly serviced and, if you are going to use out-of-doors or on a vehicle, again use powder extinguishers of the stored pressure type, instead of the cartridge type.

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord—

My Lords, does the noble Lord the Minister agree that, while it is highly undesirable that agricultural workers should be burned, it is equally undesirable that ordinary citizens should be burned? Does he agree that fire officers locally have an obligation to advise the public about fire precautions and fire prevention, and is he aware that when individual citizens seek advice about which fire extinguishers to install the advice they receive is ambiguous and often varies from fire station to fire station? In view of the importance of the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Stanley of Alderley, can the Home Office now issue a definitive, clear and unambiguous statement so that we all know where we stand on this important matter?

My Lords, we are talking about extinguishers and not about fire precautions generally. I am advised that the British Standards Institution is to bring out a British Standard—indeed, it has done so—for small disposable aerosol extinguishers. There will then be a British Standard for all portable extinguishers, except extinguishers which have plastic bodies, and work on that will be started by the British Standards Institution very soon. Therefore, if I may, I repeat the advice: use extinguishers with a British Standards Institution ratification and use extinguishers which are serviced properly.

My Lords—

My Lords, would my noble friend agree that there are—

Order!

My Lords, I think there should be a question from this side. May I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that many of the fire extinguishers which do not conform to the new aerosol standard are ineffective, do not work when required and give a very false sense of security? This being so, will he take steps to ban all those aerosol fire extinguishers which do not conform with the new British Standard? Will he, at the same time, try to inform people that if they want full protection they must have a more expensive type of conventional fire extinguisher?

My Lords, as I have just said in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Winstanley, a British Standards Institution standard has, in fact, just been published—it is two months ago—and it is BS.6165 on small disposable extinguishers of the aerosol type which the noble Viscount is asking me about. The noble Viscount asked me whether the Government would take steps to do something about it if such extinguishers, none the less, proved to be less than effective. I would say to that that, if it became clear that extinguishers which did not conform to the standard were continuing to be manufactured and sold in this country, and presented a serious risk of personal injury, the Government would wish to consider possible further action under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act.

My Lords, will my noble friend perhaps help the House in agreeing that agricultural machinery, to which he has mostly referred in his answers, is one thing, but there are very few civilian machines that are used indoors? Therefore, what applies to the agricultural machines also applies to the civilian ones.

I agree entirely with my noble friend.

My Lords, in answer to my question, does the noble Lord realise that for nearly 10 years I have been endeavouring to get the standard for aerosol fire extinguishers which has just been published and that the standard for the ones which do not work has been in existence for 10 years? Will the Government therefore seriously consider, now that the standard is there, doing something about banning those which do not conform?

My Lords, the standard is there. I am saying publicly, as the Home Office has said to the National Farmers' Union, that standards ought to be looked at carefully. I repeat—surely the advice is to use the British Standards Institution standards and use only extinguishers which are serviced regularly and properly.

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

My Lords, the answer to the Question of the noble Marquess is, "No". The circumstances leading to Mr. Kirby's action arose entirely from his performance of his official duties. In that situation, disquiet would in our view be justified if the Foreign and Commonwealth Office had failed to stand behind its employee in his efforts to clear his name.

My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his Answer. May I ask him whether he thinks that at a time when cuts are being made in such essential services as the BBC overseas broadcasts it is justifiable to lay out public money in this way, particularly when, as I understand it, this laying out of public money will be necessary only if the extremely damaging allegations of Private Eye in respect of Mr. Kirby are proved to be founded?

My Lords, naturally we do think that the expenditure is justified, otherwise we should not have agreed to it.

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

My Lords, the Government have consulted the authorities of the Church of England and the British Council of Churches on several occasions since May 1978. The opinions expressed by these authorities have not favoured the implementation of the Easter Act at the present time.

My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord. Nevertheless, has not the May Day Holiday created a new situation so that this year, with Easter Day on 19th April, we had four public holidays crammed into seven and a half weeks and only one public holiday between the beginning of June and December? Is it not about time that we recognised the wisdom and far-sightedness of our fathers by implementing the Act which they passed in 1928 and holding Easter during the first half of April?

My Lords, I think that there is a great deal in what the noble Lord says. However, the difficulty is that the Easter Act 1928 says that regard shall be had to any opinion officially expressed by any Church or other Christian body. There is not agreement on this particular subject. However, by a happy coincidence, Easter in 1982 will fall on Sunday 11th April, which is also the day fixed under the provisions of the Easter Act 1928.

My Lords, would the noble Lord bear in mind that the tourist industry, the hotel and catering industry and many others concerned with consumer manufacturing would warmly welcome a fixed Easter? A varied Easter is doing considerable harm to their trade from time to time.

My Lords, I was not aware of this. However, it does not alter the fact that on this matter we must obtain the agreement of the Churches.

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

My Lords, the Loan Guarantee Scheme has been warmly received by the small business sector, and substantial use of the scheme has already been made. In the first six months since the scheme came into operation, 1,512 guarantees have been issued in respect of £52·6 million of bank lending. This includes £28.3 million of lending to new businesses.

My Lords, I thank my noble friend the Minister for that Answer and congratulate the Government on their achievement. However, may I ask him whether, with regard to the financial arrangements necessary for the approval of this scheme, the banks are carrying out their part in this connection with expedition?

My Lords, I have no reason to think otherwise. The attitude adopted by the banks has been encouraging. A good deal of the early success of the scheme must be as a result of their efforts. However, there is still work to do in ensuring that the banks at all levels, especially local branches, appreciate what the scheme can offer.

My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that, while we welcome his excellent Answer, we should like to know, without being facetious, what the definition of a "small business" is?

My Lords, as the comedian said, "I am glad you asked me that"! I asked the same question. Noble Lords might like to know that regarding a small business my brief says:

"In the interests of simplicity, we have not attempted to so define it".

But there is better to come! The next line reads:

"The scheme is designed so as not to attract the larger business".

In all seriousness, the answer is that one must keep this flexible, bearing in mind that there is a maximum amount of money. One could give a definition. There are those who say that a small business is one which employs below a certain number of people, but it would not be helpful to mention that number because we want to keep it especially flexible.

My Lords, can my noble friend tell me whether it is true that in this first year the Government are allowing more than the original £50 million? And do the Government anticipate that in future years they will be increasing the amount of money available under this scheme?

My Lords, I am very pleased to advise my noble friend that, because of the success of the scheme, an additional amount of £50 million has already been made available, making £100 million in all. Clearly, this is one of those very encouraging features of a new development which we are all very happy to see.

My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that a number of people, including myself, are very sceptical about this scheme, believing that to overload small businesses with ever increasing debt at exorbitant rates of interest can be quite dangerous when they really need more equity; and that the success of this scheme cannot be judged for quite a long time yet? There have already been failures even in the first six months.

My Lords, there would always be failures, in any case. If we were to stop and not do this because of that consideration, then we would do nothing and that can hardly be the right answer. There are other facilities available for equity finance. The business start-up scheme is where people have to go for that. Secondly, the rates being charged are not exorbitant; they are coming out at very much the equivalent to what borrowers of that kind would normally pay. I think the fact that there is such an encouraging take-up is something we should welcome rather than regret.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.

My Lords, people must be getting the impression that Scotland is overrun by stray dogs. I think this must be the twentieth such Bill before us in the past two years. I thought that even the very name Midlothian was enough to make the Government see red, and that it would be inclined to impress on them the need to save money. These Bills cost quite a bit of money. I know it is all right for lawyers and parliamentary agents; they are not concerned about it, and the Government do not seem to be terribly worried. This is really to shed the load in respect of looking after stray dogs. At present under the 1906 Act it rests with the police. This is to give it to local authorities and authorised officers; in other words, they are going to employ more people to do this.

What perplexes me even more is that we have before us at the present time two Scottish local government Bills. One of these is the Civic Government Bill, which has already had a Second Reading and is going to attract interesting Committee proceedings in this House on Thursday. This Confirmation Bill amends Section 3 of the 1906 Act, but so does the Civic Government Bill. Just to make things even more complex—the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor will be interested in this and it may be that he will provide me with the ultimate answer in respect of what happens here—we read:

"In its application to the district and to the Council section 3 (Seizure of stray dogs) of the Dogs Act 1906 shall be read and have effect as if the following subsections were substituted for subsections (1) to (7) of that section".

That is what is before us at the moment. But on Thursday we shall have before us:

"Control of stray dogs. Clause 124…the said section 3 shall be amended as follows: subsections (1), (2), (4), (6), (7)".

How long is this going to last, for which Midlothian has paid a fair sum of money? Part of what they are dealing with is going to be repealed in the other Act. Which is going to be the authority? It is bad enough at the moment, but we are now going to have the Dogs Act 1906, the Civic Government Act 1982 (when it is passed), and then there is this Bill. Are we going to have a Stray Dogs (Scotland) Consolidation Act? We are going to need it. I hope the noble Lord the Minister will explain to me the standing of this Order Confirmation Bill once we pass the Civic Government Act.

I understood a long time ago that the Civic Government Act was going to solve our problems and we would not have this continuing line-up of district councils in Scotland spending money; the Government themselves were going to do what they should have done in the first instance, discouraged the bringing forward of these orders, and legislation for all the district councils. It really is a dog's breakfast rather than a stray dogs Bill.

My Lords, I am slightly bemused at the moment. I should like to say to the noble Lord that if we are to have a pattern of district council order, whether it is in Scotland or England or anywhere else, this appears to me to be an extremely good one. It is one which I think meets all the requirements which anybody who is concerned with dogs would like. I would like to ask the noble Lord, if I may, a question as regards Section 3(5):

"No dog so seized shall be given or sold for the purposes of vivisection".

This is a most agreeable subsection, but vivisection in the eyes of many people means the cutting up of dogs, where you take them and use instruments on them. Can the noble Lord please tell me whether this also covers experiments which are designed to prove drugs or cosmetics or things like that?

My Lords, I might have known that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would have done his homework to the extent that he would start what fortunately will not he too long a debate upon the canine population of Scotland. I hope it is not for that reason entirely that that celebrated dog lover, the noble and learned Lord, is still sitting on the Woolsack; the noble Lord has, I think, two dogs that we know about. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, began his comments by referring to the number of orders, and I can confirm to him that this is indeed the twenty-first order of this type. This confirms, as the noble Lord pointed out, that Scotland does have a problem in this area of stray dogs.

I am given to understand that the District Council of Edinburgh was the first to seek guidance, and indeed to have a Bill dealing with the problem of stray dogs, followed by the City and District of Aberdeen, Glasgow in 1977, and indeed I believe the noble Lord's own district of Kilmarnock and Loudon.

No, Kyle and Carrick.

Well, at any rate a district that will be familiar to the noble Lord. They took steps to deal with this menace of dogs at the end of 1979. With regard to the noble Lord's comments about spending money, the only money that might be spent is on the legal fees, and I do not believe that that is particularly exceptional in these cases. The noble Lord mentioned the problem of relevant costs. I would confirm to him and to your Lordships that any costs incurred as a result of this particular order, and indeed all the others that have gone before, will be required to be met within the council's existing expenditure limits. But any such expenditure will be regarded as relevant expenditure for the purposes of the rate support grant. I think that that is a very valuable concession.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, thought that this twenty-first order and, indeed, the other 20 orders, would have given rise to employing vast numbers of persons to act as the relevant authorised officers. I understand that the particular order before your Lordships today will necessitate the employment of one or possibly two persons who normally have been found to be sufficient for the purposes of complying with all the other 20 orders. We have no reason to think that the district of Midlothian would have any greater dog problem than any of the other 20 district councils that have already had to apply and use this private legislation machinery.

I turn to the problem which was raised by my noble friend Lord de Clifford. We are very grateful for his support and we recognise his support in general for the dog population of Scotland and, of course, the United Kingdom. However, I am afraid that I am unable to give him a precise definition of the word "vivisection" as it appears in paragraph 3(5) of the order. I shall endeavour to find out whether "vivisection", as defined in the order, covers the points he raised as regards cosmetics, drugs, et cetera. I shall attempt to find a precise definition of "vivisection", and I hope that both my noble friend and the House will forgive me if I write to my noble friend.

I hope that I have been able to set at rest the fear of the noble Lord, Lord Ross, of the terrible additional burdens that this twenty-first order will bring. It is similar to 20 orders which have already been successfully passed by your Lordships' House and another place to combat this minor menace, although I appreciate that in some areas it is something of a major menace. If a dog makes an unprovoked attack upon any one of your Lordships then it certainly becomes a major menace. For that reason—and I hope your Lordships will agree—I beg to move that the Bill be now considered on Report.

My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he deal with the more important point that I raised about the amendment of the same clause in the Civic Government Bill and explain how the two things fit in?

My Lords, I am so sorry, I might have known that the noble Lord, Lord Ross, would raise this point. Indeed, I have a note of it. The noble Lord and the House will appreciate that we are only just beginning our consideration of the Civic Government Bill and that such a major measure will take a reasonable time to come into effect. The particular order that we are considering today, together with the other 20 orders, will give all the districts the powers to deal with the problem of stray dogs. However, we understand that the two relevant clauses—Clause 73 and above all Clause 124—of the Civic Government Bill will give discretionary power to all Scottish local authorities to appoint such officers as are mentioned in the order, and, indeed, in the Bill, to deal with the problem of stray dogs.

But the provision in the Civic Government Bill will consolidate—and we certainly intend to take this action—all the existing local Act powers (and for that purpose the present order that we are dealing with today will apply existing local Act powers) and will make them generally available to all the Scottish local authorities to adopt if they so wish. It will be purely permissive. In view of the general power which we shall include in the Civic Government Bill, that Bill will also provide that all existing local Act powers for the particular purpose of dealing with dogs will be repealed. Clause 124 will cover all the orders that have been passed so far and will consolidate them. If there is any problem, the provision will be repealed. I beg to move.

My Lords, I beg to move that the Hops Marketing Bill be read a third time. I thought that it might be helpful just to say a few words on the Third Reading of this Bill. Although my noble friend Lord Selborne mentioned in the Second Reading debate that, as chairman of the Hops Marketing Board, he was sorry to see it disappear, I believe I am right in saying that the board and the industry in general have accepted that an alternative system must be adopted in order to comply with the European Community rules.

I also think it true to say that, having once accepted the necessity for change, the board, the industry and the Government have, collectively and independently, concluded that the most sensible course to take is the one which this Bill is designed to make possible—that is, the dissolution of the board in a way which will preserve the orderly system of marketing hops in this country. As your Lordships will be aware, individual producers will be able to vote in a poll as to how they think the board's assets and liabilities should be disposed of. The Bill does not explicitly say so, but it is hoped and expected that hop producers will support the new voluntary producers' group, which will be called the "Hops Marketing Board Limited", and, if this is so, most, if not all, of the assets will be transferred to it. If sufficient support is forthcoming, the Hops Marketing Board Limited will buy and sell hops on behalf of its members in a way very similar to the system employed by the present board. It is hoped and, indeed, expected that we shall therefore ensure the continued stability of the hops market.

Producers have been kept fully informed by the board of the proposed alterations, and have been able to attend discussion meetings in their areas to ask questions and make their views felt. The board themselves have shown great patience and understanding in taking account of a wide variety of points, and I am glad to see support, now, from virtually all sectors for this Bill. I beg to move.

My Lords, I am sure that we are grateful to the Minister of State for his comments on the final stages of this Bill. As he said on Second Reading, and again today, the board has been in existence for half a century, having been formed in 1932. Although there have been criticisms, of course, of the fact that there have been a number of boards and Quangos—a criticism which I do not share—the Hops Marketing Board, with the full backing of the hops industry and the brewing industry, has made a notable contribution.

We now come to the final stages of the passage of this Bill in your Lordships' House, and in the Bill we now have a potential alternative way of organising the industry. Naturally we shall consider what effect the Hops Marketing Board has had over five decades in looking for the qualities that we expect in its successor. I think that it brought confidence and stability—and I am sure that the Minister will agree with that—so that growers, producers and, indeed, the brewing industry were able to plan ahead with confidence. That is really essential in this industry as well as in other aspects of the agriculture and food producing industries. I feel sure that few, if any, will be pleased that, due to the EEC requirements, we have had to find an alternative way of doing what the Hops Marketing Board did so well.

A brief review is necessary to look for and to anticipate in the new arrangement those qualities which were essential and which we saw in the period up to the present situation. As we did not have a detailed Committee consideration I think that it would be helpful to your Lordships' House if the Minister of State clarified a few queries which I wish to put to him. Will the Minister clarify a little more the position regarding the result of a poll, to which he referred, which has to be held to ascertain the views of the industry about the successor organisation? I have in mind the requirement regarding the number of regis tered producers voting, and those capable of producing not less than two-thirds of the quantity of hops potential produced in this country.

I presume that the Minister of State's reference in column 410 of the Official Report of the Second Reading debate on 17th November, when he referred to numbers and areas, was in fact a reference to the potential quantity of hops production which those areas might represent. Can he say a little more about how another poll which may have to be held will get the required majority if such does not obtain the first time? If less than a two-thirds majority is arrived at the first time, what kind of questions will have to be put so as to get the requisite majority the second or further times? I feel sure that we all hope that the required majority will be obtained the first time because fragmentation of the industry certainly would not be an aid to its stability.

Clause 2 refers to safeguards for employees. I am sure we are pleased to see that, but I think it would be helpful if the Minister, who has referred to consultations having taken place within the industry, would also say a little more about what consultations have taken place with employees and trade unions, and with what result. I anticipate that the results have been acceptable to both sides.

On forward buying and contracting ahead for three or four years, which is a feature of the present arrangements, I presume that this is to continue—not only for producers of the Hops Marketing Board Limited (the successor organisation in the new co-operative) but also for those outside the organisation. This is essential, not only for the mass of producers but also for those not covered by the new society and who are not in it. If there is to be more than one society or body, how does the Minister see Clause 4 working out when disposing of or sharing the assets and liabilities of the present board? I think that to arrive at such a position would create a very serious situation, and one anticipates that it will not happen.

The noble Earl, Lord Selborne, chairman of the Hops Marketing Board, hoped that there would be no devisiveness, as it could be a serious factor and cause instability. In such circumstances there are a number of factors which are important. The Hops Marketing Board was concerned in a number of aspects of importance to the industry, apart from forward buying and contracting. There were the concerns of productivity, the concerns of research and development, pricing, experimental work and so on. Obviously this must continue under the new arrangement, and I should like some assurance that this will continue as before, because it is vital to the future competitiveness of the industry, especially as we might be competing in a much greater way in Europe.

