Commons Sitting of 1 February 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH RAILWAYS (No. 2) BILL (By Order)
CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL (Lords) (By Order)
CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) BILL (By Order)
COUNTY OF MERSEYSIDE BILL (Lords) (By Order)
EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL (By Order)
FELIXSTOWE DOCK AND RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)
GREATER LONDON COUNCIL (GENERAL POWERS) BILL (By Order)
LONDON TRANSPORT BILL (By Order)
Orders for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time upon Thursday next.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  WEST MIDLANDS COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)
  Order for Second Reading read.
  To be read a Second time upon Tuesday at Seven o'clock.

  INVERCLYDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    SOLICITORS IN THE SUPREME COURTS OF SCOTLAND (AMENDMENT) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
    Considered; to be read the Third time upon Tuesday next.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  NORTHERN IRELAND

    Toomebridge—Burntollet (March)
    Mr. Dunlopasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what was the total cost, in manpower and money, of policing the march from Toomebridge to Burntollet.
    Mr. Wm. Rossasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many police officers, soldiers and members of the Ulster Defence Regiment were deployed on 5, 6 and 7 January 1979 for the protection of the procession of supporters of imprisoned criminals from Toomebridge to Burntollet; what is the total cost to the police authority in respect of the officers so deployed; and how many hours of police time were spent on this operation.
    The Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Roy Mason): On each of the three days of this march, an average of 850 police officers, three companies of Regular soldiers and one company of the Ulster Defence Regiment, together with their various support services, were deployed to assist in preserving peace and public order. It is not possible, without disproportionate cost, to provide a figure for the additional expenditure incurred by the security forces operation.
    Mr. Dunlop: Does the Secretary of State agree that the so-called civil rights commemoration order is nothing short of an exercise in coat-trailing and provocation, designed to contain large numbers of the security forces? Does he also agree that a total ban should have been placed on this parade and that it should have been confined to the village of Toomebridge where, as I am sure he is aware, there is almost 100 per cent. support for the IRA and its activities?
    Mr. Mason: The Government decided that the march was legal because the Chief Constable had estimated that there would be no serious public disorder. The marchers complied with the Act and gave notice that the march would take place. However, the Chief Constable did enforce some route changes on the way.

    1647
    The hon. Gentleman should note the encouraging fact that at no time during the course of the three-day march were more than 250 people marching en route and that at the final rally at lunch time on Sunday there were fewer than 500 supporters. The main objectives of the march were to obtain support for the Maze prisoners and the "Troops Out" movement.
    It failed miserably in both these objectives.
    Mr. Ross: The Secretary of State says that 850 police officers, three companies of Regulars and one company of the UDR were deployed, on average. Surely he is obscuring the fact that between Dungiven and Burntollet 1,440 police officers, six companies of Regulars and heaven knows how many members of the UDR were deployed. If the reason for banning a march is that it will lead to serious public disorder, how does the Secretary of State arrive at the conclusion that there was no such danger when over 2,000 members of the security forces were needed to protect the march?
    Mr. Mason: I have to rely upon the judgment of the Chief Constable in these affairs, and his judgment was right. The UDR, the Army and a number of police were in operation. The turnout was small—smaller than anticipated—and there were no serious incidents en route.
    Mr. Fitt: Has my right hon. Friend any indication of the cost to the security forces of the protection given every year in Northern Ireland to the marches of the Orangemen between March and August to commemorate the doings or misdoings of a Dutchman who had fallen out with his father-in-law in this country?
    Mr. Mason: My hon. Friend knows as much as anyone in this House about marches in Northern Ireland. He also knows that it is a democracy and that we allow marches and demonstrations provided that notice is given under the public order provisions. Provided that the Chief Constable feels that there is no danger to public order, there is no reason why marches should not take place.
    Mr. Neave: With regard to the conditions in the Maze prison, which was the subject of the march, we very much
    1648
    welcome the pamphlet that the Secretary of State has just published, through official sources, to help put the record straight. Will he circulate this pamphlet to embassies and high commissions all over the world, and especially the official photograph showing that the cells were deliberately smeared by the prisoners in this dirty campaign? Will he also intensify such counter-measures as he can take and seek television time in the United States and Europe to answer this crude propaganda?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I did not anticipate the subject of the Maze prison arising on a question relating to the march to Burn-toilet. I have circulated the pamphlet to every Member of Parliament and to every national newspaper north and south of the border as well as in Britain. It has been circulated to all the media, and many copies will be going to foreign embassies and consulates abroad.
    Mr. Flannery: Does my right hon. Friend agree that it is a unique view of democracy that the hon. Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop) holds when he suggests that people should demonstrate only when they have 100 per cent. support for the demonstration? Does my right lion. Friend agree that to ban any march in Northern Ireland, without a great deal of good reason, would be to lend ourselves to a viewpoint that we do not hold? Does he further agree that demonstrations should be allowed to take place wherever possible?
    Mr. Mason: I think that in general terms my hon. Friend is right. We have to consider seriously the main goals of the march, the likelihood of provocation en route and whether the demonstrators are intending purposely to march into areas where they know from the outset that there will be confrontation and conflict. We take such matters into consideration, together with the Chief Constable's advice to me, and wherever possible we allow the marches to take place.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Will the right hon. Gentleman keep in mind that the dispute referred to by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was not a family row but had to do with deep principles?

    1649
    May I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that if he dared to take such a simplistic view of these matters as the hon. Member for Belfast, West is taking, he would find himself in serious trouble not only at Burntollet but at other places?
    If so many members of the police and the Army were deployed on that occasion, why was it that law-abiding citizens going about their lawful business were banned from part of the parade route and directed to go another way, and were even told that if they insisted in going along the Queen's highway they would be arrested?
    Mr. Mason: I cannot be responsible to the hon. Gentleman, I am sorry to say, for every incident that might have taken place en route. There were no serious incidents. That is the main point. The Chief Constable's estimate of the march was right. I cannot afford, in my job in Northern Ireland, to take a simplistic view of any incident that arises there.
    Mr. Mates rose—
    Mr. Biggs-Davison rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call the two hon. Members who have risen, but on other questions I shall call fewer hon. Members to ask supplementary questions, in order to make up the time.
    Mr. Mates: Since the march concerned protests about conditions in the Maze prison, may I thank the Secretary of State for affording the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), the hon. Member for Kingston-upon-Hull, Central (Mr. McNamara) and myself the opportunity of visiting the Maze prison two weeks ago? May I congratulate the Government on what they have done in their robust—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. Congratulations must wait until after Question Time.
    Mr. Mates: May I ask the Secretary of State to say once more—because it needs to be repeated endlessly—quite unequivocally that he will not give way to the protesters at the Maze, and will maintain the standards of prison discipline which are current throughout the United Kingdom? Will he also say that he will continue to consider as United Kingdom prisoners all those who
    1650
    have been convicted and are serving sentences in the Maze prison?
    Mr. Mason: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that he was able to take part in the all-party parliamentary visit to the Maze prison. It is part of our policy of gradually allowing views from impartial observers to emanate from there. As the hon. Gentleman knows, members of Northern Ireland political parties and Church leaders have been to the Maze. We decided that this policy was right. The observations of the all-party parliamentary delegation were encouraging.
    There will be no return to political status in the Maze for any of those protesters—they might as well know it now—whether I stand at this Dispatch Box or whether it is a Conservative Minister. There will be no amnesty, either. The Maze prison is one of the finest prisons in Western Europe. The facilities granted to the prisoners who conform are better and more advanced than those afforded to prisoners in Great Britain.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In deference to other hon. Members, Mr. Speaker, I shall not ask a supplementary question.