The Minister said (and I was pleased to hear it) in the Second Reading debate that we are self-sufficient with hops, except for about 10 per cent. or a small percentage of special requirements which we had to import from abroad. In the more competitive situation of the EEC it would certainly be a good thing to feel that we could produce all the hops we want and that we do not have to import from abroad. Those are the queries I should like the Minister to comment upon because I think that for him to do so would be helpful to the industry itself.

Finally, I feel that we all have cause to be thankful to the Hops Marketing Board and to its chairman, the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and indeed to board members and staff and for the co-operation and the work in which the Ministry itself was involved. I feel sure that we wish them well in their future work, in taking over from such a successful predecessor, in serving the needs, not only of the hops industry but also of the brewing industry, and that all would drink their health to the future.

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, for his general welcome to the Bill. He did ask a number of points and I will do my best to clarify them for him. He rightly suggests that if a two-thirds majority is not obtained in the poll of registered producers provided for in Clause 2 of the Bill, then the result could be considerable instability in the hops market. In practice, we have good reason to hope and to expect that the first poll will successfully provide for the transfer of the board's assets and liabilities. The board have kept producers well informed of the situation and have sounded out their feelings so that they may be taken fully into account in framing the question to be put in the poll. The poll will be carried out along similar lines to that provided for under the Agricultural Marketing Act 1958. There are two components to the requisite majority; first, a two-thirds majority of the individual producers who vote in the poll and, secondly, those producers voting in favour must, between them, be capable of producing two-thirds of the potential hops production of all those voting.

The noble Lord referred to the remark that I made during the Second Reading when I referred to the "area" of hops. In referring to the area, I was hoping to simplify—that is always a dangerous thing to do—an otherwise complicated explanation. In assessing a producer's production capability, his area—in other words, his hectares—is multiplied by the average production of hops per hectare. Therefore the voting capability is actually proportional to a producer's hop area. Unlike the European Community's milk polls, it is the majority of those voting which counts; the votes of any producers who do not participate in the poll will not he counted as negative votes. With only some 400 registered producers involved, I doubt whether there will be very many non-voters. As I have said, I hope that the first poll will produce a favourable result for the sake of all concerned in the industry. If it does not, however, further polls may be held on the same or on different questions. For instance, if some producers wish to form a second producer group and claim a share of the board's assets, a poll could propose that the assets be disposed of proportionately between the new society and a second specified group; that is one of the options. If no poll produces a result at all, then in the last resort the Minister may step in and petition the courts for the board to be wound up. I would like to say that this would of course be highly undesirable and also extremely unlikely. It would be undesirable for producers and for the hop industry as a whole, but naturally the Bill has to cover every contingency. That particular position will only arise if producers have been unable to agree upon the better course of action. The Bill protects the interests of all concerned in this event, in so far as surplus assets will be fairly distributed—but I would not be prepared to forecast the result in terms of market stability.

I understand that the board have fully consulted their employees in relation to Clause 2(7) and that they are content. Clause 4(1) relates only to the present board and it is designed to avoid holding elections to a body which is on the point of dissolution. The Hops Marketing Board Limited and any other society will presumably arrange their own elections and no provision for that is necessary in the Bill.

What happens to forward contracts will also depend on the result of the whole. The board, I understand, intend to propose that all their forward contracts with producers should be transferred to the new society or its subsidiary. This will mean that provided the necessary two-thirds majority is attained, all producers who have hops under forward contracts with the board, whether of not they join the society, will be required to deliver those hops to the society or to its subsidiary. This is necessary in order to ensure stability on the market. Any producer who decides not to join the society will of course be free to sell any other hops—in other words, hops which are not subject to forward contracts—anywhere that he likes. It is true that the United Kingdom producers have enjoyed the option of forward indexed contracts, where the price payable by the buyer is subject to an adjustment or a surcharge in respect to inflation; whereas, of course, continental producers do not have this facility. But there is nothing in the Bill which will prevent the new producer group operating forward indexed contracts, and I understand that it is the firm intention that they should continue.

Since the United Kingdom became a full member of the Community there have been no commercial barriers to trade, either from the point of view of imports from or exports to the Community. Arrangements under discussion make no change to these trade prospects. Opportunities for would-be exporters to the United Kingdom, as for United Kingdom exporters to the Community, are determined by straightforward commercial considerations.

The noble Lord, Lord Bishopston, quite correctly referred to the stability of the hop market. I entirely agree with what the noble Lord said, including all the ancilliary advantages of the present Hops Marketing Board system, which has, of course, guaranteed the stability, or at least supplied the stability, in the past. I would simply say to the noble Lord that this is why the Bill is designed to enable the present system to continue—that is, because of the stability which it has given the industry in the past. It has been so designed, with the consent of producers, with as little change as possible but without—and this is the only matter of import—the element of compulsory membership.

I am grateful to your Lordships for the way in which this Bill has been received, not exactly with the height of controversy. I hope that I have answered the quite correct and prudent questions of the noble Lord, Lord Bishopston. I agree with him that the noble Earl, Lord Selborne, and those members of the Hops Marketing Board ought to be congratulated on the generous and understanding manner in which they witness and have facilitated the demise of their own board into a different object after the Bill is passed. I wish them well and I wish the hop producers well. I like to think that this modest Bill will help them in the future, as, indeed, the Hops Marketing Board has in the past.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill now be read a second time. The Harbours (Scotland) Bill gives powers to establish harbour trusts to hold, manage and maintain harbours in Scotland and to transfer to such trusts any harbours held or maintained for the time being by the Secretary of State for Scotland. The immediate purpose of the Bill is to enable the Secretary of State to disengage from Peterhead Bay harbour and to set up an independent harbour trust to take over this responsibility. The Secretary of State is harbour authority for Peterhead Bay harbour, which we took over from the Admiralty in 1960.

It was the Admiralty who in 1888 began to construct a "Harbour of Refuge" at Peterhead to provide shelter during the storms for the sail-driven herring fleet. This was done under powers given in the Peterhead (Harbour of Refuge) Act 1886 and two massive breakwaters were built to enclose the bay of Peterhead to provide a large area of sheltered water. The breakwaters were completed in 1956, though little use had been made of the harbour up to that time.

With the discovery of oil and gas in the North Sea the development potential of this strategically placed harbour became obvious. However, the Secretary of State did not have adequate powers under the Harbour of Refuge Act either to develop the harbour himself or to allow other people to do so. Further powers were therefore taken in the Harbours Development (Scotland) Act 1972. Some of your Lordships may remember that measure when it was before this House; others may have a better recollection of the Bill in another place where the Opposition co-operated with the Government of the day to put through that urgently needed legislation in less than seven weeks.

The Harbours Development (Scotland) Act 1972 was a Public Bill covering harbours in Scotland for which the Secretary of State was harbour authority but, like the Bill before the House today, it was promoted principally to deal with Peterhead Bay harbour. Under these powers the Secretary of State has, over the last eight years, reclaimed land and constructed upon it a large oil service base and has leased land for another North Sea service base. A tanker jetty able to receive oil tankers of up to 40,000 tons has also been built. The arrangements under which the Secretary of State developed this harbour were intended, from the outset, to be transitional. They were to last only until a new port authority could be set up. Consultations were undertaken in 1976 to determine whether there was a wish to bring the bay harbour and the adjacent fishery harbour under one management, but there was no local enthusiasm for the unification. The Government have therefore decided that separate arrangements must be made for Peterhead Bay itself. Earlier this year the Scottish Office consulted extensively with bodies with an interest in the harbour about the proposal to form a new authority. All have accepted the Secretary of State's reasons for wishing to disengage from the harbour in favour of an independent trust.

Under Clause 1 of the Bill an order will be made to set up a trust for Peterhead Bay harbour. This will define the constitution of a new authority and pass to them the powers the Secretary of State holds as harbour authority; such as, for example, the power to levy vessel and cargo dues and develop the harbour. Membership of the authority will have a strong local base through local authority and fishing members and it is intended that the Secretary of State should appoint other members who have commercial and harbour management expertise, including knowledge of the oil industry. A new authority would also accept the liability to maintain and repair the harbour and keep it properly dredged.

The authority will also have responsibilities unique to Peterhead. For example, the new authority will have to ensure that access to and from the fishery harbour of Peterhead is protected. The fishery harbour is the foremost white fish landing port in the country and it is essential that fishing boats, which need to cross Peterhead Bay to reach the sea, should be able to go to their fishing grounds without hindrance. We will also protect the "Lido Beach". This is a recreational area of Peterhead which lies within the harbour itself. During the passage of the 1972 Act Parliament was concerned that this amenity should be safeguarded as far as possible during development of the harbour and this has been done. The new authority will be required to exercise the same care.

I have set out the administrative arrangements proposed for the future. What then of the financial position of the new authority? There need be no fear on this aspect. The harbour is a profitable commercial operation, and has over the last four years made a healthy surplus. The capital position is equally good and expenditure incurred at the harbour has already, within eight years, been cleared. These are good results. The Government will hand over to the new authority a viable operation which is well placed to continue to give vital support to our North Sea oil industry. The Government have been good and faithful stewards of Peterhead Bay harbour for 95 years. We can take pride in the achievement. Nevertheless, the time has come to pass this responsibility to a new authority. The Harbours (Scotland) Bill is a necessary measure to provide powers for this to be done. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, we are very grateful to the Minister for his full explanation of the content of the Bill. Behind his rather cold words there is quite a story, going right back to the Peterhead (Harbour of Refuge) Act 1886 when powers were given to the Lord High Admiral to get on with the business; indeed, he was empowered to use convict labour for the building of that harbour. The Minister, of course, spoke about the 1972 Act and about the co-operation there was at that time from the Opposition. He will know, of course, and will have in mind, that the person who led the Opposition at that time as regards Scotland was myself, and I remember the Bill very well. There was much concern—and I am very glad that it was covered in what the Minister said—by people in the Peterhead area about the Lido Beach. They were very concerned about its future, and I am glad that that has been said.

I have another interest in this matter, in that opened the new part of the harbour when last I was Secretary of State. I am glad that it has certainly been a success. I think everyone realised that it would be. Can the Minister tell us who, in the interim, has been looking after it for the Scottish Office? I should not be at all surprised if the noble Lord on the Liberal Benches may have a relative interest in this.

I want to come to its future. We are told that it is being handed over as a going concern, as a profitable concern; that it has no capital liabilities; that in the short time it has been in existence it has done very well. So nationalisation works. Is there any profit? What monies are there, because I notice in Clause 1(3) that the transfer will be made,

"either with or without any valuable consideration".

Secondly, where does it stand now in relation to getting grants? Will they be grants from the Scottish Office, or from what we used to call the Ministry of Transport? As the noble Earl knows, in Scotland most of the smaller harbours right around the coast got grants from the Scottish Office under the Congested Districts (Scotland) Act 1897. I have never yet known the Scottish Office turn out an appeal for a grant for any such harbour. It is important from the point of view of the fishing industry.

I want to know just exactly how the new harbour authority will be in relation to, say, capital expenditure. Will it raise the money by loan? Will it have to apply to the Scottish Office for authority to do so? Or is it going to be in a better position than local authorities, and be able to do it on its own? Obviously, in view of the history, there should be no difficulty about getting that money for development.

The noble Earl spoke about this one harbour. The power under Section 1 of the 1972 Act was,

"to develop, maintain and manage (harbours] as he thinks fit, or authorise other persons so to develop, maintain and manage, harbours made or maintained by him…";

in other words, from a strict reading of that, is this Bill necessary, because under Section 1 the Secretary of State could have authorised other persons to manage the harbour which he has made and maintained? Will the authority have the same power as the Secretary of State had under the 1972 Act? Subsection (2) gave him the power to,

"acquire land by agreement or compulsorily for the purposes …".

Will the authority have that power, or will that power lapse with the Secretary of State having transferred the harbour itself?

Lastly, is this the only harbour affected? As I recollect the arguments at that time, the question arose—and it may well be that the noble Earl, Lord Cromartie, may help us here—as to other harbours. It was brought out that the harbour of Uig in Skye was owned and maintained by the Secretary of State, and there was a question which could not quite be solved at the time about the position of invergordon. I think there was referrence to a Ross and Cromarty Confirmation Order of about 1972, but there was some concern on the part of the Ministry of Defence. Is Peterhead Bay the only harbour that is concerned here? It may be the only one in which presently the Secretary of State is going to take action of transfer, but is it the only one that could be transferred?

I think that the Explanatory Memorandum is a bit misleading. It says:

"This Bill makes provision for establishing harbour trusts to hold, manage and maintain harbours in Scotland…".

Stopping there, there are dozens of harbour trusts all over Scotland. It does not require a Bill in Parliament to set them up. What they are really being set up for is as a harbour trust to receive nationalised harbours. That is the whole point about it, where the,

"Secretary of State may by order transfer to a harbour trust"

having so been set up for the purpose,

"which is held and maintained by him…".

I think we all welcome the success of the Peterhead Bay harbour. We certainly want to see it continuing to be successful, that the protection will be there for the interests of the local inhabitants, and, above all, that the same protection will be given to the access and passage through that bay to the fishery harbour for the fishery fleet. I think it is true to say that, since we made the change in Peterhead and built the new harbour, because of the demands for oil quite a portion of the fishery fleet has moved out of Aberdeen to Peterhead, so it is even more important now than it was then to ensure continued passage and protection of the access of the fishery fleet to and from their own harbour. I should be grateful if the Minister could answer these few points on this relatively small but important Bill.

My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Ross, has covered practically every point necessary, and probably some unnecessary ones as well, but it is always easy to follow him. I would simply repeat what he has said: I should like to know whether the new body, the independent body, the trust, will have access to grants, and will have facilities to keep developing the harbour. A harbour must be an ongoing concern. If it is not developing it is probably going back, as have so many of our harbours.

The other point which I think is important is that the Minister should assure us that this is not going to be a device for abandoning small harbours in the Highlands of which we know not, perhaps, which cost the Scottish Office money to keep up, and probably cost an amount far greater than the foreseeable benefit to the inhabitants but which are nevertheless entirely necessary for the life of the community. Apart from that, I hope that this action will not lead to a great deal of unemployment of chairmen of harbour trusts.

My Lords, I thank the two noble Lords for their welcome, albeit cautiously expressed, for this little Bill. Of course it was the noble Lord, Lord Ross, who in another place and in another guise speeded the Bill of 1972 on its way. I have been asked a number of questions. First of all, asks the noble Lord, Lord Ross, in effect who has been looking after the harbour for the Scottish Office under the Scottish Economic Planning Department. The noble Lord will probably recollect that the Secretary of State of the day has been assisted in his development of the harbour by the Peterhead Bay Management Company Limited, and I am sure everybody, including the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, will agree that it has done a throroughly good job, not least because the chairman of the company is a certain Dr. Maitland Mackie. Therefore, that answers that question. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, mentioned, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, echoed first, the position about finance.

When the harbour, in effect, was set up in its present character in 1972, all the money which was needed and spent on capital works within the harbour came from, and was authorised by way of, parliamentary Votes. All that will have been repaid from surpluses of income over expenditure on harbour operations and from certain sales of land and leases which have taken place. When the Bill becomes law, the responsibilities of the harbour authority will pass from the Secretary of State to a trust board at Peterhead Bay. The noble Lord, Lord Ross, asked why the Bill was necessary at all if one looked at Section 1(1) of the 1972 Act. The answer is that, but for the Bill, the Secretary of State would remain owner and harbour authority, and primary legislation is required to vest a new body, a trust, as harbour authority. It could not be done under the 1972 Act.

The assets will be transferred to the trust board at their present value as assessed by the district valuer, and that will create a debt on the new authority of about £650,000. In addition to that initial debt arising from the transfer of the assets, it is intended that the authority should be given a temporary advance of about £200,000 to tide them over for such a period, which will probably be about six months, until income begins to flow. On the present figures, the debt will be quite quickly repaid. So far as future finance and grants are concerned, like other harbours in Scotland, the harbour trust in future will be looked after, if that is the right phrase, by the Department of Transport and not the Scottish Office, and therefore the Department of Transport will take over responsibility for loans, both present and future, under the Harbours Act 1964.

The noble Lord, Lord Ross, then asked in effect: What about all the other little harbours, piers, jetties and whatnot which may become interesting, to use that word, because they happen to form part of the estates which are presently held by the Secretary of State? The noble Lord quoted the example of Uig Pier, which was one such but has been sold lock, stock and barrel as the whole estate of Uig was sold off and no longer is the property of the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is the reason why we are having this Bill in its present form and why, for instance, we have not chosen to have a Peterhead Bay Bill or some other Bill which would be restricted to Peterhead Bay.

As the noble Lord will well recollect, the way in which Peterhead Bay harbour came under the aegis of the Secretary of State for Scotland was quite fortuitous; it happened because of oil exploration, by and large, and it was in those circumstances that the recent history of the harbour has come about. Oil is being discovered in all sorts of places, both in the North Sea and to the west of Scotland, and therefore it might come about that exactly the same thing will happen to other harbours, jetties or piers which at the moment perhaps are not very important and which would scarcely he seen to be likely to exercise the mind of the Secretary of State in the future, but might well.

Are there any other such harbours on estates owned by the Secretary of State, my Lords?

There are masses of estates; the Secretary of State is one of the largest landowners in Scotland and a great many of these estates, particularly on the western seaboard, have these facilities for landing. In exactly the same way as happened with Peterhead, it could come about that the same process might be gone through again, and that could be done under this Bill in a way which would mean that we did not in future need to have this same form of primary legislation. I think that disposes of the various questions which were put to me, and I commend the Bill to your Lordships.

rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 17th November be approved.

My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Earl the Minister for his very comprehensive and helpful outline of the draft order. I also wish to thank the Minister and the department for the copy of the Explanatory Memorandum, which is a most helpful document. As we rise to consider the order in this House your Lordships will have noted that it was debated in another place last Tuesday, 1st December for about four hours, during which time a wide range of issues were raised. I have noted what the Minister has stated about the scope of the debate that should take place here today concerning the Northern Ireland schedule and Northern Ireland departments.

The draft order and the autumn Supplementary Estimate indicate the legislative and financial ambit of our debate. At the same time, I believe it is important to consider also the current economic and social climate, which places further parameters to our discussions. It is an ambit which may help to give us some degree and sense of realism. During the last three years the United Kingdom economy has suffered recession of unprecedented severity. Industrial production has fallen critically, and unemployment has risen at a faster rate than in any other major industrialised country.

Northern Ireland is an integral part of the United Kingdom economic and fiscal system. In the Province, the effects of this recession have been superimposed on a number of existing and acute long-term problems. The chronic high levels of unemployment, and overdependence on declining industries, the neglect of capital development, the lack of suitable diversification of our industrial structure and the continuing civil unrest are some of the crippling difficulties we have in Northern Ireland. The stark realities are that Northern Ireland is now in such a state of severe economic depression that industrial morale and commercial confidence is at its lowest ebb. The industrious Ulster flair has been sadly and seriously weakened.

Unemployment is now almost 20 per cent., and is still rising. In some areas over 40 per cent. of the male population are without jobs. I welcome the reference which the Minister has made to the plans that the Government have for youth and for youth employment. Surely there is no greater tragedy in Northern Ireland, or indeed in the United Kingdom, than the loss of opportunities for a whole generation of our young people. They are our young people; they are our sons, our daughters and our grandchildren—talented young people, with university degrees, faced with difficulties, with uncertainties and with little or no job prospects. Their hopes and ideals are crushed. They are struggling to maintain self-respect with dignity. Any help that can be given by this Government surely should be given with just as much concern for raising the self-respect and the dignity of these young people.

I could go on at some length with this litany of social deprivation, poverty, poor housing and low standards of living. But rather than recite the negative saga of gloom and despair I should like to try to suggest possible ways to move forward to a more positive and hopeful position; and in this I think I shall he following the noble Earl in some of the remarks he has made and the indications he has given towards having the community work together for peace and reconciliation. It is a fact that the problems of Northern Ireland existed long before this Government came to office. But it is also a fact that the social and economic difficulties have considerably worsened over the past two years, and have compounded our provincial problems.

But let me state clearly that, notwithstanding my opposition to the Government's overall economic policies, I welcome and support the frank and forthright approaches of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, Mr. James Prior, in his efforts to make economic progress in the Province. In his foreword to the Government's document A Framework for Action, a document already mentioned by the Minister, I believe Mr. Prior hit the right note when he declared—and here I quote:

"The magnitude of the task facing the present institutions, and in the future the new Industrial Development Board, is self-evident. Northern Ireland has chronically high levels of unemployment with, currently, nearly one in five out of work; a geographical situation on the periphery of Europe; and an image which is off putting to overseas investors caused by terrorist activity and sharp political differences embedded in history. The task is colossal. It demands the total commitment of Government and the whole community, the whole-hearted support of the British people, and the sympathy and understanding of the outside world".

This statement was even more strongly reinforced by Mr. Prior's pronouncement on 24th November, when he declared—and here I quote again:

"I pledge myself as Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to devote myself unsparingly to the task of bringing peace and prosperity to Northern Ireland and I call on all the people and all their elected representatives whatever their differences to join me in these two fundamental tasks".

It is for these reasons that, along with others in Northern Ireland, I welcome the initiative of Mr. Prior in arranging for the conference on 21st December, to which he has invited the Northern Ireland Members of Parliament—that is, the eleven Westminster Members of Parliament and the three European Members of Parliament; a form of parliamentary forum.

I believe that this parliamentary forum could be an important and useful occasion, with an open exchange of views on such issues as employment, training opportunities, the problems of young people, industrial investment, public expenditure priorities, housing and agriculture. I am glad that some of the MPs have already responded favourably to the invitation, and I would urge local government representatives, trade unionists, farmers, industrial representatives, church leaders, community workers and others to encourage their Members of Parliament to use this opportunity in a positive way and to accept Mr. Prior's challenge to come and reason together and call for a total commitment to the task of bringing peace and prosperity to the Province.

While I fully accept that the monies involved in this appropriation order and other such financial inputs are vital to the future wellbeing of Northern Ireland and of the Northern Ireland people, it is this total commitment of all concerned that is urgently required and is essential. This commitment can do what cash alone cannot do. It can help to find the means to release dormant commercial initiatives and productive ideas; it can help to overcome the loss of business confidence; it can help to promote new attitudes among management and workers to surmount the challenge of modern technology and competitive markets.

I wish to put four very brief points to the Minister arising out of the decreases in the Class II Vote which are set out in the autumn Supplementary Estimate. On page 8 of the estimate, under the A2 heading, "Interest Grants on borrowing for Industrial Modernisation and Reorganisation", we have a decrease of £1,546,000; and under the A9 heading, "Grants for firms in Inner Urban Areas", we have a decrease of £498,990—almost half a million pounds. I ask the Minister: Do these decreases from the original provision reflect the loss of business confidence; and, if so, are any steps being taken to stimulate both these important aspects of development?

Then, under the C4 heading, "Market Research Scheme", which is still on the same page, we have a decrease of £72,000. This brings this market research scheme £25,000 below the provision for last year; that is, 1980–81. I should have thought that this certainly is a support service ice requiring some attention, and perhaps the Minister may be able to help with this matter. The Minister made reference to the package of incentives we have in Northern Ireland, and I totally agree that we have probably the best incentive schemes in Europe. Indeed, this has been stated as being so. It may be that they require to be better presented, or in some way a better follow-up system should be arranged.

While what I have to say now may be not in direct reference to the Vote, I think it is relevant to our discussion. In the upper waiting hall on the Committee Corridor exhibitions are occasionally held which are of a very important nature, and many people, decision-makers and others of many kinds, pass through that hall. Last week there was an exhibition there of regional industrial incentives. I went to see it and was bitterly disappointed. Notwithstanding the very good literature and display presented by the Department of Industry, some of the leaflets which were presented left Northern Ireland completely off the pictorial maps printed on the hack of them. Only one leaflet there explained the scheme as far as Northern Ireland was concerned, and that referred to the local enterprise development unit. There may be an explanation for that, but I believe it was a missed opportunity.

My final point is under C.5, the energy, interest, grant scheme. This is a payment scheme to encourage energy savings in industry. There is now a cut-hack of something like £2,000. May I ask whether this indicates that the scheme has fulfilled its purpose; or are we losing momentum in this important area of energy conservation? With those remarks, I welcome the sympathetic and sensitive way in which the noble Earl presented the Appropriation (No. 3) (Northern Ireland) Order, which has the approval of this side of the House.

My Lords, may I take my first opportunity in debate to congratulate the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, on his appointment at the Northern Ireland Office—now quite some time ago. Over in the Province, a few weeks back, it was obvious to me that he had already by then earned considerable respect, particularly by his handling of affairs at the Maze Prison. I wish him, together with his right honourable friend the Secretary of State, every success and, hopefully, not too many frustrations. I, too, should like to thank him for his introductory remarks this afternoon and for the explanatory memorandum that was circulated a little time back. As there are further debates (as the Minister has said) on Northern Ireland affairs next week, I have attempted to confine myself fairly closely to the order in hand and not to get involved in the political scene or anti-terrorist measures. Nevertheless, I should like to say how much we were shocked by the recent murder of the Reverend Robert Bradford, the honourable Member for Belfast South in the other place. Such deeds offer no one any gain and merely delay the day which we all look forward to, when Northern Ireland really shall be a land of peace, prosperity and contentment.

My Lords, as the Minister has said, the two earlier appropriation orders for this year allocated a total of some £2,311 million; so that the £33 million that we are now discussing is, comparatively speaking, chicken-feed. Nonetheless, important points arise, and I should be grateful for answers to a number of questions which I think the Minister is expecting. On Class I, Vote 1—and I realise that agriculture is outside the day-to-day responsibilities of the Minister—can he say why £600,000 less is being spent on artificial insemination for beef cattle? On Class I, Vote 2, £3.7 million is to go to an extra-statutory milk subsidy to allow the farmer to be paid more while the cost to the consumer is not increased. This, I understand is to compete with the problems of remoteness, compared with other parts of the United Kingdom. I am glad to know that the mainland National Farmers' Union do not feel that Ulster farmers receive unduly favourable treatment. I should be glad to know that Ulster farmers appreciate this concession. I am grateful to the National Farmers' Union for supplying me with helpful information, also a copy of a relevant Official Journal of the European Communities, No. L 197/17–26; but I must admit that I got somewhat hogged down in this. Title IV, Article 8, paragraph 1, reads:

"The orientation of agricultural production, as referred to in Article 1(3)(c) shall be achieved through the medium of a specific action for the development of agricultural production".

And I am none the wiser!

I shall he glad if the Minister can tell me without too many complications what aid the Province can expect from the EEC in the years immediately ahead; for it is clear that the EEC Council consider that Northern Ireland has severe problems through agricultural unemployment, poor quality of much of the land, bad roads, bad drainage and so on. We cannot give all the aid we might wish, but I believe some expectations of aid from the EEC have been disappointed. On Class II, Vote 2—and I was grateful for the few words the Minister gave about Lear Fan—can the noble Earl say for what purpose the half million pounds is required for the extension of the security staff scheme? On Class X, Vote 1, National Insurance (DHSS), £5.6 million is allocated here. Can the Minister give any particulars as to whether (and, if so, how far) the injury benefit is connected with injuries received through terrorist activity? Lastly, on Class X, Vote 2, an additional £14 million is required, as stated, largely as a result of an increase in the unemployment register and the increased duration of unemployment.

My Lords, in these few words is summed up much of the tragedy of Northern Ireland. It is a vicious circle. Break the appalling unemployment figures, which are around 20 per cent., we are told, and I believe the terrorists' power will weaken. Break the terrorists' power and more opportunities for employment might well arise, home-based or imported from outside. No one concerned with the future of the Province can be anything but appalled at the unemployment position as it stands today, as the noble Earl knows well, as does the noble Lord, Lord Blease, who spoke about this problem with such feeling.

My Lords, we normally debate the Appropriations Order and the renewal of the Emergency Provisions Order together; and it has been our custom for the last seven years or so to allow speakers to stray a little wide of the details in the orders and to look for a few moments at more fundamental problems. As the Emergency Provisions Order has been scheduled for the most inconvenient time in the whole year—that is, at the last minute before the Christmas Recess; and as I intend to be playing golf on the South Downs at that time—I propose, I hope with the tolerance of the House, to avail myself of this licence.

I want to begin by referring to a headline in The Times of 3rd December last week, which read:

"SDP aims to break new ground in Ulster drive".

I am happy to say that this was promptly denied. Nothing annoys the people there more than half-baked proposals claiming to solve everything. I can assure noble Lords that my party has no intention of making such an approach. We are looking for supporters in all areas of the United Kingdom—and getting them—but recruits in the Province are not to a new Ulster drive but to the party as a whole, which covers the United Kingdom.

Any policy of any incoming Government—and I am not saying which party this is going to be—must, at least to begin with, be the same as that of the last two Governments. They must explore every avenue and leave no stone unturned, meanwhile determinedly keeping the lid on. This series of clichés is about all that is open to any Government at the moment. What any Government must do—and it may well be that the present team is doing it—is to talk to the moderates, to the moderate Catholics (of whom there are many) to the moderate Protestants (of whom, because there are a greater number, there are even more) to the Alliance and to any others they can find, including any SDP recruits—who will not only be moderate but nice as well, if we may believe the newspapers.

These people, added together, are a majority in the Province, but they are outgunned by the extremists. If in discussion with them this or the next Government can find any measure of agreement towards a political initiative, this should be put to groups a little further to the extreme in both directions, but in no case should they treat with the IRA or the other paramilitary groups, and in no case should any policy be presented as more than a topic for discussion. All this time—and it takes time—the lid must be kept firmly on, which means giving the RUC and the military what they need to do so.

What we must not do is what both the Labour Party and the Government have done since the election: namely, in the case of the Labour party, to present a united Ireland as their goal, however far in the future, which, whatever they may say about "only with the people's consent", means that even the moderate Protestants will distrust them; and, in the case of the Government, to hold talks in secret with the South. Personally I freely accept the Prime Minister's word that there was no talk of constitutional change; but even the moderates have made the most of the suspicion that secrecy left in their minds. If you are to try to negotiate, it is no good making agreement impossible before you begin. If you are to talk to the South—and I certainly think you should—you must have an open agenda which is published for all to see.

There is a great deal which should be talked about with the South, to which neither Dr. Paisley nor Mr. Andy Tyrie behind him could object: border security, extradition, trade and the suppression of cattle smuggling, which is going on now as badly as when I was there five years ago, I understand. All these things need discussion and can he discussed from motives of self-interest without any affection entering in.

Dr. Paisley is at the moment playing into the hands of the IRA. The IRA want chaos, which by a very long stretch of imagination they think could lead to a united socialist Ireland. But, if our troops were removed, they would get chaos all right—a civil war which they would lose within a month, for I promise them the South would not come to their help. But many good Catholics and Protestants would be sacrificed to their crazy and hell-bent desires, and we cannot let such a thing happen.

Now, if I may come back to the figures before us, let me make an obvious point. What I have said is pretty depressing from the security point of view. I think any significant stepping up of security would tend to defeat itself by alienating the minority civil population, as has happened before. But there is no doubt that unemployment among the young makes them easy recruits for the terrorists. So, even if we are doing all we can from the security angle, surely we could do a bit more to decrease unemployment, which would have a direct influence on recruitment of terrorists.

Looking at the figures before us, two-thirds are for social relief of various kinds, and only one-third is directed towards farming and industry, where the jobs are. I suggested six months ago that more money should be pumped into the intensive side of farming, into pigs and poultry, where the cost of grain and transport is so high that jobs are decreasing steadily. It must be cheaper to preserve jobs than to create new ones. The £10 million for agriculture, of which the last £6½ million is in these figures, has been a godsend; but it is not a new initiative and it is not enough. I do beg the Government to think about a further injection on the same scale to try to save jobs still at risk. Farm income has dropped from £53 million to £9 million in eight years. That is an extraordinary figure when you look at it. Yet farming is a major factor, and an efficient factor, in the Northern Ireland economy. Help here would do more to help unemployment, and indirectly to combat terrorism, than any other intervention.

My Lords, we here stand firmly behind the Government in their present policies, which are not very different from those that I have outlined if we except the secret talks, which I do not think will happen again. On finishing, I wish godspeed to them in a situation of the greatest possible difficulty.

My Lords, I, too, should like to thank the noble Earl on the Government Front Bench for his exposition and for his explanatory memorandum. Like the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, I, too, should like to range a little wider than the actual provisions of this draft appropriation order.

The first point that I should like to make is that whereas in Northern Ireland the local enterprise development unit is doing a very good job in terms of creating employment, perhaps there is a subtle difference between job creation and job enablement. A new factor in Northern Ireland now is that quite a few people have got a modest amount of capital arising out of redundancy payments. Whereas some people are quite happy to be unemployed and take the odd job here and there for now and again, provided that they are paid in cash, there are many more who have worked through most of their adult lives and who find it degrading and frustrating to be unemployed. Many of them would like to start up their own small businesses—entrepreneurs in a small way.

These are people who I think could well be given more support in terms of making available to them expertise in the line of financial control, in the line of marketing, in the line of running a business, because whereas in the past—quite understandably—we have in many ways relied in Northern Ireland for employment on subsidiaries of multinational corporations, employing perhaps 1,000 people, it may be that in the future the recovery of our economy will depend to a greater extent on the small working employer. In other words, instead of one company employing 1,000 people, it may be 10 employing 100 each or 100 employing 10 each. I think that these are the type of people who need to be supported.

I am glad to say that there is an indication of self-help in this respect. I quote Carrickfergus where there is Enterprise Carrickfergus, a voluntary group of people who have come together to try and stimulate self-help and investment to provide employment in that area. I must declare an interest, in that I am chairman of a local subsidiary of a multinational, Carreras Rothmans, Northern Ireland, and we are doing all that we can to support Enterprise Carrickfergus. In saying that, I am in no way boasting; I am merely advertising!

Turning to another matter, one of our major employers in Northern Ireland is Shorts, the aircraft factory. This company has a full order book. They have obtained most gratifying orders from America for their small commuter aircraft and its similar cargo equivalent, but they have a cash-flow problem and unless that problem can be solved, those orders may not be able to be fulfilled. I think that Her Majesty's Government are aware of this problem, but a decision is required very urgently indeed if Shorts is to be able to fulfil these orders and to maintain its level of employment, and bring in the dollars which are so badly needed.

With your Lordships' permission, I will now turn to another matter of job creation; that is, the Ulster College of Business Studies, which I visited the other day. This foundation provides training for school-leavers ranging from chefs, waitresses, receptionists, typists and secretaries right up to personal assistants for executives, who are very often of graduate level. This organisation provides hope for school-leavers and relieves them of the degradation and despair which face a school-leaver when there is no opportunity of getting a job. Furthermore, the Ulster College of Business Studies is perhaps one of the most effective means of creating jobs. I have nothing at all against universities, but I would suggest that where young people are trained to do a specific job they are more likely to get one that is perhaps someone who leaves university with a degree in philosophy, history, higher mathematics, or something like that. Indeed, that is proved by the fact that last year job placements were between 55 and 60 per cent. from that college.

In this country and overseas it is not perhaps fully appreciated how much progress has been made in Northern Ireland over the last few years. It is the bad news that gets published and very often the good news is overlooked. We have made progress. Of course my personal pet is the grand organ in the Ulster Hall, which was restored in 1978. Another good one is the Grand Opera House, whose restoration was completed some 18 months ago. Another excellent one is the Crown Liquor Saloon, the restoration of which was completed just last week and which has been re-opened by the National Trust. So, without any doubt at all, progress has been made and these examples are like shadows of great rocks in a weary land.

Another one is the Ulster Museum, which is generally credited with being one of the best museums in the British Isles. In this instance, the total increase in next year's budget is about 6 per cent., taking into account 4 per cent. wage increases (well below the rate of inflation), and 9 per cent. on recurrent expenditure (again, well below current inflation). By comparison, I am told that the Science Museum here in London is being granted an increase of 13 per cent. in its budget, the National Gallery is to have an increase of 10·5 per cent. and the Victoria and Albert Museum 7·5 per cent. So, by comparison, 6 per cent. is not all that generous for the Ulster Museum, although of course one realises that public expenditure has got to be cut. This is another shadow of a great rock in a weary land and something which contributes to maintaining the fabric of society in difficult circumstances.

Turning to political progress, the noble Lord on the Government Front Bench will know that I tabled an unstarred Question in the middle of last June. He was not too happy about it, and I yielded to pressure and agreed to withdraw it. At the time I thought it was a good idea because it seemed that public opinion might well turn out to be very much more reasonable and moderate than that expressed through the mouths of political leaders. I concede now that perhaps the public is more polarised than it was last June, with the events that have taken place. Still, unlike some, I do not want to make Northern Ireland ungovernable but rather to improve the quality of government as it may best be done.