    De Lorean Motor Company (Contract)
    Mr. Cryerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will give further details about the contract between De Lorean Cars and Lotus Cars Ltd.
    The Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office (Mr. J. D. Concannon): The contract between the De Lorean Motor Company and Lotus Cars Ltd. is an agreement between the two companies, to which Government are not a party. I cannot, therefore, provide details of its terms. A joint statement issued by the two companies on 16 November 1978 indicated that Lotus would co-operate in the completion of the design and development of the DMC 12 sports car to be produced in Northern Ireland and that the work would include the building and testing of prototypes.
    Mr. Cryer: I welcome the Government's efforts to provide jobs in West Belfast, but will my right hon. Friend provide me with ammunition to use against those critics who argue that the contract with Lotus to provide research

    1651
    and development indicates that subscribing £53 million to De Lorean Cars was perhaps a little hasty, on the basis of two prototypes? I am alarmed when my right hon. Friend says that the Government are not involved in the contract, because they are providing far and away the largest sum of money. Does not this indicate that the research and development have not been fully completed?
    Mr. Concannon: If my hon. Friend wants ammunition, all I can say to him is that the assistance on this project consists of grants and loans. From the outset of the negotiations I was aware that further design and development work would be required. The selection of the company to undertake the work was a matter entirely for the De Lorean Motor Company. I was delighted to learn that Lotus had agreed to undertake the task, in view of its well-known ability and experience. It would be intolerable if the Government were to require every commercial agreement made by companies to be vetted and agreed by the Government. In the case of the De Lorean company, with such financial criteria being applied to the company, I can assure my hon. Friend that we keep the matter very much under control. We have nominee directors—or the Northern Ireland Development Agency has nominee directors—on the board.
    Mr. Gow: Will the Minister of State confirm that the maximum possible commitment by the Government to this project is £65 million? Will he tell the House what will be the rate of return on that part of the £65 million which is not a grant?
    Mr. Concannon: The hon. Gentleman has got it wrong again. He has upped the ante already, from £53 million to £65 million. He might be adding to the £53 million, which was granted by way of loan, the £13 million which has come from private sources to De Lorean, which the company is using.

    "Opportunities at 16" (Birley Report)
    Mr. Cohenasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what further consideration has been given to the Birley report on "Opportunities at 16".
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Ray Carter): One of the main aims of the study group which presented this report was to stimulate further discussion on the problems of young people as they move from school to adult life and work. My noble Friend the Minister of State has decided to convene a major conference in the Ulster polytechnic on 8 February 1979 at which the main issues considered in the report will be discussed. Invitations to attend the conference have been sent to over 500 representatives in education and industry in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Cohen: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that in the course of this conference, and in any future discussions that take place, industry, the Government and the trade union movement in Northern Ireland will be involved to ensure the implementation of the recommendations of the Birley report?
    Mr. Carter: I give my hon. Friend that assurance. Both trade unions and industry were represented on the study group which drew up the report and they will be a party, on a much wider basis, to the discussions that will take place on 8 February. We hope that recommendations of a real and proven kind will come from that conference to assist young people in the transition from education to employment in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Kilfedder: As, sadly, there is a deplorable shortage of well qualified young people entering industry and commerce in Northern Ireland, does the Minister agree that immediate positive action should be taken to bring together the principals of the grammar and high schools and lecturers in institutions of further education in Northern Ireland so that they can exploit the resources available for technical and business education in the Province? This is absolutely necessary for the benefit of the Ulster students.
    Mr. Carter: The groups mentioned by the hon. Member will be represented at the conference, as will representatives from commerce and industry. The hon. Gentleman has raised a serious question. In Northern Ireland we are short of people in various skills and professions. We must do all that we can in education, commerce and industry to make sure that we get

    1653
    the right supply. I hope that this conference will help towards that end.
    Mr. Molyneauxasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what has been the cost of the insulation programme undertaken by the Housing Executive in the current year; and what is the estimate of the programme for the coming year.
    Mr. Carter: The estimated cost of the current financial year's programme is £666,000. It is estimated that £700,000 will be spent in 1979–80.
    Mr. Molyneaux: Is the Minister aware that many of the contractors fail to comply with the specifications laid down by the Housing Executive? Have those contractors who have failed in that way been paid in full? If so, will steps be taken to recoup the sums that will be required to meet the remedial costs?
    Mr. Carter: I am not in a position to confirm or deny what the hon. Gentleman has alleged. If he has specific cases, he should refer them to me. If work of substandard quality has been done, we shall ensure that public money has not been squandered.
    Mr. Stallard: Will these insulated houses be for sale before or after insulation? Is the Minister aware that, given the peculiarities of the waiting lists in the Six Counties, the decision to sell off 53,000 houses could result in a further polarisation of the two communities in that part of Ireland?
    Mr. Carter: My hon. Friend's question has nothing to do with insulation, but I shall send him a detailed reply.
    The article which no doubt inspired the question was misinformed and did not give an accurate assessment or picture of what is intended in Northern Ireland. The figure of 53,000 is a pipedream. We shall not sell 53,000 houses in Northern Ireland. To ease the minds of my hon. Friends, I should add that not one house in the public sector will be sold while there is a continuing demand for rented accommodation.
    Mr. Bowden: Is the Minister satisfied that retired people and pensioners are getting their fair share of this programme? If not, will he make sure that they do?
    Mr. Carter: They are the first priority in the whole programme. Dwellings for old and retried people are at the top of the list. As far as I know—I shall let the hon. Gentleman know if this is not the case—they are receiving priority treatment.