I think Her Majesty's Government would be surprised to find how moderate public opinion could turn out to be if people were consulted directly by referendum rather than through the mouths of the political leaders, who have got themselves on hooks and are scared to be more reasonable in case they have the word "traitor" shouted at them. Two recent public opinion polls—one conducted, I think, by the Sunday Times and the other, I believe, by Independent Television—indicated that a majority of Protestants, of whom I am one, would find a form of partnership, devolved government, acceptable. I would respectfully return to the suggeston I made on 1st November 1979 that a committee form of devolved government in Northern Ireland might be the best, whereby membership of committees and allocation of chairmanships should be proportional to the electoral support the various parties had received in the last general election.

We have got to be constructive about this and I will say this in passing; I deplore those councillors who press for adjournments of council meetings. That is not going to solve our security problem or stop terrorism. All it means is that those councillors are bringing about a dereliction of duty towards the ratepayers who voted for them. Indeed it could well cost jobs, because potential investors in Northern Ireland could well withdraw and go elsewhere if approval for their schemes were to be delayed or withheld because of the suspension of local government business.

That brings me to the end of the first part of my speech. The second part deals with security; but here have disappointing news for your Lordships, which is that because I think I have already spoken for long enough, I shall not deliver it.

My Lords, it is a real pleasure to follow my noble friend Lord Dunleath after hearing him play the Northern Ireland trumpet both loud and long. I should like also to say how very much I appreciated, as I am sure the whole of your Lordships' House will have done, the wise words of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge. I am sure that the Government will consider them very seriously indeed.

This is a financial order and I have one financial point to make. This Government, of all Governments, claim to know rather precisely how much public expenditure we can afford. So I say to them: surely we should spend that amount in Northern Ireland that is judged both possible and practical, and then allow the EEC regional and social funds to come in on top. This, I know, is a general point and applies as much to Britain as to Northern Ireland. I say that, having seen with my own eyes some of the problems of Greater Belfast, and having friends in England working in some of the most squalid and deprived regions of our own part of the United Kingdom.

Above all, I urge the Government on no account to allow the Greater Belfast plan, which I understand has been agreed with the EEC Commission, to be held up; and, in particular, its most vital housing component. Surely, we can make use of the shock that was experienced by members of the EEC Commission and of the European Parliament when they visited Belfast. This concept, which is known in the jargon as "additionality", is surely the way to show what is known as the esprit communautaire and thus to win friends and influence people in continental Europe.

Part of today's order concerns the Consolidated Fund, particularly Schedule 1 and Class 10. Therefore, I feel that it may be in order to touch on one other point. It is sometimes said—and recent correspondence in both The Times and the Daily Telegraph has suggested—that Northern Ireland contains incompatible peoples and an unbridgeable gulf between two cultures. I should like to produce some evidence to the contrary. Trade unions, we know, operate on an all-Ireland basis, of which the distinguished career of the noble Lord, Lord Blease, is ample evidence; there is only one Irish rugby team; universities and polytechnics are integrated and there is constant North-South academic dialogue and interchange. Even in religion, the Irish Council of Churches and the Irish School of Ecumenics cover the whole island. Reconciliation centres, which have often been mentioned in debates in your Lordships' House, draw together Catholics, Protestants and Humanists of constructive goodwill. Therefore, in work, in sport, in higher education, in religion and in reconciliation there is co-operation and real fellowship—

My Lords, would the noble Lord be disposed to add the harmony and co-operation which exists within the legal profession across the sectarian divide'?

My Lords, I am no lawyer, but I am very happy to accept that from the noble and learned Lord. These things constitute our hope. That is why we must all persevere in efforts towards peace.

Two things, I suggest, will be most helpful at this present time. The first is that we, both within this House and outside it, should encourage all the many thousands of moderate, rational unionists to stand firm and not to be swayed by eccentrics and demagogues. Equally, we should say to all Irish nationalists and to some others, "It is not enough to condemn violence. It is necessary, also, to provide the information that will allow the security forces on both sides of the border to catch the killers who so much impede all progress, whether political, economic or social."

My Lords, I should first like to thank the Minister for presenting this draft order in such a very comprehensive manner. I should also like to thank him for the very helpful Explanatory Memorandum that he sent to me. Before raising the few points that I have to make about the appropriation order in particular, and the economy in general—although my remarks will not be quite so general as those of the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, but then I do not like playing golf; that is the reason—I should like to say how very much I have admired, and do admire, the courage with which the Government are trying to resolve the political situation in Northern Ireland, and how much I admire the personal courage of the Secretary of State, and of his Ministers, in handling this desperately difficult and dangerous situation. I am quite sure that there must be general agreement over this among all Members of your Lordships' House. By this I mean that there must be a common ground of agreement from every side of this House, about the need for a move forward in our search for an eventual political settlement for Northern Ireland.

However, having said that, I am not quite so sure that one can count on the same degree of support for all of the Government's economic policies in Northern Ireland. For I feel very strongly, whenever I make my sporadic visits to Belfast, that one of the reasons why living standards seem to get worse rather than better is that the Government are unwilling to face up to the existence of these conditions, and are sometimes not prepared to make the real effort which is necessary to bring Northern Ireland's living standards at least into line with the rest of the United Kingdom. So, surely, if the Government really want a political solution in Northern Ireland, they must do something about its poverty. You really cannot build a future on poverty.

I do not know whether any of your Lordships read the report in the Daily Mirror of last Thursday, describing some of the housing conditions in Belfast; describing the appalling deprivation which some of Belfast's children endure—children who, after all, represent Northern Ireland's future. These children are suffering conditions which are more common in the developing countries of the Third World than those endured in any other part of the United Kingdom. So how can we possibly enlist the co-operation and support of Northern Ireland's people to build a future—which they are—when they are really justified in blaming the Government's policies for these conditions? As a housing official over there said the other day, after rents had been increased by almost 40 per cent. last May,

"If the Government really wants a political solution in Northern Ireland, it will have to realise that housing is a vital part of that solution".

The correspondent of the Daily Mirror article researched for his report in a highly responsible way. I know that he inquired from many of the people engaged in community work over there. But some of his conclusions were really devastating. He pointed out, quite rightly, that not only does every Government "cut" in Britain have a disproportionately cruel effect in Northern Ireland, but that millions of pounds are actually being withdrawn from desperately needed housing schemes and from the social services. He concluded that, certainly, there was an economic plan for the Province but that, sadly, it was a plan of deprivation.

May I now make a few points and ask a few questions of the Minister about the distribution of such resources in Northern Ireland, which are intended to relieve the living conditions on which I have been very faintly touching. A sentence in the Explanatory Memorandum which was sent to me states:

"Most of the extra provision in this vote is for supplementary benefits for which an additional £14 million is required, largely as a result of an increase in the unemployment register and the duration of unemployment".

That really makes it sound as if the scale of unemployment is quite outside the Government's responsibility. It makes it sound as if it is a problem merely to be provided for, rather than tackled.

Of course, we know the efforts which the Government have made in their search for new employment opportunities. These have been generated both by indigenous companies and by industry coming from abroad. But the unemployment figures do not exactly reflect the success of these efforts. November's total of 109,525 represents just under 20 per cent. of the insured working population and is the worst November figure since the war. Out of that total, nearly 18,000 are under 19 years of age, and none of us can ignore the dangers to which out of work young people in Northern Ireland are exposed. In confirmation of this, last month the Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders published a research paper which concludes that there is a clear and unequivocal correlation between the level of unemployment and the criminal behaviour of adolescents.

May I now ask the Minister one question concerning Northern Ireland's unemployed youth? Why are the Government running down their commitment to Enterprise Ulster? This organisation has always interested me. Enterprise Ulster is a well-established labour organisation which has given employment to school leavers in its recreational and community projects and which has effectively acted as a genuine bridge between unemployment and regular employment. Furthermore, it is an organisation with trade union backing which enjoys the trust and participation of the Northern Irish community workers. They have more trust in it than in other experiments, such as Action for Community Employment. It is therefore difficult to understand why, with all the demands put upon Enterprise Ulster, far from being expanded, it is actually being undermined.

May I also ask the Minister a question on the subject of education? Will he tell us the justification for the saving of £320,000 resulting from cutting 12 controlled primary schools in Belfast, affecting about 1,600 children? He will tell us, I know, that some of these schools are small—and some of them are, but not all—and that some of the school buildings are inadequate. Again, some of them are, but not all. I know also that primary school enrolment since 1968 has dropped considerably, resulting from families moving out of these deprived areas. But many of these schools provide important focal points in their local community and provide also a base for much other community activity. Moreover, several of these schools are in redevelopment areas. If young families are to be attracted back into these areas it is vital that primary schools are available. The lack of a school has a very negative effect on a community. These families, as I have said, need to be given a trust and reliance in the community to which they belong. From the point of view of education itself, through the classes becoming smaller in these schools, the students, upon whom we so much depend for Northern Ireland's future, will become better.

I should like to ask the Minister a question about his attitude towards EEC intervention in Northern Ireland. This is very much in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, said. I have always been convinced that, if the Northern Irish people can develop a trust and reliance in the European framework as a means of finding agreement over economic issues, then this might lead them to wish to use it for seeking agreement on more far-reaching matters and political issues. There is no doubt that there is agreement, both in the European Parliament and the Commission in Brussels, that Northern Ireland represents one of the priority areas within the Community. This of course means that the Province is eligible for higher financial assistance from the European Regional and Social Funds. And resulting from this there are at the moment three sources of activity reflecting European interest in Northern Ireland's economy about which I should like to ask the Minister.

First, may I ask him for a final confirmation that the funds raised by the European Economic Community through the sales of surplus farm produce and destined to be spent on Belfast housing will be additional to Government spending? Secondly, will the Minister give an assurance that if the European Commission accept the draft plan of the integrated operations programme prepared and submitted to the Commission by Her Majesty's Government, the Government, for their part, will then agree in principle to make the contributions asked of them by the Commission? Thirdly, may I ask the Minister about the Government's attitude towards the Martin Report? This is a report on the overall economic and social problems of Northern Ireland made by the Martin Committee as a result of a motion for a resolution tabled by Mr. John Hume and others on behalf of the Socialist Group at Strasbourg. First, would he say to what degree the Government might find this report useful? Secondly, should the Commission take up the recommendation and draw up an economic plan for Northern Ireland, would the Government pledge their own financial support for it?

The few points I have brought up represent in my view some ways of relieving that heartbreaking poverty and deprivation to which I referred earlier. Furthermore, I am convinced that, if the Northern Irish people accepted that Government policies were genuinely designed and intended to counter human suffering, then the overwhelming majority of them would not only respond positively to fair, direct rule government but would also be more willing to co-operate in the search for that political settlement which we all so ardently desire for the people of Northern Ireland and for which the Government are so courageously working.

My Lords, the House has covered a very great deal of ground, perhaps more expeditiously than we are used to. I think that may be a reasonable justification for taking these orders separately so that next week, in the same concentrated rather precise way we can focus on what, in the jargon of the trade, are called Northern Ireland Office affairs as against Northern Ireland affairs. I appreciate that this can cause individual noble Lords some difficulty. I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, a distinguished predecessor in my present office, was today able to get some things off his chest. He will, I think, understand if I do not reply to them in detail. The noble Lord said that he could not be with us next week because he is playing golf on the South Downs. Could I urge him to come and play golf with us in Ulster where we have some admirable golf courses which will be ready to welcome him at any hour of the day?

Before taking up some of the specific questions which have been raised, may I make some remarks of a general nature. The debate has focussed attention on the very considerable economic difficulties which are being experienced by the Province, and in particular on the tragically high levels of unemployment and the very damaging effects which this has upon the social fabric of Northern Ireland. Of course the Government are aware that the economic problems from which the United Kingdom as a whole is suffering are found in a peculiarly acute form in the Province, due to the relative weakness of its industrial base and the special disadvantages which flow from both the political situation there and the civil unrest. This was the point which was emphasised most cogently by the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs. But it is a myth that the Government, or any Government, can control the overall levels of unemployment. If they could, they would. Unemployment does not make Governments popular and it is extremely expensive for Governments—which is only to say that it puts out other planning and other methods of help which they may be able to give.

Unemployment is high, and rising, all over the Western world and one can argue about the effects of one economic policy or another. If, however, we compare ourselves with our industrial competitors, these effects are mostly at the margin. The Republic, which I know well, is suffering from very severe levels of unemployment, particularly where young people are concerned, and proportionately they have been engaged in higher spending and higher borrowing than have we. But it is not enough to point this out. A response is required of the Government, and the Government's broad response to the economic problems of the Province has been to maintain a level of per capita public investment which is over 30 per cent. higher than that which obtains in the rest of the United Kingdom. The House will also be aware that a significant proportion of this, some 35 per cent. in all of Northern Ireland's public expenditure, is in fact supported by transfers from Great Britain.

Northern Ireland is not the only region of the United Kingdom which has difficulties or which benefits from revenue raised in more prosperous regions. I hope that your Lordships' House will acknowledge that within the limitations imposed by the need to restrain public expenditure overall, which is not really so much a policy issue as a simple lack of the necessary funds, we are making a genuine attempt to deal with the social problems of Northern Ireland. By way of illustrating this I draw the attention of the House to the recent announcement of our expenditure plans, which included an increase of £91 million in cash terms over the total contained in the last public expenditure White Paper revalued. I am sure the House will also support the Government in our decision to give first priority to the economic and energy programmes in the allocation of the Province's public expenditure resources. We of course recognise that other pressing priorities also exist, in the field of housing, for instance, but we are convinced that the creation and maintenance of a viable manufacturing sector is the only lasting solution to the economic difficulties of the Province.

I turn now to the specific points made in the debate. May I start by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Blease, most sincerely for his kind remarks about my right honourable friend. It is, I think, an indication of the concern and interest of Great Britain in the affairs of Northern Ireland that the principal Opposition spokesman could spend, in a debate of this kind, quite a lot of time quoting my right honourable friend's remarks in no plagiaristic sense, but glossing them and adding to them. We are most grateful for that. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, raised the question of whether the industrial incentives in Northern Ireland are sufficiently well packaged and presented. The best packaging and presentation that Northern Ireland could enjoy would be, of course, political development and increased stability. We are acutely aware of that because I am informed that there is now greater private sector investment from Great Britain into the Republic of Ireland than there is from Great Britain into Northern Ireland. That, I think, speaks eloquently of the problem we have.

We of course look at the immediate and short term possibilities of improving the packaging of our incentives. The industrial Development Consultative Forum, on which my right honourable friend the Minister of State has the opportunity on a quarterly basis of reviewing all aspects of industrial development strategy, is developing fast. He meets the heads of ID institutions and constitutent members of the Northern Ireland Economic Council, with representation of employers, employees and independents.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, also made kind remarks for which I am most grateful. Turning to agricultural matters, he asked why less money is being spent on artificial insemination. I believe that the noble Lord must have misinterpreted the Estimates and the Explanatory Memorandum. The estimate for receipts relating to artificial insemination is reduced because the charges have been reduced as part of our £10 million package of aid to agriculture—but the net effect is of increasing the AI expenditure rather than reducing expenditure on this service.

The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me about the security staff grant scheme. This was introduced in 1973, to help companies in the manufacturing and service sectors to protect their premises from terrorist attack. Companies employing 10 or more people were eligible for grants towards the cost of employing full-time and approved security officers. With effect from 1st March last, the manufacturing, banking and office sectors were excluded and the scheme is now confined to the retailing, wholesaling and entertainments sectors—that is to say, those places to which the general public have the greatest access. I think that the restriction in the scope of the scheme reflects the need to concentrate what are inevitably limited resources on the sectors which our experience has shown are most exposed.

I said that I would not make general political or Northern Ireland Office points this time. I should like to say in a gloss to the very interesting speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, that, yes, it is true that at the initial Dublin summit last December the secrecy was subject to criticism. The noble Lord will be aware that we have now thrown open the doors on the present and subsequent summits. But I must point out to the House that that has not stopped a criticism in certain quarters in Northern Ireland, where any contact at all with the Republic by anybody is frequently anathema. The noble Lord, Lord Donaldson, asked if more could be done to encourage agriculture. We are doing more. Last spring, when the then Secretary of State announced that he was making £10 million available to help agriculture in 1981–82, he also announced that a review of the industry would be conducted to guide Ministers in their approach in subsequent years. This review has been completed. It has been conducted by an inter-departmental group of officials and we will soon be discussing our approach, in the light of this review, to the needs of Northern Ireland agriculture with the Ulster Farmers' Union.

A number of noble Lords—including the noble Lords Lord Blease and Lord Donaldson and the noble Baroness, Lady Ewart-Biggs—rightly gave emphasis to the youth problem. I will not spend time on that now because I laid great emphasis on it in my opening remarks. Of course this is crucial; of course high youth unemployment is a fertile breeding ground for illegal activities; and of course we have to make a response to this. We have the present Youth Opportunities Programme. It has been increased very substantially. We do not consider that it is altogether permanently satisfactory and that it is the best of all systems in the best of all possible worlds. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State hopes to be making a statement fairly shortly on the future of training and work preparation arrangements in Northern Ireland, which need not supersede but might extend the valuable work done by the Youth Opportunities Programme.

I much enjoyed the expert and trenchant speech (as we might expect) from a native of Ulster such as the noble Lord, Lord Dunleath. I agree with what he said about small businesses. We have a package to encourage small business. We will try to maintain and, if need be, increase it. I congratulate the noble Lord on his work with Enterprise Carrickfergus and I take the point he made about the cash flow requirements of Shorts; he will understand that this is a matter of somewhat delicate discussion and negotiation at the present time and I would prefer not to be drawn further on it at the moment. I was also glad that he drew our attention to the conservation work—as useful in employment as it is aesthetically—in the way that he did, particularly in respect of the Crown public house in Belfast, where I myself learned to drink. It must be relatively few Northern Ireland Ministers who have sowed their wild oats in Belfast, but I am proud to be one of them.

My Lords, would it be impertinent to ask if the noble Earl had never drunk before that, given that the Crown was only restored a couple of weeks ago?

My Lords, I was talking about the Crown in its pristine splendour somewhere around the mid-1950s.

My Lords, could the noble Earl conceivably have been around then? With his youthful air, he is obviously deceiving us!

My Lords, I was around but it is possible that my instruction was outside the strict limits of the law at the time!

My Lords, will the noble Earl forgive me for intervening once again? I do apologise. Will Her Majesty's Government kindly bear in mind the 1978 Education (Northern Ireland) Act, which provides for integrated schools, so that where schools are faced with possible closure there is the opportunity to integrate both controlled and maintained schools, thus rationalising them?

My Lords, I am well aware of the importance that the noble Lord attaches to integration, and indeed the importance which many people in Northern Ireland attach to the issue of integration, and I will of course bear it in mind.

My Lords, I think it has been made clear that this is only Part 1, so to speak, of an important series of debates on the Northern Ireland issue. I would say that when we come to look at security and political questions we may, with great respect, be able to tackle them rather more cogently and precisely now that we have concentrated on the economic ones, which are so important, and the two things cannot, of course, be morally or practically divorced. I have enjoyed the debate and received great instruction from it. If there are any points which I have not answered, I will of course try to write to noble Lords who raised them.

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time. In view of the ambitious-sounding title, I think the first thing to be said is that this is a modest and strictly limited Bill. Its aim is simply to remove one paragraph from the 1975 Sex Discrimination Act—namely, subsection (2) of Section 13, and that is all. It is complete in itself and is decidedly not the first step in some insidious attempt to water down, to undermine or to chip away at the 1975 Act in its entirety. I thought it right to mention this because I am on record as having quite strongly opposed a great deal of the 1975 Act.

I am and always have been wholeheartedly in favour of the voluntary and spontaneous sweeping away of all unnatural barriers to human achievement and to human fulfilment, a process which has been evolving over the past 60 years or more. The career of our present Prime Minister is a case in point, as are the careers of most noble Baronesses in this House. All of them got where they are today, as the saying goes, without any recourse to coercive legislation. I would concede that the law does have a part to play in ensuring equal pay for equal work, equal taxation treatment, equal social security benefits, equal pension provisions, and, I might add, equal retirement ages. But where the law starts to enforce social engineering I do not care for it one little bit, and have never pretended otherwise.

However, my undeniable lukewarmness about anti-discrimination laws in general has not, I would contend, clouded my judgment about subsection (2) of Section 13. Nor has it led me into exaggerating its unpleasant effects, because there are many noble Lords and indeed many honourable Members in another place, who, unlike me, are wholehearted supporters of 99 per cent. of what is contained in the 1975 Act but who feel as strongly as I do that the subsection is iniquitous. Indeed, it is quite possible that they feel this even more strongly than I do, and with good reason. Subsection (2) because of its intolerant and extreme nature casts a dark shadow over the entire Act, and provides wonderful ammunition for anyone who wants to damn the Act as a whole.

For the benefit of those of your Lordships who have not had the opportunity to study the subsection in detail, let me try to give the gist of what it says. Effectively, it imposes a specific obligation on highly-respected, old-established, autonomous, professional bodies such as the Bar Council, the Law Society, the General Medical Council, the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors and so on. The obligation which it imposes is as follows. When these associations interview candidates for admission into the profession in question to ascertain whether they are of sufficiently good character to merit admission—candidates who, of course, have studied for five or six years at least and who have passed all the relevant exams—they are obliged by this subsection to consider whether the candidate has ever committed an act of unlawful sex discrimination. If so, it must be counted as a black mark against him when assessing his character qualifications, with the clear implication that under certain circumstances the right of entry into the profession must he refused, and the candidate debarred from pursuing his or her chosen career.

The first, though by no means the most important, objection is that these respected and independent bodies are no longer allowed to exercise their good sense and the accumulated wisdom of many decades, but must instead submit to Parliament's conception of what constitutes "good character". But that is perhaps the least of the objections. Far more important is the fact that the candidate's future can be put at risk even though no positive proof of the alleged offence is submitted. The subsection merely stipulates "evidence tending to show", not "evidence showing", mark you, nor even "evidence tending to establish", but "evidence tending to show", and you cannot get much more tenuous than that. And, on top of it all, no provision whatever is made for the candidate to say anything in his or her defence.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no limitation of time, no requirement that the alleged offence must have been a recent one. Even an act of sex discrimination committed 10 or 15 years ago can count against a candidate. In other words, the writ of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, to which all political parties subscribe, simply does not run as far as this subsection is concerned. Nor do the acts of discrimination have to be frequent or sustained—one single act will suffice to endanger the individual's future.

The act of sex discrimination need not be one which the average, fair-minded man or woman would consider particularly important or serious. Yesterday the House was debating Lord Houghton of Sowerby's Slaughter of Animals Bill, so let me pluck an example from that sphere of human activity. Let us suppose that the newly promoted manager of an abattoir were, in ignorance of the regulations—and of course ignorance is no defence—to advertise for "slaughtermen" instead of "slaughter persons" or "slaughtermen, male or female" or whatever the correct designation might be. He would undoubtedly be committing an offence under Section 38 of the Act. It may be argued that in practice, as opposed to in theory, an isolated incident like that would not put his future career at risk, supposing he was aiming for a professional career. Possibly this is so, but taken in conjunction with one or two other minor peccadilloes it could be enough to tip the scales against him.

It is not only acts of sex discrimination committed, or allegedly committed, by the candidate himself that count against him—worse is to come. His career is equally in jeopardy should his agents or employees commit an act of discrimination even without his specific instructions, even without him having any knowledge of the fact. There is no requirement that the agent should have been acting specifically on behalf of the individual when the alleged act occurred; nor is there any requirement that the employee should have committed his discrimination during normal working hours.

Let us take the case of a small jobbing builder, who hopes one day to become a qualified surveyor, and who employs a craftsman who is saving up to buy a house and who therefore has taken a part-time job in the evenings totally unconnected with his normal daytime employment. Let us further suppose that his evening job is that of a barman—if one is permitted to use that word—at that well-known Fleet Street establishment, El Vinos. In that capacity he will almost certainly run into trouble sooner or later with a militant feminist demanding to be served standing at the bar rather than seated at the table. When he politely but firmly declines, as the rules of the house oblige him to do, he will certainly be committing an offence under Section 29 of the 1975 Act—but both he and his evening employer and his daytime employer may suffer if at any later stage they wish to obtain a professional qualification. The examples which I have given may seem laughable and in a sense they are, but they are by no means light-hearted; they are deadly serious—deadly serious for the individuals who may suffer in consequence.

I hope that I have said enough to convince your Lordships of the extreme and, indeed, draconian nature of this subsection. In fairness I do not think that it was ever intended to turn out this way. In 1975 no fewer than 83 Public Acts reached the statute book together with a number of Private Acts as compared with the normal annual average of about 55. It is perhaps not surprising that not all of the Bills received the thorough scrutiny which is their due. That is the penalty one pays for a very heavy legislative Session, although it must be said that it is not usually parliamentarians who actually pay the penalty.

The subsection was never debated on the Floor of the House of Commons although a certain amount of disquiet was expressed in Standing Committee. It did not reach your Lordships until well into July, only a fortnight before the House rose for the Summer Recess. There was no separate Third Reading. Indeed, the Third Reading was taken on the same day as Report, which was most unfortunate because otherwise things might have turned out differently. By the time that the Race Relations Bill reached Parliament several months later everybody was fully alert to the implications of the subsection. When the corresponding subsection in the Race Relations Bill, which was Clause 12(2), came up it was violently attacked from all sides of the House in very strong language. And by a considerable majority, with many Back-Bench Members on the Government side—which was then the Labour side—crossing the Floor to vote with the Conservatives and the Liberals against the subsection, it was thrown out. Ultimately, the Government of the day accepted that.

Two questions may be posed. First, why not wait for a general review of sex discrimination legislation? The answer is that it may be many years before that takes place and when it does it is bound to be both controversial and prolonged. This Bill today is uncontentious, or relatively so; it is simple; and it takes up very little parliamentary time. Moreover, the longer one waits the more probability there is that grave injustice will be done to individuals.

Secondly, it may be asked: why try and delete the subsection altogether; why not simply water it down and remove its most objectionable features? Well, simplicity, which I have just mentioned, is one of the reasons, and the fact that it takes up very little parliamentary time, which is always at a premium. The other reason is that in 1976, when we debated the Race Relations Bill, Parliament took the view that the corresponding clause in that Bill was so inherently bad that it was better to scrap it altogether than try and fiddle about and make improvements to it. The Labour Government of the day at first resisted that, but subsequently they came round—although they had a sufficient majority in the Commons to reject the Lords' amendment—to agreeing that the subsection should go. I think that I could guess why they did so—because even if one were to eliminate from the subsection the candidate's agents and his employees, even if one were to confine consideration to repeated, major and, above all, proven offences, one would still be left with the fact that, if a proven act of unlawful discrimination has been committed, then presumably the person who committed it will already have paid the appropriate penalty.

Subsection (2) effectively means that he or she has been punished twice for the same offence, and this surely offends against natural justice, as reasonable men and women perceive natural justice. In 1976 the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, urged your Lordships not to perpetrate a second injustice by passing subsection (2) of Clause 12 in the Race Relations Bill. This House agreed with him, and so subsequently did the Government. We now have an ideal opportunity to put right the first injustice—the primary injustice—and I earnestly trust that your Lordships will take this opportunity. My Lords, I beg to move.

My Lords, in his opening remarks the noble Lord, Lord Monson—who is having a bit of a swipe at sex discrimination legislation altogether—mentioned that he thought that women—I took it that he meant perhaps in this House—had got to their present position without coercive legislation. On that particular point, it is fair to say that your Lordships' House is more equal than the other place, because in this House we have 43 women Life Peers whereas in the other place there are only 19 women Members of Parliament. So we start with an advantage here. But I cannot agree with the noble Lord that perhaps luck plus a few other things can take the place of legislation, which I certainly do not find coercive.

I must say right away that I entirely agree with the noble Lord's criticism of the wording of this section. I find it extremely, draconian and oppressive. Therefore, my noble friends and I are sympathetic towards the principles underlying his criticism. Noble Lords will probably be aware that, in fact, this particular section was almost entirely lifted from the Consumer Credit Act 1974, which in its turn relied on the Consumer Credit Act 1973, which was introduced by the Conservative Government of that day. Let me hastily say that it does not make it any better that sections should be passed from one piece of legislation to another. But in determining whether an applicant for a licence is a fit person—and Section 25 (2) of the 1974 Act reads in this way—it then goes on (and I shall not delay the House by reading the whole of the subsection) having dealt with the questions of fraud, dishonesty and other provisions, to say in subsection (c):

"practised discrimination on grounds of sex, colour, race or ethnic or natural origins in, or in connection with, the carrying on of any business".

Perhaps the Minister when he replies will be able to help us on that. But if, as we do, we take exception to the wording now in the Sex Discrimination Act, do the Government have any plans—and the noble Lord, Lord Monson, may also have a view on this when he replies—on leaving this in the Consumer Credit Act as well?

To return to the subsection which the noble Lord seeks to delete, it is only fair to point out that in practice it seems to have worked out very differently. Fortunately, there does not appear to be any evidence to suggest that there has been a draconian interpretation of the clause. I understand from the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission—who I understand will not speak in this debate because, under the Addison rules, the procedures of the House will not allow her to do so—that the Equal Opportunities Commission has, in fact, drawn attention in two or three cases to the existence of this subsection, but, of course, it has no mandatory powers to activate it and nor is it aware of the subsection being invoked in any way. In other words, the subsection has just been there as a deterrent. Therefore, the fears expressed—and I say this not to make a debating point, but I say it with great relief—by your Lordships during the Committee stage of the Race Relations Bill have not so far been realised.

I think that I should give an example of why it is necessary that something should take the place of this gap in the Bill if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is successful in deleting the subsection just like that. Local authorities have wide powers of licensing for a great variety of businesses; for example, employment agencies and entertainment premises. In both cases the present Section 13(2) applies. However, while evidence of past sex discrimination would not lead to an automatic refusal of a licence, it would be taken into consideration as one factor, especially if the person involved is likely to have frequent contact with the public. But in both cases the justifiably disliked Section 13(2) at present provides a method—even as a background method—of dealing with the problems of sex discrimination. But if this section were to be deleted without any replacement of any sort, the only remedy available would be for an individual to appeal to the Equal Opportunities Commission. But, if the commission was aware of sex discrimination in an employment agency and the owner wished to open another branch, the commission would still be powerless because it has no powers to deal with what would, in fact, be a different business and another business.

Therefore, the real purpose of this section—and I imagine that this is why it was put in the Bill, as it was then, in the first place—was to draw the attention of licensing and other authorities to the fact that unlawful discrimination in this area was a legitimate criterion to be taken into account when assessing a person's suitability for an authorisation or licence.

I do not believe that your Lordships would wish that a person who had been found guilty of discrimination against women in the provisions made for customers in a public house or hotel and who persisted in what is an unlawful act, should be given a further licence to continue to discriminate. I agree that the wording of the section goes much further than that, but rather than delete the clause, would it not be better to seek to amend it so that the real purpose of what it is trying to do would be in legislation but in a very much better and far less draconian manner? The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, "Why not water it down?" and answered his own question himself. This is a very important matter. It is not a question of watering down the section; it would be a question of completely redrafting it.

However, there are further reasons for not dealing with this in isolation, however much we may dislike it as it is. However, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has performed a valuable service in voicing, so articulately and so strongly, the objections to this subsection. Yet I would hope that something more constructive than just a sheer execution would come out of this debate.

I understand that the chairman of the Equal Opportunities Commission offered to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, to write to authorisation bodies to inquire the extent of their use of the section, any problems in use that they have encountered, and what their views would be on the type of legislation which would cover the point without overwhelming it in this particular way. This information would, of course, be made available to your Lordships. From the assessment then arrived at it would be possible to look at the section in a realistic way and see how best it could be amended, what was needed and whether, in fact, something was needed in quite a different part of the Act. I think it would be better that amendments should be looked at consistently and not in isolation.

There is also a further reason for not dealing with it in this way. Despite the passage of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975, and the enforcement activities of the Equal Opportunities Commission, as reported in its five annual reports to date, there is still substantial discrimination on grounds of sex. It still persists in this country, and I think that most people would agree that neither the Sex Distrimination Act nor the Equal Pay Act is adequate. Both these Acts are in need of root and branch revision, especially in the light of the carefully thought out and detailed proposals for amendment put forward by the Equal Opportunities Commission in January 1980, which the Government are still considering.

For example, it is still the case that you can have two firms both employing men and women doing the same jobs. In one firm they could be paid the same while in the other firm there could be differences in pay, but no appeal to an industrial tribunal is possible as the law stands at present because the comparisons have to be made with people working at the same establishment. Nor does the legislation have anything to offer to the vast majority of women who are working in what used to be known as "women's grades" because they have no men who are doing the same or broadly similar work. This affects hundreds of thousands of women in the country, and is one of the fundamental sources of discrimination and inequality.

Then all benefits relating to retirement are outside the scope of the legislation—and I think the noble Lord said he agreed that something should be done about this, or I got the impression that he thought it was in the legislation, when indeed it is not. This relates to different treatment of two people who have been doing the same job with the same demands and responsibilities, but because one is a man and the other is a woman the Sex Discrimination Act provides no remedy for the inequality. Many further examples, with which I shall not delay noble Lords, have arisen in the past six years during the working out of this Act.

Then, because all previous legislation has been excluded from the scope of the Sex Discrimination Act, there are profound problems of inequality of treatment in the field of social security and taxation; and these are just two inequalities which cannot be dealt with under this legislation, or any other as it is. There is simply no remedy. It must therefore be clear that there is a pressing need for a substantial revision of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts if they are to serve the purpose which Parliament intended; namely, to promote genuine equality of opportunity for men and women.

Therefore, when the Minister replies I should like him to give some indication of Government progress on this important matter especially as, if I may remind him again, the Home Office has had the proposals put forward by the Equal Opportunities Commission since January 1980, which is coming to be quite a considerable time. Therefore, the proper course, I would think, is not to move for the wholesale deletion of Section 13(2) by means of a Private Member's Bill. I say this not only for the reasons I have now given but because I believe that, if this happened and this matter was brushed aside, there would be far less chance of getting further legislation under way.

I think that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has provided an enormous service in bringing this matter forward, if we can get an undertaking tonight from the Government that there will be some expedition in dealing with this question of the Sex Discrimination and Equal Pay Acts, particularly the Sex Discrimination Act. Because this is a matter of such great concern, it would seem to me that in having brought this forward tonight it would really push the Government into rather more immediate action; for what is otherwsise likely is that, even if this Bill gets a Second Reading in your Lordships' House tonight, I doubt very much, knowing the amount of legislation that there is in both Houses and the way that the other place is loaded up, if it would get very much further. Therefore, I believe it is preferable to consider this amendment in the context of a major Government amending Bill rather than to attempt to deal with it section by section, and in dealing with it in a major Government Bill it would have a far better chance of success and the noble Lord would have achieved his very worthwhile purpose.

My Lords, I have listened with the greatest attention to what the noble Baroness has just been saying. I was indeed anxious to know what advice she was going to give to her noble friends as to how they should deal with this Bill. I listened to her final remarks and I came to the conclusion that she is going to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. I hope that I am wrong about that.

My Lords, I do not intend to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. So far as my noble friends on our side are concernd, it is entirely a free vote. It is up to them to decide.

My Lords, I am much obliged, and very relieved to hear that the noble Baroness at any rate is not going to oppose the Bill at this stage, because it would be perfectly possible at a later stage, if she so wished, to move an amendment which would introduce an amended form of the subsection which we find so objectionable.

When I was contemplating this debate I made the mistake of thinking that this subsection which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wants to delete is so indefensible that there was unlikely to be any serious debate on the matter. I made the same mistake, as a matter of fact, a few days ago in another connection. I thought that something was going to go through on the nod and it turned out that there was a debate lasting, I think, about two and a half hours. It appears to be a failing, perhaps, of my family, that we sometimes do not foresee when we are running into trouble.

My intention, therefore, would be not to argue the merits of Lord Monson's Bill. Indeed, I foresaw, and foresaw rightly, that he would deal with the matter so adequately on that ground that it would be unnecessary for me to add anything to it, but what I had intended to do was to make three short points. I wanted to point out first of all, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has pointed out, that this wretched subsection got on to the statute book almost by inadvertence; certainly by oversight. As he has explained, it was never debated on the Floor of the other place, and when it came up here the noble Lord, Lord Monson, himself was the only watchdog who barked. Unfortunately, through no fault of his, it was too late in the stages of the Bill for the amendment to be accomplished, and so it got on to the statute book.

But when this House had an opportunity of considering the merits of the subsection, as they did have when they had an exactly similar subsection in the Race Relations Bill a few months later, they threw it out neck and crop without the slightest hesitation, and by an overwhelming majority. The only people who voted in favour of the subsection at that time were the Government of the day and their supporters, who were brought in of course in order to support the Government of the day. Everybody else, with one or two minor exceptions, was wholly opposed to it.