    Livestock and Livestock Products
    Mr. Torreyasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why it is necessary under the common agricultural policy for restrictions to be applied to livestock and livestock products entering Northern Ireland.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Tom Pendry): The EEC rules would normally preclude import controls on livestock and livestock products between member countries. But under EEC derogations Northern Ireland maintains strict import controls in order to protect the Province' high animal health status. Northern Ireland has been free from the major animal diseases such as foot and mouth, swine fever and swine vesicular disease for many years and both the Government and the EEC take the view that it is important to protect its status. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the chief veterinary officer and the staff of the Department of Agriculture for their excellent work in this area.
    Mr. Torney: I recognise the excellent record of the Department of Agriculture in Northern Ireland in securing disease-free livestock production, but will my hon. Friend say in what way this strict animal health control will affect trade between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom?
    Mr. Pendry: I thank my hon. Friend for his remarks. Coming from him, I take them as a compliment. Livestock and livestock products from Great Britain are admitted to Northern Ireland only under certain conditions. Livestock products are imported only under licence. All farm animals are subject to quarantine. Cows are not admitted because of the risk of illness and disease. There are no animal health bans on products going from Northern Ireland to Great Britain.
    Mr. Farr: As agriculture is Northern Ireland's biggest industry, should not there be a debate on the effect of the

    1655
    CAP on Northern Ireland agriculture and, at the same time, a discussion on the serious impact that the advent of EMS will have on the economy of Northern Ireland from the agricultural point of view? We note that it will mean the dismantling of what has been a successful monetary union of the British Isles.
    Mr. Pendry: It is not for me to give the answer that the hon. Gentleman requires. I am sure that the powers-that-be are listening to what is said.
    Mr. Wm. Ross: Since the Court of Justice of the European Communities recently pronounced on the activities of the Northern Ireland Pig Marketing Board, is the Minister satisfied that there will continue to be reasonably good facilities for the sale of pigs and the control of pig marketing in Northern Ireland? Is the Minister aware of the strictures in that judgment on the control of the land frontier between Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland?
    Mr. Pendry: The hon. Gentleman will have read my reaction to that court action. We are confident that we can, within the existing structure, maintain an orderly system for pig farmers.

    Gas Industry
    Mr. McCuskerasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about the future of the Northern Ireland gas industry.
    Mr. Concannon: I regret that the completion of the review of the total energy problem to which I have referred on earlier occasions has been delayed because of the involvement of those concerned with the review—including myself—in work on all the problems that have been going on in Northern Ireland, of which my Department has borne the brunt. I shall make the Government's proposals known as soon as possible.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the Minister aware that his reply will be greeted with great disappointment in Northern Ireland, in view of the promise that he gave on a number of occasions last year? Does he concede that the events of the past month have shown just how vulnerable the gas industry in Northern Ireland is to industrial action and inclement weather? As the British Gas Corporation expects
    1656
    profits of £300 million this year, will he investigate whether some of that money could be used to extend the pipeline to Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Concannon: The first part of the hon. Gentleman's question deals with the vulnerability of the gas industry in Northern Ireland to disputes. The Northern Ireland economy as a whole is more vulnerable than that of anywhere else to industrial disputes. We have said a great deal about this. I should now like to get back to the job that I should have been doing this past month and make sure that the review is out as soon as possible.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the proposals for the gas industry go ahead they are bound to affect the amount of solid fuel sold in Northern Ireland? Should not we take into account the fact that the 1 million tonnes sold there now are very important to British miners, especially bearing in mind that there are 440 million tons of coal on the ground in Great Britain and that every attempt must be made to sell as much coal as we can? Will my right hon. Friend give us an assurance that whatever proposals are examined and brought forward they will not affect the solid fuel market in Northern Ireland?
    Mr. Concannon: My hon. Friend should be pleased about the efforts that have been made in Northern Ireland. The take-up of coal has increased by 13 per cent. One of the energy problems in Northern Ireland is the present surplus. Anything that we do with one source of energy is bound to have an effect on other sources. That is one of the problems which I hope will be brought to the attention of the House when my report is ready.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the gas industry in Northern Ireland is in a sad and sorry state and that as long as he puts off his decision there will still be deterioration in the industry? Will he confirm that solid fuel has a majority of the market in Northern Ireland? Will he confirm that the price of gas—
    Mr. Ashton: All gas and gaiters.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: —in Northern Ireland compared with the price in the rest

    1657
    of the United Kingdom is at least is at least half as much again? Will he confirm that he will make adecision—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. It will be a confirmation service.
    Mr. Concannon: The price of gas in Northern Ireland is about three times higher than in the rest of the United Kingdom. As the hon. Gentleman knows, that is because of decisions taken some time ago to base the energy requirement in Northern Ireland on oil. To be fair, there is really no gas industry there. There is a fragmentation of 13 different companies and local authorities. If Northern Ireland, when it had the chance, had gone the same way as the gas industry in Great Britain did when it had the chance, the industry in Northern Ireland would probably now be thinking about profits.
    Mr. Farr: The House recognises that the Minister has had much to do recently. However, I remind him that it was 1977 when the report was first submitted to him by the British Gas Corporation. Will he assure the House that when he makes his final recommendation he will take into account all the information on the latest finds in the Morecambe Bay field and the possibility of the bulk carriage of gas?
    Mr. Concannon: I shall obviously do that. The Minister has been busy not only recently but for some time. I shall take into consideration the matters that the hon. Gentleman has raised. I ask the House to be patient for a little longer. I shall report as soon as possible.

    Water Service
    Mr. Powellasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will institute an inquiry, of which the results could be made public, into the state of equipment and plant and the conditions of work in the water service supplying the southern part of the counties of Down and Armagh.
    Mr. Carter: No, Sir. We are aware of the state of equipment and plant at the Fofannybane water treatment works which supplies the southern parts of the counties of Down and Armagh, and we are taking urgent steps to improve working conditions there.
    Mr. Powell: Is the Minister aware that it is widely believed, whether or not cor-
    1658
    rectly, that the recent industrial action was partly due to the state of the equipment and the management of the service in the area? Would it not be in the interests of both the Department and the Government to make the facts known as objectively as possible, whether that is done by means of an inquiry or otherwise?
    Mr. Carter: The recent industrial dispute was not connected in any way with the state of plant. That has been known for years. We have had reports, and we are working on them. Recommendations have been made to bring the plant up to modern standards. The tragedy of the dispute was that it held up the process of bringing the plant up to modern standards. We do not see the need for a report, because we are well aware of the deficiencies.