That was the first point I wanted to make. The second point was that if you leave it here as it stands, or even if you do as the noble Baroness wants us to do, you amend it, water it down, or alter it, you still have a fundamental conflict between the subsection appearing in this Act and the corresponding Race Relations Act. There is nothing of this kind in the Race Relations Act; it has been taken out altogether. If therefore you were simply to amend this Bill and put the subsection back in an amended form, you would still have the flagrant conflict between the two Acts of Parliament, and you would perpetuate that absurdity, as indeed it must be.

The third point I wanted to make was that this is the sort of occasion, when a mistake has been made—and I think it is almost universally agreed that the original subsection was a mistake—when it is pre-eminently suitable that the matter should be attended to and put right in this House. What justification is there for our existence unless we take advantage of our revisory powers and functions in order to delete from the statute something which, if it had been properly debated, would never have got on the statute book at all?

Those were the three points I wanted to make. But, when I arrived at the House this afternoon, I found myself in possession of a briefing document issued by the Equal Opportunities Commission, and I wish to comment on that. I would say with the utmost respect that three substantive arguments are advanced in this briefing document—to the subject matter of which the noble Baroness made some reference—against Lord Monson's Bill, all of which seem to me completely devoid of merit.

The first of the three arguments—this is the one with which the noble Baroness concluded her speech—is that, if you allow this Bill to go through, it will merely be diverting attention, says the document, from the need to introduce:

"a wide range of amendments which the Equal Opportunities Commission think are desirable".

I do not understand that argument at all. Why should it divert attention from other matters which the commission and the noble Baroness want to have attended to? In what way will they be inhibited from bringing forward another Bill to deal with the matters with which they are concerned? As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, if this Bill receives a Second Reading today, then unless somebody is inclined to introduce an amendment in Committee it could go through completely on the nod from then on. There would be no need for a Committee stage, unless somebody chose to table an amendment, and if there was no Committee stage, it could go through on the nod to Third Reading and Report, and it would occupy perhaps an hour of the time of the House.

My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the argument I was putting was rather different, and I think it does not appear in the document to which he is referring? It was my own argument, a political one. The point I was making was that having been convinced myself, so far as one can be, that although it is there (I have said that it ought not to be there) and has not done any harm, the fact that it has been so highlighted in this debate can be used as a prod (one needs as many prods as one can have, whichever party is in power) to try to get the necessary legislation through. I am afraid that if this goes through on its own, there will be an even longer time before the inequities, which are just as great in their own way, are dealt with at all. That was my argument and it is not what the EOC said.

My Lords, I understand the distinction, but, with respect, I do not understand that argument. I can see no reason, if this Bill goes through in a short period of time in this House and then goes to the other House—and I hope goes through on the nod there—why that should discourage the Government from introducing more general legislation incorporating the sort of amendments the noble Baroness wants. She is very much more skilled as a politician than I am—I am an innocent in these matters—but I do not see why the Government should be persuaded to hold their hand simply because the noble Lord, Lord Monson, gets his Bill.

The second point which the briefing document makes is its suggestion that the very existence of this provision

"has a cautionary effect on anyone who is likely to have to satisfy an official body as to his or her good character".

That is beyond me. It seems quite fanciful to believe that any individual who is intending to perform an unlawful act of discrimination, or is intending to do something not realising that it is an act of unlawful discrimination, will stand back and say to himself, "I shall refrain from doing that because at some future time, when I make an application for membership of some authority or body, that might count against me and against my good character." That seems an absolutely fanciful notion so far departing from reality as not really to be a serious calculation. That argument is supported by a statement in this briefing document which I suggest, with respect, if manifestly inaccurate, for the document says:

"The true force of this section is not that undue weight should be given to isolated acts of discrimination but, rather, that evidence of persistent or overt discrimination should give rise to concern".

I suggest there is nothing in this provision to justify that gloss or interpretation. In fact, it says that the authorities or bodies concerned

"shall be under a duty to have regard to any evidence tending to show that he"—

the applicant—

"or any of his employees or agents has practised unlawful discrimination".

If it had been the intention of Parliament or the authors of the Act to say that discrimination should be considered by an authority only if it was overt and persistent, it would have been very easy to say so, but as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, one single act of unlawful discrimination is not only something which these bodies can consider; it is something they are under a statutory duty to consider. Therefore, that supporting argument advanced by the commission is really without any substance or merit.

The third argument they put forward is to make a comparison between this provision and the Race Relations Act, and they say:

"A similar clause in the Race Relations Act was removed after considerable debate in the House of Lords. At the time it was felt that such a clause would have serious repercussions and could affect a person's livelihood or career for the rest of their lives. In the Commission's experience, however, Section 13(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act has not had such far-reaching and dramatic effects".

It seems that two interpretations can be put on that. The first would be that the commission are saying that in their experience these various authorities and bodies who are under this duty have in fact simply disregarded it and have thought it so contemptible that they have not applied it at all. If that is the case, that is surely another ground for getting rid of the wretched thing altogether.

The other interpretation that can be put on the argument is surely that the commission have in some way or other assembled a body of evidence and statistics which show that these various authorities and bodies, when they have been considering candidates for membership, have come to the conclusion that there has been no discrimination, or at any rate the commission have been able to find out how these various bodies have interpreted their duty under the section. But how could they have done? The proceedings before authorities and bodies of this kind, who are under a statutory duty to see whether a candidate is a man of good character, are, by their nature, wholly confidential. The Equal Opportunities Commission is not privy to what takes place on these occasions. It does not know, and there is no way in which it can assemble any statistics. I suggest that for the commission to say that in its experience Section 13(2) of the Sex Discrimination Act has not had such far-reaching and dramatic effects is really unsupported by any kind of evidence.

I conclude by saying that I very much hope that the Bill will receive its Second Reading. I very much hope that it will hurry through this House and get on to the statute book. I say that largely for the reason which I think the noble Lord, Lord Monson, mentioned towards the conclusion of his speech. If one, single individual has had his profession, trade or career irretrievably damaged by being regarded as a person of bad character because he has committed an act of dis crimination of this kind, I think that that is one occasion too many. I can see nothing but good if your Lordships' House will consent to the measure going forward to its further stages.

My Lords, my interest in this matter is primarily as chairman of the Dicey Trust, a body which exists in order to promote the appreciation of the importance in our society of the rule of law. The rule of law requires that laws should be germane to their purpose, readily understood, and incapable of being used to perpetrate injustice. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has shown beyond a peradventure that the subsection that we are discussing conforms to none of those desirable qualities. It is obscure. It is probably unenforceable, partly for the reason that the noble Lord, Lord Foot, gave, and if it stays on the statute book, it can do nothing but discredit the operation of the law.

Those who attach a much greater importance than perhaps I do myself to laws about sex discrimination ought to be warned that if they insist upon this kind of language and this kind of provision, or if they put up delaying actions in order to prevent its removal, they will cast doubt on the genuineness of their concern about what actually happens, rather than about their wish to have certain things on the statute book. For that reason it is very important that we should show that when its attention is called to a manifest piece of statutory injustice and manifest confusion, this House should remove it.

I have of course been considering the actual content of the subsection and what it could imply. I have consulted the leading authority, which happens to be Beloff on Sex Discrimination—the noble Lord, Lord Foot, is not the only person with a family—and I discovered there that on the whole it seems to me that the question about admission to professional qualifications is possibly less important than the commission to follow a trade. I say that because, after all, most of the people applying to be admitted to the Bar or to practise the profession of a solicitor or an accountant will be so young that they would hardly have time to go in for nefarious practices such as sex discrimination. What would be alleged against them?—that they had bullied their sisters in the nursery, or something of that kind. But as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, pointed out, this is a serious matter for certain branches of business, and it has been suggested by the author of another text book on this law that it could apply even to membership of a trade union, where, by reason of a closed shop, admission to trade union membership was a prerequisite of employment. So when one starts looking into the subsection one finds that there are almost immeasurable depths of probably unintended iniquity.

The legislation that we have for discrimination on grounds of sex, and the much more important legislation (in my view) which we have for discrimination on grounds of race might from time to time require bringing up to date, amending in the light of experience. After all, one of the difficulties is that in the last decade we have launched into a whole new area of English law—the attempt to remodel attitudes by legal action, something which Dicey himself probably never envisaged. Therefore, it is not surprising that we should make mistakes. But what I find difficult to understand in the argument of the noble Baroness opposite is the point that because there are other mistakes that should be corrected, we should not correct a mistake which is brought to our attention in this way. I very much hope that the House will give a Second Reading to Lord Monson's excellent little Bill.

My Lords, from the Cross-Benches I am very delighted to follow two powerful speeches from the Liberal and Conservative Benches. In congratulating my noble friend Lord Monson on his persistence in this matter, I hope that he will not mind my revealing that this Bill is the first modest fruit of an informal association of Peers from various parts of the House, who came together earlier this year under the name of the Repeal Group. The intention of the Repeal Group was to make a modest beginning, with a very long-term endeavour to slim down the statute book, and to slim it down by the direct and simple means of identifying subsections, sections or other provisions, or, as we become better, whole Acts which might be suitable for repeal, as having failed to live up to their good intentions, having outlived their value, or being unduly restrictive of individual freedom. Your Lordships might notice that already there have been read a first time and printed a number of Private Member's Bills which adopt this approach. These Bills are in the names of the noble Baroness, Lady Trumpington, the noble Lord, Lord Spens, and the noble Lord, Lord Rugby, and they will come up for Second Reading, presumably early in the new year.

I think that the case for repeal was made, in some ways unintentionally, by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. An old parliamentary hand has told me that there are a number of ways of killing a measure by praising it with faint damns, and the tactics can cover a wide range, including initially expressing strong approval of the measure, but offering regrets that this is not the way to proceed, or saying that this House is not the place to start, or that the present is not the time to take it further, or that the proposed change is too wide or is too narrow. The noble Baroness took the view on the whole that the proposed repeal was too narrow. She then held out the daunting prospect of embarking on a wide-ranging review by all those concerned with the subsection in action, canvassing opinion, inviting proposals for the revising of the wording, and then stitching it all up with a major measure that would be incorporated in amending legislation—a Government Bill—which would then face the marathon, as a contentious Bill, of passing through both Chambers.

It seems to me that what is not disputed is the demerit, the offensive nature, of this particular subsection. It is not sufficient to say that grievances should remain unredressed until we have time, some time in the future, for a full-scale Government measure. I want strongly to commend the view of the noble Lord, Lord Foot, who said that this is the House in which to start. Your Lordships have special reasons, special authority, for giving a lead in welcoming the Bill. Even among your Lordships' critics we are regarded as having some importance as lofty guardians of personal rights; and also, in a more humdrum way, as a reviewing Chamber to check the details of legislation. Having failed to erase this subsection from the Bill when it went through the House in 1975, despite the best endeavours of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, we now have the opportunity to strike this particular subsection from the Act. I hope we shall give this Bill a Second Reading and pass it expeditiously through this House in order to give this Government the opportunity to emulate, as I understand it, the example of their Labour predecessors, who supported the removal of an identical subsection from the Race Relations Bill in 1976.

My Lords, there is an expression, which many of your Lordships know, "Small is beautiful". This Bill is small and it is useful, and I would commend it on grounds of justice to the individual and of political consistency. I would submit two propositions. The first—and it applies very much to the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Birk—is that those who supported the 1975 Bill can justifiably support this one, because it really has nothing to do with the increase or the decrease of sex discrimination. In other words, some noble Lords may feel that if they support this Bill they are in some way weakening the provisions of the 1975 Act. There is no case for that. My second proposition is the description of this subsection, as it appeared in the Race Relations Bill, by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles. She said:

"This subsection will affect a man or a woman for the whole of their lifetime…grossly unfair, inhumane, contrary to all the elements of natural justice".

Let me remind your Lordships, as the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, that in the case of the 1976 Bill your Lordships threw out this subsection. It went to the other place, and there, the Government did not dare to rally their troops in its support. I depend much for my arguments on the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack—and, naturally, in accordance with our usual courtesies, I informed him that I was going to quote him today. He said that there was no essential difference between the objections which were cited to the same provision in the 1976 Act and those which can be cited against the subsection as it exists today in the Sex Discrimination Act. Surely what was sauce for the Race Relations Bill is sauce for the Sex Discrimination Act. The comments of the Home Secretary Mr. Whitelaw, in respect of the same provisions in the Race Relations Bill—

"…horrified at the provisions…against the rules of natural justice"—

apply just as much today as to the Bill in front of the Commons at that time.

I do not know what the Government reply is going to be, although I can have a pretty good guess. Is it going to be one of Government support? Is it going to be that the Government show that neutrality which your Lordships are so accustomed to listening to on the Second Reading of Private Members' Bills, tilted perhaps one way or another and this time pos sibly tilted against? Or will the Government advise rejection of the Bill on the grounds that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, put forward: that one day, perhaps in 1983, 1984 or 1985, there may be some consolidation and then, no doubt, what is admittedly a wrong can be put right? To me, if there is any real wrong on the statute book it is the duty of both Houses of Parliament to correct it at the earliest possible time.

What is the Government's case for retention of this subsection? How can the Minister not condemn the provisions of this subsection? And if he condones and excuses it, how will he face the Lord Chancellor tomorrow? The Lord Chancellor said, referring to the Sex Discrimination Act,

"…if we made a mistake in not fighting those provisions, we are thereby bound to commit a second injustice in the Race Relations Bill?"—(Official Report, 29/9/76, Vol. 374, col. 509.)

Finally, the Lord Chancellor said this [col. 518]:

"…the more I reflect about this the more I think we ought to insist on this subsection coming out, and I so recommend this to my noble friends".

I hope that the Minister is not going to go away from that advice which his superior Minister has given. Surely he would not be able to face him tomorrow morning. What he has got to do is to support the Lord Chancellor in the very clear declarations he has made, and that is what I would ask the Minister to do tonight.

My Lords, I hope this House would agree that every law must be administered strictly in accordance with its provisions. If those provisions are unacceptable because (as I believe to be the case with the subsection that this Bill seeks to repeal) they are vindictive and because they seek to disqualify a person from membership of a professional body, not on proof of his misconduct but on hearsay of someone else's, then I fear that decent people will tend to disregard those provisions and so the law will not be enforced—and, unless I am very much mistaken, the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, has already suggested that this may be the case. In that case, the law will be in danger of coming into disrepute; and that is something that this House has a special duty to guard against, and something that we normally consider very carefully.

I think that this subsection is vindictive. We are supposed, in all our doings here, to take Christian principles into consideration. I should like to remind your Lordships that according to St. Paul the Almighty has exclusive rights to revenge. It really is a very nasty provision, born of the excess of legislation from which we have suffered so much in recent years and sired by fanaticism. I hope very much that the House will take this opportunity to get rid of it by giving this Bill a Second Reading.

My Lords, may I say a word before my noble and learned friend replies? I should like to support Lord Monson's Bill for this reason. I think that this subsection, as it stands, is a reflection on this House. That we as an amending Chamber should have been so stupid, frankly, as to allow it to go through is something that we can put right. This is, in fact, creating a limited form of outlawry for life, and without any proof. This is an outrageous proposition. We have only one question before us. Do we approve in principle what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is proposing? That is all we are asked to do. What happens afterwards is not our business. If we vote against that, then we are saying that we like this clause. For that reason, I would, if need be, support this in the Lobby.

My Lords, the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 has now been in force for about five years. I believe we can say that it has had an important impact in eliminating a great deal of blatant discrimination and in providing a framework within which attitudes are gradually changing. The Government are firmly committed to a policy of equal treatment for men and women, and to encouraging initiatives which promote this. Individuals, employers and trade unions as well as Government all have a part to play in making equality of opportunity a reality and in opposing unlawful discrimination wherever it is found.

This Bill seeks to repeal Section 13(2) of the Act. As has been said, that provision requires a small number of bodies who have legal duties relating to entry to certain trades and professions to have regard to evidence of unlawful sex discrimination not only by the individual whose character is being judged, but also by his agents and employees. The issue which your Lordships are being invited to consider is whether it is fair to continue to embody in law a requirement which may have the effect of preventing candidates for a small selection of trades or professions from entering their chosen occupations, perhaps on slight evidence of what we might call a misdemeanour, not necessarily done by him, but perhaps by other people albeit associated in some way with him—evidence perhaps going back some distance in time. In reference to what Lord Monson said, I doubt whether it can go back beyond the coming into force or the 1975 Act because it is unlawful discrimination which is in question. The Government agree this does have questionable implications. It is indeed a matter of record that members of the present Government questioned this provision when a similar clause was discussed on the Race Relations Bill in 1976. As was pointed out, that clause was eventually abandoned as a result by the then Government.

However, it is important to keep this matter in perspective. Section 13(2) applies only to those bodies upon whom the law has imposed a duty to take account of good character—and they are very few; and they are bodies that have a very important part to play in national life; but it is in the essence of the part they play that they have a very wide range of discretion and judgment. As I have said, they are very few. For example, a much larger number of professional and private bodies—doctors, dentists, et cetera, and even, your Lordships may be interested to know, the MCC—do not have such a requirement imposed on them by law. So the effect is really very limited.

Moreover, while one can readily sympathise with the criticisms which draw attention to the somewhat imprecise nature of the duty which Section 13(2) imposes, I think we can safely assume that the bodies in question have the common sense and the integrity to take a balanced view of evidence of unlawful sex discrimination in assessing the merits of each individual candidate. What they are required to do is simply to have regard to such evidence. It does not mean that just because such evidence is before them and does not establish anything they must condemn the person applying. By the nature of matters, they are entrusted by the law with a very delicate discretion and it is therefore surely appropriate that if such a judgment is to be made it should be made only by a very limited number of bodies. Such bodies are already entrusted with the assessment of all other aspects of "good character". My noble friend Lord Beloff suggested that some of the matters referred to by this subsection could be regarded as nefarious practices. One would have thought that, even without a statutory provision, where there was a question with regard to the good character of someone and his having indulged in practices regarded as nefarious it would have some importance.

The Government well understand the case which the noble Lord has made out for the repeal of Section 13(2). It seems unlikely that such repeal could reasonably be presented as having any significant effect on the principle of non-discrimination—a principle to which, as I have said, this Government are firmly committed. But, equally, repeal seems unlikely to confer any significant benefits—we have no evidence that the provision is giving rise to any problems—while it might perhaps be seen by some as a symbolic victory for those who find pleasure in attacking the cause of non-discrimination, and at a time when the Equal Opportunities Commission and other influential bodies are arguing for the Sex Discrimination Act to be strengthened, and to whom the Government have so far been unable to hold out any prospect of early legislative change.

Your Lordships have already had your attention directed by the noble Lord, Lord Foot, to the note provided for your Lordships by the Equal Opportunities Commission. They have had in hand a review of the Equal Pay Act and the Sex Discrimination Act, in terms of their statutory duty to review both, and they have indeed presented proposals (I think in January 1981) and written to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment on 27th November last asking whether time might be found in the next Session. I do not know that the prospects are bright. However, it seems to the Government that the appropriate opportunity for dealing with the matters raised by Lord Monson and by those of your Lordships who support him would be in the context of parliamentary consideration of the Equal Opportunities Commission's proposed amendments. We do not see any prospect of time being available this Session in the other place for a Bill of this kind.

My Lords, we have had a very full and interesting debate and I shall draw the attention of my right honourable friend who is concerned with these matters to all that your Lordships have said. I would simply ask the noble Lord, Lord Monson to consider whether, in the light of what I have said, it is wise to press this Bill forward at this time. It is not our intention to vote against the Bill at Second Reading if the noble Lord, Lord Monson, wishes to proceed with it.

My Lords, may I say, first, how extremely grateful I am for the warm and extremely effective support for this Bill given by the noble Lords, Lord Foot and Lord Beloff, by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and also by my noble friends Lord Harris of High Cross and Lady Saltoun. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, for having mentioned what the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, said about the identical clause in the Race Relations Bill in 1976. The noble Baroness was kind enough to write to me regretting that she could not be here to support this Bill as she had to be in Brussels on European parliamentary business.

I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for her opening remarks—praising with faint damns, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of High Cross, called it—in which she agreed that the subsection was extreme, draconian and oppressive. Then she went on to cite such things as the Consumer Credit Act 1974. Indeed, that set a precedent—not a good one—but I do not think that any number of wrongs make a right. The Director General of Fair Trading is a Government appointee and he is bound to do what he is told by Her Majesty's Government. I scarcely think that he can be compared with respected, independent professional bodies, such as the ones that I have cited.

The noble Baroness went on to say that the subsection had hardly ever been invoked. But the noble Lord, Lord Beloff, rightly pointed out that if a law is not used, it makes a mockery of the law and it ought not to be in the statute book at all. The noble Baroness continued to put the point of view of the Equal Opportunities Commission, from whom I also had a brief which arrived very late last night—I have not had time to reply to it. It was that total deletion would be inadvisable, in that it would leave a gap in the legislation. As the noble Lord, Lord Foot, pointed out, the subsection is not found in the Race Relations Act. If it is thought necessary for some reason to have some similar type of subsection, however weakened, in this Act, the House would effectively be saying that sex discrimination is so much greater an evil than race discrimination that it requires unusually draconian sanctions to deal with it. I do not think that this is the impression that the House would want to give.

I am rather disappointed by the attitude of the Government, as personified by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Advocate. He said that the deletion of the subsection would be unlikely to confer any significant benefits. I think justice to individuals who may be in danger of having their whole career ruined is a significant benefit. He also said that he concluded that members of the present Government questioned the similar subsection in the Race Relations Bill in 1976. My Lords, they did not merely question it; they attacked it with the utmost vigour and passion. What applied in 1976 must surely apply today with equal force. I feel that if the House will consent to give this Bill a Second Reading today there will be time for more investigations to be made, as suggested by the Equal Opportunities Commission, so that the House of Commons will have all the facts in front of them if and when they come to consider it.

It is a legitimate duty of this House, if the House so wishes, to rectify the omission made in 1975. I hope very much therefore that the House will consent to giving this Bill a Second Reading tonight.

rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what further action they propose to take in view of the deteriorating position within Poland, and the grievous hardships now being imposed on the young, the sick and the elderly; what further aid can be given in conjunction with our partners in the European Community; and whether they will give additional help to voluntary and Church organisations in Britain which are seeking to increase their level of assistance.

My Lords, I think that all of us in your Lordships' House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for asking this Question of the Government, and so bringing to our notice the desperate position into which the people of Poland seem likely to drift in the coming months—the cold months of winter—unless something is done. I have to confess that, until the Question appeared on the Order Paper, I was not very well informed about these troubles. We read in the papers more about the political struggle in Poland than we do about the economic struggle, which, as the noble Lord has explained to us, is so critical and lies at the base of all the other troubles.

I recognise, as we all do, that the Government cannot be asked, and will not be asked, to take any action that would even seem to interfere in Poland's internal affairs. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, made that very clear at the outset of the Solidarity movement and he was absolutely right to do so. But that is not what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, is asking us. He is asking us to do something quite different; that is, to offer all the help we can both to the Polish Government in their economic problems, and to the Polish people in the tragedy that seems to be facing them. I agree with the noble Lord that one way in which we could really do a lot to help would be if some small team, not acting for the Government but supported by the Government, could help with the co-ordination of the relief work, because there is no doubt that unless it is properly co-ordinated a great deal of the effort will be wasted.

It might be suggested in this debate, although I hope it will not be, that help from the West to the people of Poland at this time is only letting the Government of Poland and the Government of the Soviet Union off the hook. There is no doubt, as the noble Lord said, that many of the troubles afflicting the unfortunate people of Poland are, to a very large extent, due to failures on the part of the Communist Governments in Warsaw and in Moscow. But the sufferers—the people of Poland and especially the aged, the sick and the children, who are particularly referred to in the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich—are not responsible for that.

And, as he said, have we not a very special responsibility to the people of Poland—our gallant allies in the fight against Nazi Germany? Their plight not only arouses our sympathy, but it reminds us of an unpaid debt of gratitude. I am sure that, like myself, many of your Lordships remember with affection and admiration Polish friends who escaped from Europe when their country was overrun, and continued their fight against Germany from this island. If we are able to make just a small payment towards our debt to the Poles by helping them in their troubles, may we not be contributing also towards ultimate victory for the West in the struggle, in which we are engaged, between the two rival ideologies? My belief and hope is that this struggle will, in the end, be won by the West; not by force of arms, with all the miseries which wars would inevitably bring about, but by the demonstration that ours is a better way of life, a more compassionate way of life.

I do not want to stand any longer between your Lordships and the right reverend Prelate, who is to make his maiden speech, and the two noble Baronesses who have, in their different ways, very special ties with Poland. At the end of the debate, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne—and he has apologised to me for the fact that he has had to leave the Chamber on important official business—will be able to give us some comfort.

My Lords, during the early days of the last war, a Polish community was established in Hereford. Although it is now greatly reduced in numbers, this community has made a significant contribution to the life of the city of Hereford, and also to the rural area in which it lives. The community still retains its links with Poland and, because it is in my diocese, I am glad to support the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.

The Churches are often criticised for the support and aid that they give in countries where there is a struggle between régimes that are politically extreme, corrupt or ineffective. There are those who believe that in such situations the peoples of those countries would be better left to work out their own salvation with no support nor aid from outside. But in any country where there is conflict between rival factions seeking either to replace the present Government or, as in Poland, to be agents for change and to give the people an alternative voice and an effective political arm, there is bound to be suffering, deprivation and hardship. There will always be a great number who are not involved but who are the most vulnerable sections of the society in which they live. The noble Lord has already pointed out that they are the children, the elderly and the handicapped.

The Churches cannot stand aside inactive. They must respond to human need and suffering. However, their motivation is not political but Christian and humanitarian. Many of our fellow Christians may be involved in the political struggle but the aid that is given is not limited to those who profess the Christian faith. The Churches' response to starvation, deprivation and need cannot be limited by considerations of colour, creed nor political affiliation. Neither the level of poverty nor suffering in Poland has yet reached the level to which the Churches are accustomed to respond in other parts of the world, such as Guatemala or East Africa. The crisis in Poland is not, however, dissimilar in some respects from the situation in East Africa which I have seen for myself and of which I have limited knowledge. There is food, but it is kept in the countryside. There is no adequate transport to bring the produce to the towns and the cities. There is a total lack of investment in modern methods of farming, whether it be machinery or fertilisers. Above all, there is the fierce independence of the small farmer who is deeply suspicious of all attempts to introduce any form of collective or co-operative farming.

The solutions to these particular problems are internal, although some investment from outside is essential. One can only hope and pray for improvement in the long term. But the present crisis in Poland will remain with us for a long time and the more vulnerable sections of the community are finding, as we have already heard, the effects devastating. Long queues for anything up to 36 hours for meat are normal, and for every 100 in the queue only 70 are likely to have their needs served. Protein deficiency is already reflected in the illnesses that are putting children, the elderly and the infirm at risk.

The response of the Churches to the need in Poland has not been inconsiderable. We all know of the great generosity of the Roman Catholic Church in this country and elsewhere. Christian Aid here has given £40,000 in the past year and has pledged to give a further £40,000 in 1982 as part of the World Council of Churches' programme of support. This programme has contributed 1 million dollars in goods during the past year and it is intended that a further £1 million worth of goods shall be contributed during the next six months of 1982. This perhaps gives some indication of where the real thrust of the work of the World Council of Churches lies. Sometimes I know that there is criticism that such help is not reaching those for whom it has been given but I can assure your Lordships that this help is reaching its destination and that we all know that the help given is being received in the right quarter.

In the light of the needs of the world elsewhere the Churches are not asking Her Majesty's Government to help to increase their level of assistance. We would, however, support the noble Lord in his request that it might be right for Her Majesty's Government to set up some independent co-ordinating body. In a crisis such as there is in Poland the situation changes rapidly. The shortage of meat, which can be there for a time, is quickly replaced by a complete absence of drugs and medical supplies, and such information is not always readily available to the agencies that are trying to help. It would he of great assistance to the agencies themselves not only if there were some co-ordination of their work but if facts like these were available to them.

But there is another area where the Government could, I believe, give the greatest support and encouragement to the people of Poland. As in all countries where there is conflict or a struggle for greater freedom, there are many who live continually under the shadow of fear. The consequence of living with fear is an acute sense of isolation, of being cut off from one's own fellow men and women. In Northern Ireland which I have visited, time and time again I have been told: "Encourage people to come and visit us, to talk to ordinary men and women and to see for themselves what the situation is and how we wish for their friendship and support". Encouraging messages and speeches can never replace the support and strength that is derived from those who are willing to visit and see the situation for themselves and to talk to ordinary men and women. The press and the media have a great responsibility in this area, as inaccurate, unfair and slanted reporting can discourage individuals from making such visits. I believe there may be some way in which Her Majesty's Government could encourage such visits and prevent such frustration and a sense of isolation which might eventually lead to some action being taken which would greatly threaten the peace and welfare of Poland. I hope very much that your Lordships will support the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, in the Question that he has asked this afternoon.

My Lords, the great honour and pleasure or congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford upon a most inspiring and instructive speech falls to me this evening. I think we should all be very grateful to him for telling us of the great responsibility placed upon the Churches, because it is an ecumenical matter in which charity and the care of the sick and the old are involved. I am so glad that the right reverend Prelate has been able to tell us this evening about what is being done, in his experience, for the Poles and for the peoples of other countries who are suffering at this time. We all look forward very much to further speeches from him in this House.

The welfare of Poland is dear to many members of my generation who were comrades in arms during the war. It is especially dear to me because many humble people—the poor, living in not much more than little mud huts, with very little to eat—gave shelter and food to my husband in 1941 when he was escaping through Poland. But that was not all. They risked their lives to do this, for which I am eternally grateful. As noble Lords may perhaps have heard, my husband was caught by the Gestapo and put in prison. Just outside his prison the firing squads went on day after day. He fully expected that he would be the next to be executed. In fact, it was the Poles who were being executed. He had extraordinary luck because he was able to prove that he was a British officer and he was sent back to his prison camp for punishment there: punishment which was severe but which was of a very much less severe nature. So my own personal feeling is very great. Those of us who have seen the dash and bravery of the Poles during the war are very much impressed by the cool determination in this extraordinary operation, which they have carried out with such great skill and for which we must surely admire them enormously, of those who are involved in this present hazardous situation.

We ask ourselves, how can we best help? I believe that interference would be fatal. Encouragement is essential. All possible material help will, I hope, be given. We should help Poland to help herself. We should all be very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, for giving us this opportunity to speak about such a great problem this evening. We have heard already from him and from others that Poland is burdened by huge debts. I hope that the best terms of repayment will be considered by our Government. I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will carry that message and will perhaps be able to give us an encouraging answer. I believe it was October when Poland applied for membership of the IMF. I hope very much that this request may be granted.

Then there is the question of charity. I should like to speak for a moment about this because there has been a certain amount of comment in newspapers—and I believe this aspect was referred to earlier in one of the speeches—about where the money actually goes. I should like to take the example of one very reputable charity. There are many reputable charities and this is only an example of one which is like so many others. It is in fact the Save the Children Fund. I have had quite a lot to do with people who are occupied with this matter and I have spoken today with a senior information officer of the Save the Children Fund. He told me the story right from the beginning, almost from the moment when you or I see fit to donate something to this charity. This charity is already committed to giving £20,000 of relief to Poland in the form of supplies of everything which is needed for children and their mothers. It is very interesting to hear how this aid gets to Poland and how it is distributed.

What goes from the Save the Children Fund is entirely for children: such things as powdered milk, breast milk substitute, blankets, baby clothing and suchlike items which are so urgently needed. They are containerised. I hope noble Lords will forgive that somewhat modern expression; perhaps I should say that the items are put into containers and sent at the expense of the charity to the ports. The charity pays for the packing to the port of departure and then the items are carried entirely free of charge. They go on Polish ships and many of the seamen are members of Solidarity. There is absolutely no question of striking where this errand of mercy is concerned. They are taken to one of three ports, Gdansk, Gdynia and Spechin. Distribution after that is very good. There is tremendous co-operation between the local health authorities, the local committees, Solidarity itself and the Roman Catholic Church. There is tremendous teamwork and the work of these diverse people is as one in the distribution of this food for the children of their country.

I pray that our Government will see their way, even in the hard times we have today, towards financial leniency. I know from first-hand stories that Poles living in this country are contributing most generously to their fellow countrymen. I have heard stories about Poles who wish to send parcels to their country who have had to queue for up to three hours in order to get their parcels despatched. We have heard from the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford that there are some Poles living in Hereford, in London and in the North. They are doing their best to help those of their fellow countrymen who are in such difficulty.

It is in the interests of this brave country that it should come to recovery. It has already been mentioned this evening that it is towards world peace that this should be accomplished. I believe we should all admire the way in which the Poles themselves are handling their internal affairs. Anything that we can do to help them we owe to them and to this country.

My Lords, may I also be allowed to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on his excellent and sincere maiden speech. I hope that I may be able to convince your Lordships of the situation developing in Poland. I speak from experience, for I had the honour of serving with the Poles, in the Special Operations Executive, during the war and have been with them ever since, mainly in Poland. May I very briefly review the background to the present situation.

Since 1945 an appallingly wounded Poland has scaled obstacles of national reconstruction which would appear almost unbelievable to many in the West, indeed in the whole world. The ravages of war, the loss of 6 million people in circumstances too grim to describe here, continuous occupation followed by the Stalin era—and so it went on. Through it all the Poles have clung to their heritage, their traditions, and strong sense of nationality, and not least to strongly-felt Christian ethics. They have surely borne themselves with outstanding courage and they are an example to us all.

Recently their indomitable national spirit finally found expression among the entire population, and this has led to a period of inevitable turbulence as the desire for the simple liberties we, alas, automatically take for granted rises in their hearts. Also, all this occurs unfortunately at a time of deepening world trade recession, when the Poles' own heavy programme of industrial development which started in the 1970s with such high hopes has coincided with a decline in demand for their goods abroad. The conjunction could not be more ill-timed. This, then, is where they are today, crippled with an almost unserviceable foreign debt.

Poland is now on the downward spiral of shortages of raw materials, resulting in declining production, resulting in deepening shortages of essentials, all of which puts terrible pressure on the people. It is this pressure that demands our attention now. It is this pressure also that concerns me, and if I may I should like to use this occasion to interpret the effect of this pressure on the great mass of ordinary people in Poland; and I do mean mass, because, as your Lordships know, there are 36 million of them.

As we sit here tonight there are quite literally hundreds of thousands of Poles queueing right now—it is approximately 9.20 in Poland—in the freezing cold, and if we think it is seven degrees minus here, it will certainly be 15 or even 20 minus in the eastern parts of Poland. And they are queueing for the most basic of all human physical needs, food and soap. They have worked hard all day from six o'clock onwards this morning, often in unheated rooms, offices, factories, and now they are trying to buy bread, milk, sausage, if they are lucky, medicines for the sick, soap to wash with—the list is endless—fighting because they have no reserves.

The burden falls, as it always does, most heavily upon those least able to bear it, the children, the sick and the housebound. They are reduced, quite literally, to living from hand to mouth. The shortages are growing, the temperature falls, and if the trend continues tension will rise further—it is a marvel to me that it has not already risen much higher—in turn leading to utter despair, frustration, and inevitably violence. If this pattern continues, history shows it will lead inevitably to a national disaster as grave as anything they have faced before. I am talking literally about famine, death and the collapse of their national economy.

I need not dwell further on the possible consequences. A polarised, desperate Poland, at odds with both its neighbours, fighting for survival, is not in Britain's interests. The implications of such a catastrophe and its implications for us in Britain are stark. My Lords, this now concerns us all in the West whether we want to become involved or not, because as ordinary human beings the Poles need our support; they need food, medicine, soap, spare parts to restore their factories. But just as important they need time, time to halt the downward spiral in which they appear to be trapped. The Church, the Government and Solidarity all recognise the predicament and dilemma—which they face.

The need is to give them that time, and I believe we can, to arrest their seemingly hopeless movement to catastrophe. We in the West should get organised to provide the shortfall, the gap in basic supplies that will remove the current suffering. The charities and voluntary agencies and numerous friends and admirers of Poland are ready and willing to help. I know myself the depth of admiration that is latent in this country for the brave Poles, and they, the Poles, still look to Britain and the British as very close friends. So many British remember their superb courage and comradeship in years gone by. We only need the will to co-ordinate and channel the potential British generosity.

We need the following: a national co-ordination centre for Polish relief, especially for the long haul—and may I repeat, the long, hard haul, five years in my humble opinion; secondly, a national publicity campaign using all the means of communication to reach a vast number of friends of Poles in Britain and beyond, and those who are not aware; and, thirdly, we need funds. Please may I be allowed to ask for this help.

The distribution is done as fairly as possible, but there is never enough to go round. Your Lordships may imagine our dilemmas and the disappointment of those we have to cross off our lists. We try to console them and say we will try to bring them something soon. Due to acute shortage of petrol—and there are queues all day and all night—we walk miles and miles and deliver the parcels by hand. As I stand here. I can see their faces as we hand over the parcels and talk with them. We talk with the receivers and those we have had to disappoint. Poles are proud people. Usually they are the givers, not the receivers. And they often weep. Sometimes we have soap in the parcel. This may seem very ordinary here, but in Poland it is very often impossible to wash our grubby hands, and there is the anxiety for mums of how to clean their babies and their nappies.