    Terrorism
    Mr. Townsendasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the war against terrorism in Northern Ireland.
    Mr. Mason: In the period since I last addressed the House on 6 December, the increased level of terrorist activity, which had commenced in the middle of November, continued during the remainder of December.
    Four soldiers and a prison officer have met their deaths; three of the soldiers were killed in a gun attack on a patrol in Crossmaglen on 21 December.
    Since the end of December, two members of the Provisional IRA have died in an explosion, possibly caused by the premature detonation of bombs which they were carrying. There have been fewer terrorist attacks on commercial premises in January.
    In 1978 the RUC charged 843 persons with terrorist offences.
    Mr. Townsend: Following the death of deputy governor Albert Miles, and bearing in mind the current callous campaign against prison staff, what new proposals is the Secretary of State putting forward to protect prison officers who have an essential duty to perform on behalf of us all?
    Mr. Mason: Prior to Christmas, a special attempt was made to frighten,

    1659
    intimidate and possibly kill prison officers. Unfortunately, those responsible succeeded with the deputy governor. There was an attempt by the Provisional IRA to change the policy of Her Majesty's Government over the Maze protest. It did not succeed by Christmas, and it will not succeed in future. The prison officers have all been given an assurance by the RUC that they may have a personal weapon if they wish and that if they think they are being threatened they will be given a special guard.
    Mr. McCusker: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, despite some of the favourable trends that have been seen in the war against terrorists, seven young uniformed soldiers were killed in South Armagh last year, as against two in 1977? What is being done by the right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. and hon. Friends at the Ministry of Defence to lessen the risk that young men have to face in South Armagh while maintaining a security presence?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman represents that area. There is a great deal of hostility towards Her Majesty's Forces in the areas of South Armagh and Crossmaglen. I am sorry to say that the death rate increased in those areas, but throughout the Province there was a noticeable decline in deaths in 1978 among the UDR, the police, the Army and civilians.
    Mr. Fitt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that all elected representatives from Northern Ireland deeply deplore and deprecate the murder of young British soldiers and members of the security forces in Northern Ireland? Is he satisfied with the instructions that are given on the yellow card to the British Army and with the steps that are taken to save innocent persons' lives? Is he aware that allegations have been made in Northern Ireland, founded or unfounded, and believed by many, that at least 10 innocent persons have been killed by members of the British Army who have not carried out the instructions on the yellow card? Is he satisfied that the yellow card does not have to be brought up to date to ensure the protection of young innocent lives?
    Mr. Mason: I am pleased to hear what my hon. Friend said about himself and
    1660
    many hon. Members—indeed, I hope all hon. Members—being impressed by the courage and dedication of the British soldier in Northern Ireland. I hope that he will not be responsible for the beginning of rumours that 10 innocent people have lost their lives in the Province because of the soldiers. The soldiers operate under the rules on the card. It is difficult for these young men to carry out their exercises and operations if they feel that they do not have the support of the local community, and especially of the political leaders. I hope that my hon. Friend will give them the lead that they require.
    Mr. Biggs-Davison: In view of both British and Spanish reports that members of the Provisional IRA have operated with terrorists of the Basque separatist organisation ETA, and that members of that organisation have taken part in activities in the United Kingdom, are the Government satisfied with the co-operation between European and other western countries against the common enemy of Western civilisation?
    Mr. Mason: The hon. Gentleman may know that at the Provisional Sinn Fein ardheis that was held recently in the Republic of Ireland representatives of the Basque terrorists were present. Undoubtedly, there is a tenuous link. We keep in touch with our embassies and consulates abroad and warn them if we think that there is anything developing from that link.
    Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: Do not the murder figures as a whole in Northern Ireland show a reduction? Is not that a fact that we should regard as encouraging?
    Mr. Mason: My right hon. Friend is right. In 1976, 296 people died in Northern Ireland. In 1977 the number fell to 112, and last year, in spite of the La Mon House restaurant incident, it fell to 81. Progress is being made in that respect. There are fewer deaths, fewer woundings and fewer shooting incidents. We never talk about success, but we talk about progress, and progress is definitely being made in that regard.
    Later—
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hasten to assure you that this point of order has nothing to do with

    1661
    gas and gaiters—or your gaiters, Mr. Speaker. This is a serious point that I should like to bring to your attention.
    Today, on question No. 9, in answer to a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland by the hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), the right hon. Gentleman implied that all those who had been shot by the British Army and killed in Ulster were in some way guilty. I rise to defend, and ask your ruling on, two men. I hasten to say that neither question is at present before a court.
    One case concerns John Boyle, a Roman Catholic constituent of mine. The other concerns Jim Taylor, a Protestant constituent of my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Ulster (Mr. Dunlop). Both men were shot and killed by the British Army many months ago. No action has yet been taken, although the pathologist's report made it perfectly clear that John Boyle was shot three times in the back.
    Mr. Speaker: Would the hon. Gentleman be kind enough to indicate the point of order on which he wishes me to rule?
    Rev. Ian Paisley: I wish you, Mr. Speaker, to rule on whether it is right for the Secretary of State to give an answer which indicts two innocent men.
    Mr. Speaker: That is a question for the Minister. I cannot rule on what a Minister should say.
    Mr. Fitt: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley), and in support of what he said about the response that I received from the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland to my supplementary question, is it not your opinion, Mr. Speaker, that the matter raised by the hon. Gentleman, namely, the life and death of his constituents, is far more important than what we have listened to for the past hour? Would you reconsider your decision, in view of the fact that the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland said that those who were shot by the British Army were guilty of a crime, when the facts are completely contrary? I could name people in addition to those named by the hon. Gentleman.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Order.
    The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. As for the person Boyle, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt), directions for a prosecution have now been given by the Director of Prosecutions for Northern Ireland. I suggest that it would be better if the matter were left there.
    Mr. Speaker: I was about to say to the House that the Minister is responsible for whatever statement he has made. He carries that responsibility. It is for the Minister to decide whether he wishes to come to the House to deal with the matter. There is nothing that I can do, especially as the matter is sub judice in one instance.