I return to work in Poland again next week and to remain there long after Christmas, to distribute the food and gifts which are beginning to flow into the foundation I represent, and to try and share with the Poles their problems and suffering. Also I intend to attempt to qualify the extent and detail of their needs in the long term. I would pray and would hope that this House could use its influence to give this nation, Britain, a lead to help co-ordinate the sustained action that will bring relief upon which the Poles are counting. We can do it; it is not beyond us. But we need the will, and the compassion, and your prayers. Let me remind your Lordships of the words scribbled on the wall of an unknown underground cell in the infamous Gestapo interrogation headquarters in Warsaw:

"It's easy to talk about Poland; it's harder to work for her; still harder to die, and the hardest to suffer".

My Lords, in a debate such as this as great an honour as one can consider oneself to receive is that of speaking immediately after the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw. It seems rather dry to say that she is an expert: she is far more than that. She is an expert of both heart and head, and everything that she says is straight to the point and goes to our hearts as well as to our heads.

I speak in this debate only because some years ago when there were earlier attacks on Poland I became, to some extent, involved—and this was a long time ago—in helping Poles who were escaping from the Nazis to make their way through Japan all the way back to our country, and then finally to their own. So one has met people from a nation who, partly because of their place on the map, do have these terrible crises and disasters which are now striking Poland. I felt, at the time when the pressure came on the Poles latterly, again from outside, that perhaps the people of this country had forgotten a little too much about Poland. I say that simply because when doing that work I had what could be described as a unique opportunity—perhaps it was not unique altogether but certainly a very unusual opportunity—of getting to know what Polish people are like. And all the things that are said in praise of the Poles I would ask your Lordships to take for granted as coming also from this speaker.

I also felt as soon as the present troubles began that there was probably something more to be done to help the Poles. What we have to do, obviously, is first, what many noble Baronesses have done so eloquently—namely, to think how we can get relief and that type of help to Poland. Then we have to try and consider whether there are also political ways in which the Poles can be helped in their present emergency. In other words, whose fault is all this? I do not want to go very deeply into this matter, but perhaps it is only right to ask, as we are mostly talking about relief and other such matters, whose fault it is.

I do not think that one can place the blame on just one country. But I do think that one country, which will be familiar to everybody, is to some extent responsible for what has happened because, as a neighbour country, it does not give to its Polish neighbours the kind of unconditional support and help that a neighbour country owes to any other neighbour country in a disaster like this. Therefore, I would ask the noble Lord who is to answer the debate, whether the Government have had some time to think about whether political as well as economic and sympathetic measures can be taken which can have some effect on this situation. The country which I am referring to is, naturally, the Soviet Union which, even if it is not overflowing with milk and honey at present, is certainly in a position—in which it has shown no sign at present of taking action—to help in what is certainly, to a great degree, though not in a total degree, economic as well as political in its origin.

I should like the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, when he tells us what the Government are contemplating, to say whether there is anything that can be done in the way of a political or a diplomatic approach to the countries most immediately concerned which can help to alleviate, at least in some degree, the burden on any country taking part in this, after all, humanitarian as well as political work. I feel that the background must be in some degree connected with political ideologies, ambitions and all the other things which go together to make up a foreign policy. Therefore, I think that the political angle is something which we can discuss with people on all sides of this grave emergency. If we do that we can perhaps get some pressure applied, as one might say, by everybody to everybody in the sense of all the most eloquent and sympathetic speeches that have been made.

My Lords, at the outset I should like to congratulate the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on his maiden speech. He spoke with great knowledge of his subject and great feeling. I feel sure that the House will look forward to hearing his voice again.

I should like briefly to support what has been said this evening on behalf of Poland. I believe that there is a growing realisation throughout this country of the agony now being endured by the Poles through shortage of food and also money. The first is being catered for by both the Anglican and the Catholic Churches in this country with, I am informed, considerable success in that the supplies are actually being delivered to those areas most in need. I hope very much that, as was most eloquently suggested by the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, the International Monetary Fund may effectively supply the much needed funds to support the country in its hour of need.

I speak as a relation of the last ambassador to the free Poles during the 1945 war and I learnt at first hand from him the qualities of this great and valiant nation during that period, now displaying similar qualities today. I believe that everything that can be done for this nation today is worthy of respect throughout this country and will command the respect and support of the entire Western world, and may well contribute to world peace.

My Lords, I apologise for not putting my name on the list of speakers but I had missed that this short debate was taking place. The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, reminded us at the start of the debt of honour that we owe to the Poles. I am particularly conscious of that. We had at home during the war the Polish Division quartered upon us and never once did I hear one of those gallant men complain of the fate which was theirs. Their sole concern was to fight the Germans. I remember, too, the feeling of helplessness when I took part in the Yalta debate in the House of Commons after the war.

But all that is behind us. Now the descendants of those Poles arc in real trouble and we have a chance to help. I should prefer to leave politics out of this debate and, indeed, out of any immediate action that we may take. There is nothing political in trying, in a humane way, to help the old and the young in Poland who are hungry and ill. That is simply a humanitarian desire.

The right reverend Prelate in his excellent maiden speech, and the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw, have given us a great deal to think about in the accounts that they have given of the voluntary agencies which are engaged in trying to help these Poles. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, I think put his finger on the difficulty at once in his speech. It is that there is a great deal of voluntary help and a great deal of aid, but it is being collected and given by separate bodies; and the Poles cannot get the best value out of that aid unless the effort is co-ordinated. The noble Lord made the suggestion to my noble friend who will answer from the Front Bench that the Government might give sympathetic attention to this aspect of the matter. I think that that is the most practical thing we can do.

My Lords, I am sure that I should begin, what I trust will be a short speech, by congratulating the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford on his contribution to what has been, I think I may rightly say, a distinguished debate, to which he made a distinguished contribution. We hope that we shall hear from him again frequently.

I shall not take long because many contributions have been made and we are all waiting, quite impatiently, to hear what the Government have to say. The noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, gave us the most telling, detailed and graphic account of the situation in Poland, and to that was added an even more moving dimension in the speech from the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder of Warsaw. Our thoughts are very much with her in the work that she is doing in Poland.

I do not think it appropriate in this debate to try to examine the causes that have brought these misfortunes on the Polish people. The remedies—which, as the noble Baroness, Lady Ryder, suggested, will take some time to apply—have, in the end, to be applied by the Polish people themselves. Indeed, they are already showing that they are trying to do this with the courage, spirit and enterprise that we would have expected. Above all, we are most anxious not to do or say anything that would create any difficulties between Poland and her neighbours.

In view of those inevitable restrictions on what we can do, all the more should we apply ourselves to the things that can be done at the present time. That means, for the Government, that they must try—with their fellow Governments in Europe—to secure as generous an approach to the problem of Poland's debt as can be managed and to help, in whatever ways are appropriate, the immediate provision of aid because we certainly do not want to lend anything more to Poland. Poland has been troubled enough already by debt. The requirement at the moment is for immediate and generous gifts of all the necessities of life, nearly all of which seem to be in such desperately short supply in Poland at the present time.

I very much welcome the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Harris—I trust that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will take this up—that one way in which the Government can most effectively help is by the provision of organisation—I think that the phrase is "administrative superstructure"—to the efforts that are being made. I think that it would be a great help to those members of the public, who have generosity but not yet very much knowledge about this problem, to read the assurances that we have had from the noble Baroness, Lady Airey of Abingdon, from the right reverend Prelate and from others that any aid that is given will go to the right quarters. It is a great thing that we are able to say that with confidence.

I also think that the Government might consider what sort of help they could give in publicising the need in Poland. I do not think that, as yet, the public at large fully realise how terrifying a crisis this is and how easily and quickly it might become very much worse. I am afraid that we are inclined to think that disasters of this kind occur far away in Asia and Africa. The right reverend Prelate pointed out to us that, bad as it is in Poland, it is not as bad as one can sometimes find in those continents. But it is rapidly approaching those dimensions. It is that which we want to get home to the people in this country.

I do not propose to say more, except to make this one point. These things that the Government can do—organisation and publicity—are immensely worth doing and could not be described by any stretch of the imagination as an attempt to meddle improperly in the affairs of Eastern Europe or in the relations between Poland and her neighbours. That, of course, is something that we must avoid. However, I am convinced—and it was one of the things that was borne in on me when I was at the Foreign Office—of this truth. Straightforward, simple acts of common humanity—of the giving of help by those who can to those who are in desperate need—cannot unravel all the complexities of diplomacy, nor remove completely all the things that bedevil human relations at the present time. But in the end acts of that kind make a real contribution to the longer tasks of diplomacy. They leave the impression that there is, somewhere, some decency in mankind—a proposition which at times one is almost led to doubt.

Perhaps I could mention one personal experience. One of the first problems brought to my notice when, against all my expectations, I became Foreign Secretary, was that of drought in Indonesia, and I was asked whether we could make a straightforward gift of food to help those people. At that time we were actually engaged, though at rather long range, in hostilities with Indonesia, but I decided that the advice offered to me was right and that we should give that help, though I was criticised at the time. In the end, it proved a wise as well as a humane thing to do. Here we are asked, not to help a near enemy, but to help a friend, an old ally, a country and a people to whom we have the greatest obligations. I believe that in every sense of the word it will prove to be worth doing.

My Lords, I want to begin with an apology to your Lordships in that very important business in connection with our presidency of the European Council made it necessary for me to be absent from the Chamber for a short while during the course of this debate. Thus I missed, although I have had it reported to me, the speech of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and also, I am ashamed to say, the maiden speech of the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Hereford. I was, in fact, in the Chamber for the right reverend Prelate's closing remarks, but, in accordance with practice, I did not take my seat on the Bench here as that would have been regarded, quite properly, as impertinent. However, I did hear the right reverend Prelate's closing remarks and I want to congratulate him on them at least, and to express the hope that he will intervene again soon and often in your Lordships' House. I shall certainly study what he has said with the greatest care when I see Hansard tomorrow.

Aside from that period when I was absent, I have listened to this debate with interest and, indeed, with concern. Interest, because developments in Poland over recent months have caught the attention and imagination of Western Governments and public opinion alike. Concern, because, as almost every noble Lord and Baroness who has spoken has indicated, the present economic and political difficulties in Poland are naturally of special concern to all Poland's friends.

The Government, of course, attach considerable importance to our relations with Poland, so I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for initiating this debate this evening. I can assure your Lordships that the Government are fully aware of the grave problems that are facing Poland and are following developments in that country with close attention. As your Lordships may be aware, the Polish Foreign Minister, Mr. Czyrek, was recently in London and gave my noble friend Lord Carrington, an account of the present situation in his country. More recently still I myself have just returned from a visit to Poland where I was able to see the situation at first hand and discuss in detail with the Polish leadership the problems facing the country. I also had the opportunity during my visit to exchange views with leading members of the Polish Church and Solidarity and to meet distinguished academics and parliamentarians, who are involved in the process of political and economic reform.

As my noble friend the Foreign Secretary and I have assured the Polish leadership, the British Government will continue to support the efforts of the Polish Government to overcome the political and economic problems with which Poland is faced. Together with our partners, we believe it is important that the political and economic stability of Poland should be maintained not only for European peace and prosperity but for the benefit of international relations as a whole.

This has not just been a question of political support. The Government have also been prepared, in view of the exceptional circumstances, to respond promptly and generously to the request of the Polish Government for economic assistance. As your Lordships will be aware, within the framework of the Paris Agreement of 27th April on the rescheduling of Polish debts, a bilateral agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Polish Government was signed in Warsaw on 2nd July. This provides for a restructuring of the principal and interest of 90 per cent. of the debts guaranteed by ECGD and falling due for payment between 1st May and 31st December 1981. After adjustment to take account of interim assistance given earlier in the year, the sum to be restructured will be about £75 million. These debts will now be repaid over four years commencing on 1st January 1986.

The Paris Agreement provided for a possible extension of these arrangements by stages through 1982–1983 by agreement between Poland and its creditors depending on the progress of the Polish Government stabilisation plan. A joint commission consisting of the Poles and the 16 western creditors met in Paris from 19th to 20th November to consider these questions. I am glad to say that sufficient progress was made at that meeting to contemplate holding a further multilateral meeting in the forthcoming weeks.

In addition to debt rescheduling, we have also instructed ECGD to maintain for the time being a modest level of general short-term export credit facilities and to provide guarantees for specific credits totalling £65 million. Much of this credit is being used to purchase food supplies under the European Community scheme. But some has also been used to purchase industrial products and materials essential for Poland's industrial recovery and approximately half a million pounds has been used to purchase medical supplies.

The European Heads of Government and State at their meeting in London on 26th and 27th November reaffirmed their willingness, within the limits of the means of the Community and its member states and in collaboration with others, to respond to the requests of the Polish Government for continued support for the efforts of the Polish people to promote the recovery of their national economy. They put on record their belief that the rescheduling of Polish debt and the provision of new credit would make an important contribution to that end.

The British Government stand by this view and are prepared to give effect to their words. Accordingly, I can confirm that, subject to the agreement of our partners and the forthcoming multilateral discussions, the Government are willing to reschedule Poland's debt repayments in 1982 on a similar basis to 1981. We are in addition providing credit of up to £30 million in 1982 for the continued financing of the construction of the Ursus tractor factory, a significant joint industrial project which is of importance to Poland's efforts to achieve agricultural self-sufficiency.

May I say, in parenthesis, that during my recent visit to Poland I visited the Ursus factory plant which is partly already in being but partly under new constriction and was much impressed by what I saw and indeed with the Polish people and others whom I met there.

We believe these measures will be a useful contribution to Poland's economic recovery and are consistent with the risks implicit in the condition of the Polish economy at the present time. Similarly British firms with long-standing links with Poland are maintaining their presence in the market. Both these firms and the Government appreciate the importance of continuing commercial relations and look forward to the time when Poland is once again a strong trading partner.

The United Kingdom has also, together with our partners in the European Community, played a substantial role in supplying food and agricultural products to Poland at specially reduced prices. The Community budget has borne the cost of the special discount while individual member states have made available the necessary credit to cover the products they have supplied. Under decisions taken in 1980 and in April and May this year, the Community has responded to specific Polish requests by making available large amounts of food from Community stocks at special prices. These offers have so far included 452,500 tonnes of barley (all from the United Kingdom), 272,500 tonnes of wheat, 100,000 tonnes of meat (including 3,000 tonnes of beef from the United Kingdom) and 100,000 tonnes of sugar.

On 7th October the Community approved a further offer of food and agricultural products to be made available to Poland in the last quarter of 1981 on the same special terms as the earlier offers. The United Kingdom will supply a further 25,000 tonnes of barley included in that offer. At the same time the Community agreed to consider proposals by the European Commission for further deliveries to Poland in the first quarter of 1982. These proposals are now under active consideration.

Meanwhile, on 24th November, the Budget Council agreed in response to a proposal made by the European Parliament, that a small additional sum of 10 million ecus (approximately £5.8 million) should be made available to the Commission to assist the supply of food from the Community to Poland. I understand that this will now be used to supply some 8,000 tonnes of beef as a gift. And in August a resolution was adopted by the Council making it possible for member states to supply to Poland free of charge fruit and vegetables withdrawn from the Community market in accordance with the provisions of the common agricultural policy.

My Lords, it is abundantly clear from what I have just said that the Community's contribution continues to be substantial and equally clear that the United Kingdom has played a full part in that contribution. As I have already stated, the European Council consider it important that the Community should continue, within the limits of its means, to contribute to Poland's economic recovery. I have no doubt that the Community will do its best to view any further request from Poland for assistance with food supplies in that light.

The Government also believe, however, that Poland's other creditors must play their part. I understand agreement in principle has been reached with 460 Western banks for arrangements which will provide Poland with a substantial measure of relief in 1981. The Soviet Union and its allies should also continue to play their part in helping Poland with its financial difficulties. That, I think, relates to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Gore-Booth. The Soviet Union is, of course, well aware of the views of Her Majesty's Government about the necessity of the burden of helping Poland being shared by both Eastern and Western trading partners.

The noble Lord, Lord Harris, and my noble friend Lady Airey, have mentioned the work of the voluntary and Church agencies in Britain and have commended their efforts. The Government are of course aware of the substantial contribution being made by many voluntary and Church organisations in Britain to alleviate acute shortages of food and medicine in Poland and to help the sick and the needy. We consider that this is a worthy effort and one that is symbolic of the warm friendship and humanitarian feelings that have traditionally existed between the British and Polish peoples.

I noted the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that the Government should assist in co-ordinating the work of the voluntary and Church agencies and indeed in providing medicines and medical supplies to Poland. I shall certainly look to see what can be done in that direction but, as I mentioned earlier, the Government have already provided credits of approximately £½ million which the Polish Government have used to purchase medical supplies. We are in contact with a number of the agencies involved and we took part in the very discussions, to which the noble Lord referred, on 7th December to consider how these activities could best be co-ordinated, both between the agencies themselves and with the Polish authorities, so they can see how to provide the relief that is most effective and of the greatest use. We greatly welcome these discussions and shall continue to keep in close touch with the agencies and do all we can to help. I would emphasise, however, that all our offers of assistance have been in response to requests from the Polish Government. We continue to believe that it is for the Polish Government to decide their priorities for assistance and to determine what best meets Poland's needs at the present time.

My Lords, I think we all accept that the British Government have made a significant contribution, as have our partners in the European Community. Is the noble Lord aware that many of us would feel reassured were there to be some indication given in the fairly near future on the specific question as to whether a small group of administrators could be used to assist the voluntary organisations. I welcome the fact that Government representatives were present at the meeting yesterday, but the need is urgent and, as I am sure the Minister recognises, many of us would be reassured if this matter could be put at the top of the agenda so far as the Government are concerned.

I can assure the noble Lord that the Government are very much aware of the urgency that attaches to these considerations, my Lords, and I shall see that there is no undue delay in the consideration of them.

It must be recognised that there is no easy solution to Poland's economic problems, and there are limits to what any of Poland's western creditors can do, particularly in face of their own fiscal difficulties. In any event, no amount of external aid will by itself solve the Polish problems. The only people who can achieve a lasting solution are the Poles themselves, by agreeing on appropriate measures and putting them into effect as soon as possible and without outside interference of any kind. My recent visit to Poland has reinforced my belief in the desire of all parties there to find workable solutions as quickly as possible. I am certain that all noble Lords will join me in wishing the Polish people well in their endeavours.