    Industry (Government Assistance)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether he will list the criteria that he applies when the Government decide to give financial assistance to industry in the Province; and whether he is satisfied that the criteria always result in a proper allocation of public funds.
    Mr. Concannon: When considering applications for selective financial assistance under the Industries Development (Northern Ireland) Acts 1966 and 1971 regard is normally paid to a project's potential viability and the extent to which it would result in the creation or maintenance of employment or the strengthening of industry in the Province. These criteria are similar to those applying in Great Britain and are designed to ensure a proper allocation of public funds. I am satisfied that they are being correctly applied.
    Mr. Gow: To what extent is the return on capital on the investment put up by the Government one of the criteria? To what extent will there he a reasonable return on capital from the De Lorean investment?
    Mr. Concannon: In both those instances there is a good deal of financial and commercial information that is best kept confidential. On one side we have the Northern Ireland Development Agency, which has to act commercially, whereas I, in the Department of Commerce, have a little more latitude.
    Mr. Kilfedder: So that proper guidelines are drawn up to protect public money, will the Minister set up a public inquiry to reveal the truth and to expose the corruption that existed in connection with the contract entered into with Mr. Hoppe, the former managing director of the Belfast shipyard? The Government of the day here and the then Stormont Government were guilty of aiding and abetting tax evasion on a massive scale in relation to this man's considerable salary and compensation.
    Mr. Concannon: The Hoppe case hardly arises on this question. I have answered previous questions from the hon. Gentleman on the matter. I have pointed out that this contract between Harland and Wolff and a Swiss company was in 1971, before Harland and Wolff was nationalised. His question has nothing to do with the administration of the Harland and Wolff shipyard at this time, but concerns other people in 1971.
    Mr. Litterick: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Treasury has estimated that British Exchequer net expenditure in Northern Ireland now exceeds £1,000 million a year? The House knows in considerable detail the pattern of civil expenditure in Northern Ireland, but it knows nothing of the amount of military expenditure. Will he undertake to give the House the necessary information which will enable hon. Members to ascertain how much money is being spent on military operations—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That is a separate question. This deals with industry.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: When public money is provided for industry, is that industry exhorted to buy British? If so, why is the De Lorean company being allowed to employ French consultants in its factory construction programme?
    Mr. Concannon: There has been some bickering about De Lorean. I thought that my press statement this week would have backed up what I have been saying about the company. Spin-offs have already taken place in Northern Ireland. Two of the contracts have gone to local firms. I should have thought that that was a matter for rejoicing and an answer to the sceptics.

    Economic Council
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will arrange to make public advice which periodically may be given to him by the Northern Ireland Economic Council.
    Mr. Concannon: To date, all the advice which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has been given by the council has been made public, although circumstances could arise in which it would be desirable to preserve the confidentiality of work carried out on his behalf. In the case of research carried out or commissioned on the council's own initiative, the decision on whether to publish the findings rests with the council itself.
    Mr. Farr: The Council has already made reports to the Minister on energy and on agriculture. It is at present engaged in studying external links between Europe and the United Kingdom, and it is also studying industrial matters. Would it not help the country generally if this advice were made more readily available? What has happened to the Northern Ireland plan? Does it still exist? Will he say something about it?
    Mr. Concannon: I thought that the reports were readily accessible. If there are problems, I shall examine them and make sure they are sorted out. The programmes already considered by the Economic Council have been published. Work is still proceeding on the five-year plan. Discussions are taking place with interested parties. I hope that the assessment of the Northern Ireland economic situation will be published shortly.

    Mount Street Clinic
    Mr. Bradfordasked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when Mount Street clinic will be made available for youth or community activities in redevelopment area 31; and what are the starting and completion dates for the floodlit football pitch also promised for this area.
    Mr. Carter: Consideration has been given to leasing the Mount Street clinic for community activities but because of the high cost of putting the premises in order it has been decided to offer the property for sale on the open market.

    1665
    The floodlit all-weather football pitch is only a part of the facilities to be provided in nearby Ormeau park, and it is hoped that work will commence on this expensive facility in June this year. I am confident that the Belfast city council will endeavour to see the project completed as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Bradford: Is the Minister aware that this area has had to exist on mere promises? It has been deprived of a proper housing scheme, and now of a proper community facility. When will a community facility be provided to meet the needs of this large housing conurbation?
    Mr. Carter: I should have thought that the expenditure of £600,000 on an all-weather football pitch was an excellent example of the way in which the Government are trying to provide social facilities in South Belfast. It is not for the hon. Member to come to this House asking for more public expenditure while at the same time voting for public expenditure cuts in the United Kingdom as a whole.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall take points of order at the end of Question Time, if the hon. Gentleman will be good enough to wait until then.
    Rev. Ian Paisley rose—
    Mr. Speaker: It will save the time of Prime Minister's questions if the hon. Gentleman does not raise his point of order now.
    Rev. Ian Paisley: Very well, Mr. Speaker.
    Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Member.

    PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Prime Minister if he will state his public engagements for 1 February.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): This morning I presided at a meeting of the Cabinet. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be hold-
    1666
    ing further meetings with ministerial colleagues and others.
    Mr. McCrindle: Has the Prime Minister had time to consider the great concern felt by many people over the statement by Mr. Arthur Scargill indicating that trade unionists should ignore the legal decision in last week's court case on secondary picketing? Does not that contrast with the right hon. Gentleman's statement last week that there is freedom under the law to cross a picket line? Does he agree that, carried to its logical conclusion, Mr. Scargill's incitement is a recipe for anarchy?
    The Prime Minister: I have noted a great many comments made during the course of recent industrial disturbances. The position of the law in relation to this matter was stated by the Attorney-General. Any private citizen in this country is entitled to express his own view, but I stand on the expression of the Attorney-General which, I think, met with general agreement when he stated the law.
    Mr. Heffer: As 1,000 workers have been told that they are to be made redundant at the Plessey works, as 2,500 workers have been told that they are to be made redundant at the Dunlop works, and as we have 100,000 unemployed on Merseyside, is my right hon. Friend prepared urgently to meet the Labour Members of Parliament from Merseyside to discuss this whole question and come up with some positive proposals to deal with one of the most serious unemployment situations in the whole country?
    The Prime Minister: My hon. Friend knows that he does not have to ask me that question publicly for me to be willing to meet himself and his colleagues, as I have done on previous occasions. I should be happy to meet them again. Perhaps he will give me a few hours' notice before we meet. Merseyside is generally regarded as being a serious problem, and I hope that Merseyside will do all that it can to help itself.
    Mrs. Thatcher: As the Prime Minister will have spent some time today considering the grave situation which affects many hospitals, will he state clearly whether it is the Government's policy to encourage volunteers to help the doctors and nurses

    1667
    to carry out their prime duty towards the patients?
    The Prime Minister: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will be answering a private notice question on this and kindred matters at 3.30 pm this afternoon, as the right hon. Lady knows. I should therefore prefer that any considered comment—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]—on the general matters that have been raised about the Health Service and the hospitals was made by him, as I think the right hon. Lady will understand. On the question of volunteers for hospitals, I cannot say that the Cabinet has particularly considered that matter this morning. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Opposition are like a rabble."] With respect, they are not like a rabble, they are a rabble.
    What I would say to the right hon. Lady is that it is not acceptable in any community that sick human beings, be they adults or children, should be denied food, and proper attention forbidden to them by the actions of people. [Interruption.] Will Conservative Members please allow me to continue for a moment? Therefore, I trust very much that all those concerned in this dispute will return to work and allow negotiations to continue on a proper basis.
    Mrs. Thatcher: It is not always my task to do what the Prime Minister prefers. As the buck stops with him, I must press him on this matter just a little further. It is precisely because the things about which he spoke are not acceptable, and precisely because many of the tasks could be done by volunteers, that I ask him where his duty lies. Is it towards the patients and towards the doctors and nurses who help the patients? Is he, therefore, prepared to encourage volunteers to go in? In some hospitals they are working well. Will he make his position clear?
    The Prime Minister: I should prefer to leave this to the hospital management committees. They are in charge of each hospital. It may well be that in some hospitals it will be preferable to bring in volunteers. But in other hospitals the management committees may not wish to do so. This is not a matter of Governmental responsibility, although Conservative Members may seek to make
    1668
    it so. What we want to do is to see that the hospitals are kept open and that patients are properly treated, by whatever methods the management committees themselves believe are desirable.
    Mr. Crawfordasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I have just given to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
    Mr. Crawford: Will the Prime Minister have a word with the Chancellor of the Exchequer today and suggest that he includes in the emergency Budget, which will be inevitable in two or three weeks, proposals for the introduction of a national minimum wage? This has been SNP policy for some time. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that its introduction would at least go some way towards alleviating the present troubles?
    The Prime Minister: With regard to an emergency Budget, the hon. Gentleman should not assume anything of the sort. In fact, according to the latest figures that I received yesterday from the Department of Employment, the average level of major pay settlements is still a little under 10 per cent. One or two of the more extravagent settlements have hit the headlines, perhaps because of the disruption that they have caused, but that, I am told, is the latest position in relation to private settlements, and that must influence the Government in a number of ways.
    The introduction of a minimum wage is always a matter for consideration. But so far there has been no general agreement on its introduction. Clearly, it would have some impact, provided that people who were well above the minimum wage did not insist on maintaining their differentials. But so far we have been unable to get agreement on that.
    Mr. Carter-Jones: Will my right hon. Friend take some time off today to examine the dreadful story about Indian girls coming to this country being tested to discover whether they are virgins? What moral justification is there for this? Will he please put aside 10 minutes of his time firmly to rule out such a monstrosity?
    The Prime Minister: I think that the House and hon. Members will have been disturbed at what they have read about this matter. I understand that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary is inquiring into it, and I am sure that he will want to inform the House if a question is put down in due course.
    Mr. Stephen Ross: Will the Prime Minister cancel his engagements for the rest of the day, take the first train to Liverpool and take personal charge of the negotiations with the men who even now are refusing to bury bodies unless they are in a decomposed state? This is causing great distress to relatives. One lady wanted to dig a grave for one of her relatives, was allowed into the cemetery but at the last minute was refused permission to do so. Surely this is a matter which should now have the Prime Minister's personal attention.
    The Prime Minister: I understand that the national leaders of the unions concerned have advised their members to resume normal working. In the light of what the Secretary of State for the Environment said yesterday, I trust that they will take into account the feelings of the House. I understand that the instructions from the national unions have gone out today. We must wait until tomorrow to see whether they have been accepted by the members themselves. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment will make a further statement on this matter tomorrow.
    Mr. Alexander Fletcher: Is the Prime Minister aware that the sympathy which he has expressed for hospital patients and their families would be more readily understood if he used his high office to make a personal appeal for volunteers to ease their suffering?
    The Prime Minister: I am not sure whether that would be the best thing to do. As I have said, there is conflicting advice from those responsible for the administration of our hospitals about whether volunteers would help the situation. I am sure that it is far better that the hospitals themselves should take this decision. That is surely a reason for leaving it to the local hospitals, who know their circumstances best. The Government have no objection to the introduction
    1670
    of volunteers if the local hospital authorities believe that that is the best way of handling the situation.
    Mr. Ward: Will my right hon. Friend today be looking at the agenda for the first meeting between groups of Minister and the TUC with regard to economic problems and picketing? Will the whole philosophy of the "going rate" be under consideration, since in relation to some of the more extravagant claims a number of very responsible trade unionists are now saying "That is the going rate. Do not expect us to settle for less."?
    The Prime Minister: I have heard that view expressed often. It is an interesting reflection that those who said that under no circumstances could they accept a norm now want the going rate. If the going rate is not a norm, I do not know what it is. If everyone gets the same going rate then, as my hon. Friend indicated, everyone else will want to jump on the bandwagon and we shall have leapfrogging. That is why I welcome the approach by some trade union members of the general council who have headed a pamphlet entitled "A better way". Indeed, there must be for this country.
    Mr. St. John-Stevas: May I make a suggestion to the Prime Minister with regard to the burial situation in Liverpool and the North-West? Since this is a question of deep concern to both sides of the House, and since Liverpool is a city with a great religious tradition, would it not be helpful if the Prime Minister were to appeal to the two great Christian leaders in Liverpool—Bishop Sheppard and Archbishop Worlock—to use their good offices to bring about a settlement of this problem?
    The Prime Minister: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I am sure he will be glad to know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment has been in touch with the leaders of the Churches. I believe that they are using their great influence to try to secure a return to work I earnestly repeat what was said by my right hon. Friend yesterday. I trust very much that those concerned will return to work and will take into account the great desolation they are causing to families and those who are bereaved.
    Mr. Michael Spicerasked the Prime Minister if he will list his official engagements for Thursday 1 February.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. McCrindle).
    Mr. Spicer: Is the Prime Minister aware that last week British ports were virtually in the control of workers' soviets? Therefore, will he urgently consider the fact that, whereas the British shipping industry has so far lost £15 million, the chief beneficiary is the Soviet merchant marine fleet which somehow manages to move its cargoes in British ports—cargo which, incidentally, is priced at a figure which clearly indicates a massive subsidy by the Soviet Union?
    The Prime Minister: Without necessarily accepting all the hon. Gentleman's premises, I shall consider the matter.
    Mr. Pavitt: In the concern and balanced thought which I know my right hon. Friend gives to the problems of the National Health Service, will he today give further consideration to the problem of nurses' pay? This matter is in two parts. There is an immediate problem, because next Tuesday an important Whitley council meeting is due to take place and therefore time is of the essence. Secondly, there is a long-term problem in the reorganisation of the negotiating machinery, which my right hon. Friend will be able to further after we have won the general election.
    The Prime Minister: On the subject of nurses' pay, I remind my hon. Friend that proposals and discussions are taking place to determine a basis of comparability. We could settle all these disputes straight away if we were willing to pay what were asked. However, I do not think that that proposition would commend itself to the country, to the Opposition, or to the taxpayers and ratepayers. Nevertheless, low-paid workers must expect to obtain a reasonable increase in pay to help them, and those higher up the scale can help them to do so. I trust that there will be a return to some co-operation in these matters, as distinct from, I was going to say free collective bargaining, but it would be more true to say the free collective vandalism that is now taking place.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. Patrick Jenkin(by private notice) asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a further statement about industrial action in the National Health Service.
The Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. David Ennals): The impact of industrial action in the National Health Service remains serious. The effects vary across the country, with very serious disruption in some places which is causing me great concern—for example. Westminster hospital, Great Ormond Street hospital, and the store strike at Bolton.
Most of the country has emergency-only ambulance cover, and between one-third to one half of the hospital service is dealing with only emergency cases. The most serious disruption is in the Northern, North-Western, London, Mersey and Trent regions, but in most parts of the country services have been reduced.
The trade unions involved in this dispute made it clear from the beginning that their members should maintain emergency and essential services. The fact remains that such action is now taking place, and it is therefore essential to take all possible steps to protect the safety and well-being of patients.
In some cases local action has clearly gone beyond the level approved by the unions. This has rightly caused great concern to the Government, the House and the whole country. The leaders of the trade unions have shared that concern, and, while I deplore their policy of calling any form of industrial action in the NHS. I acknowledge the genuine efforts they have made to keep matters under control They have co-operated fully in the "hotline" arrangement between my Department and the union headquarters—an arrangement that has been helpful in solving a number of local difficulties. They have also produced more detailed guidance to their members on the need to preserve essential and emergency services.
Last night I met general secretaries and national officers of the four unions involved to impress upon them the seriousness of the position and the need to

1673
ensure that essential services are maintained. I welcomed the further advice that they have given to their members and I sought clarification on a number of points—for example, the impact of industrial action on highly dependent long-stay patients and the need to have adequate warning of local industrial action. They have agreed to consider the points that I put to them. In the meantime, they believe that the more detailed guidance will be of real help in keeping the action within tolerable limits.
It is essential that Health Service staff taking industrial action should, at the very minimum, stay within the bounds set in the more detailed advice agreed by the unions on Tuesday night. Even this may pose risks to patients. But anyone ignoring that guidance would be acting in a reckless and irresponsible manner.
This must be avoided, and effective communication between NHS management and unions can help to avert it. That is why I am today taking steps to ensure that health authorities are fully aware of the need to bring in full-time officials of the trade unions concerned immediately when industrial action goes beyond tolerable levels.
The position is serious, but it would be a great deal more serious if many nurses, doctors, administrators and other staff—as well as ordinary members of the public—had not rallied in this difficult situation. The House and the country will want me to express our thanks to them.
Mr. Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that was a statement of unbelievable flabbiness? Does he recognise that what is going on in the country presents a horrifying picture of mounting chaos in the National Health Service?
I turn first to the point which was put to the Prime Minister by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition. Will the Secretary of State now give the Government's full and unqualified support to NHS staff and volunteers who are struggling to keep the NHS going in the present difficult conditions?
The right hon. Gentleman referred to the guidance, which in the press was referred to as the code of practice. Is he
1674
aware that nobody to whom I spoke this morning had seen the code? Is he further aware that nobody knows what is in it? Does he appreciate that the "tape" carries the information that the unions in central London have decided to refuse to recognise any such code? Will he undertake to publish immediately the details of the code, so that at least nobody will be able to deny knowledge of it?
When the right hon. Gentleman met the general secretary of NUPE, Mr. Fisher, did he ask him to withdraw the union's official call for the maximum possible disruption of services—and, if not, why not? Will he recognise that the time for dithering is over? [Interruption.] Those of us
who last night saw the Secretary of State posturing before the television cameras believe that it is time he took action.
Mr. Ennals: The right hon. Gentleman referred to "mounting chaos". In some parts of the country action is being taken by irresponsible minorities, and I know that hon. Members on both sides of the House will wish to condemn those who act irresponsibly. The vast majority of those who work in the Health Service are genuinely seeking to maintain the service in the interest of their patients.
I was asked about staff and volunteers—a matter dealt with by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. It is extraordinary that the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, who believe that decisions about management should be taken by local management, now want us to issue some edict from the centre. We are in a local situation. The services can best be maintained not only by existing staff but by willing volunteers. Of course that is welcome, but it is essential that those decisions should be taken by local management.
The right hon. Gentleman asked about those who failed to follow the guidance and he also asked whether I would publish it. Anybody who read the newspapers this morning will have seen a summary of the guidance. I shall immediately place it in the House of Commons Library. I have been assured by the unions today that yesterday the guidance was circulated throughout the country. I must tell shop stewards, who say that because they have not seen the guidance they will refuse to co-operate, that they are going against the

1675
express wishes of their union leaders. I condemn those stewards for doing so. They are committing acts of great irresponsibility.
Mr. Flannery: Will my right hon. Friend try to learn the lesson that by competing and vying with the Tories in condemning a section of workers in this intractable and difficult problem he will only inflame the situation? Will he accept from me that, as the Prime Minister has already said, these people are entitled to a bigger wage? Therefore, will he not make them a much bigger offer in order to get them back to work? If we could wave a magic wand and get them all back now, the same problem would remain and they would be out again very shortly.
Mr. Ennals: I certainly never vie with Members of the Opposition in making criticisms of those who work in the National Health Service. I believe that the vast majority of those, including those taking industrial action, are responsible. Those whom I have condemned are those who are not providing emergency services. I believe that my task here is to ensure that the truth is known. Some of the allegations made by Opposition Members are not correct. On the question of pay, discussions have been proceeding this week in the hope that a settlement can be found. Of course, these are matters of concern. They must be dealt with properly through the Whitley Council machinery, and this is what is being done.
Mr. Scott: Is the Secretary of State aware that the country will be shocked at his complacency? This strike is not being contained; it is spreading at an alarming rate. Is he aware that the country will regard with revulsion the use of sick children as a lever in order to pursue industrial action? Those who are taking this irresponsible action, in particular those who respond to queries about essential supplies by saying "What code of practice?" are digging the grave of a decent society.
Mr. Ennals: There has been no indication at all that I have been complacent. I have sought throughout, first, to prevent industrial action, and now to ensure that it is effectively contained. Nationally, the unions have co-operated in trying to ensure that industrial action is kept within tolerable limits. Whenever there have been immediate and urgent problems, I have
1676
sought to bring pressure to bear and to try to ease situations quickly. The hon. Gentleman knows the position that I and all my colleagues have taken about irresponsible action which can damage the lives of children or any patients who depend on the National Health Service.
Mr. Penhaligon: How many times has the Secretary of State made that statement to the House in the past three weeks? What advantage has he obtained from the previous meetings he has held with the unions? What advantage does he expect to obtain from this one? If the advantage is zero, what does he intend to do?
Mr. Ennals: Since yesterday we have a code of practice that has been worked out by the unions to try to ensure that minimum damage is done as a result of the industrial action that has been embarked upon. That was an important step forward. Our task is to seek to bring this industrial dispute to an end. In the meantime, as long as there is industrial action it is the task of Government and of the unions, who instituted the action, to keep it within tolerable limits. That is what they are trying to do.
Mr. Molloy: Is my right hon. Friend aware that while there are some hard extremists in the trade union movement, many of them quote references from speeches of Conservative Members in support of their claim? Also, is he aware that the leader of the ambulance men in West London wants nothing to do with the Labour Party because he says that the majority of his members are supporters of the Tory Party? It is about time the Leader of the Opposition got in touch with some of her Tory trade unionists, who are right in the middle of breaking the rules in COHSE, and asked them to behave in a proper and civilised manner—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's question was to the Secretary of State.
Mr. Ennals: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. If the Leader of the Opposition and her right hon. and hon. Friends would use what influence they have in order to advise restraint and moderation and to try to ensure there is order, it

1677
would be better than some of the exaggeration and condemnation that we have heard from the Floor of the House.
Mr. Crouch: Will the Secretary of State use such influence as he has now to carry out what he has just said—that he and the Government will not tolerate this action by militant minorities in the Health Service? Will he demonstrate not only that Parliament will be supreme in this matter but that the Government will be supreme and will ensure that the sick are not put at risk?
Mr. Ennals: That is precisely what the Government seek to do. We have a situation in which union leaders have come together with responsibility and worked out a code of practice and guidance for their own members. It is only fair to see how this works. In the meantime, we should use all our influence to ensure that both lines of guidance that help to provide emergency services and services for the elderly are properly carried out.
Mr. Crawford: Will the Secretary of State tell the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is a serious situation at Ninewells hospital, in Dundee, where a five-day all-out strike has been begun by ancillary workers? This will have serious repercussions throughout Tayside. Is this not the final example of man's inhumanity to man?
Mr. Ennals: The Secretary of State for Scotland is aware of that situation and is doing what he can.
Mr. Orbach: Is my right hon. Friend aware that although he said that Westminster hospital was one of those that had closed, as did The Daily Telegraph this morning, I have just returned from Westminster hospital in the last quarter of an hour? I had a full examination which began at two o'clock. [HON. MEMBERS: "By volunteers."] Not by volunteers. I was seen by consultants and nurses and was looked after in the pharmaceutical department. I was very happy with what happened to me at Westminster hospital. I hope that the Secretary of State will realise the provocation that is being caused by Opposition Members, who should be helping us to deal with this matter.
Mr. Ennals: I am glad that my hon. Friend had good treatment at Westminster hospital, as I did in the middle of last year. It is true that those who are able to go to that hospital can get treatment, but it is also true that, on the whole, admissions are now being turned down. Generally, even emergency cases are not able to be accepted, but, as my hon. Friend says, it is not closed. This is one example of the way in which exaggeration can do great harm to the National Health Service and to those who work in it.
Mr. Blaker: Does the Secretary of State recall saying earlier this week that it is difficult to draw the line between urgent and emergency cases, on the one hand, and those in which delay would be harmless? Does he really think that there are many cases in which delay will be harmless? Does he recognise that this point is particularly important in areas such as mine, where there is a high proportion of old people?
Mr. Ennals: I have no doubt at all that where a hospital is down to emergency treatment only and people who would otherwise have gone in for treatment, either as in-patients or as outpatients, are for any reason unable to get to the out-patients department, inevitably a delay is likely to be damaging. One cannot get away from that. However, we ought to look at what the unions have said, namely, that
"Services in relation to cardiac, dialysis, cancer, intensive care and accident and emergency patients and children must be fully maintained at all times."
They have said that
"No services should be reduced to a level where satisfactory cover cannot be maintained in respect of emergency and high-dependency patients; in particular, delivery and distribution of drugs, oxygen and fuel must not be impeded."
Mr. Pavitt: Whilst I do not minimise the present difficulties within the NHS, may I ask my right hon. Friend to accept that there are more than 1 million employees involved in the various sectors of the Service, 500,000 beds in our hospitals and thousands of children at being successfully treated in of the difficulties? Is it not deplorable that political capital should be made out of the very positive difficulty that arises and that, particularly

1679
in the West Midlands, doctors with a political bias can use their waiting lists as a weapon against the trade unions?
Mr. Ennals: I deplore the way in which some situations, be they in the Midlands, London or elsewhere, have been used for party-political purposes. This is deplorable and it is very damaging to the Service. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Although in many parts of the country emergency services have been held up, patients are being dealt with with great care and great sincerity by those who work for the NHS. Therefore, we must express appreciation to all those in the Service who are doing their best, now under very difficult circumstances, to retain services.
Mr. Eyre: In view of the dire situation in Birmingham, will the Minister undertake to publish within half an hour the precise details of the code of conduct? Will he call upon trade union leaders to undertake that members of their unions who do not observe their code of practice will immediately lose their union membership?
Mr. Ennals: The last matter is not for me. However, the code of conduct has already been published, and I shall ensure that it is made immediately available to the public, to the press and to everyone within half an hour.
Mr. Roper: My right hon. Friend has referred to the stores strike at Bolton, in my constituency, which is causing very great concern. Can he tell me of anything that has been done to deal with this disturbing situation?
Mr. Ennals: There have been discussions during the course of today to deal with the situation, which is very disturbing. Equally, local management involved in these discussions with the unions knows that if it wants to raise this at a national level and involve the national officers of the trade unions, we are immediately ready for that to be done.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Will the Secretary of State take a slightly more robust attitude about voluntary workers, as compared with that of the Prime Minister? Will he admit to the House that decisions in these matters cannot be fobbed off on to management committees because they are policy decisions which should be
1680
made centrally if the NHS is to remain national? If the right hon. Gentleman is too timid to persuade management committees that are terrified of their unions to allow voluntary workers to work in hospitals on hospital work, will he at least try to persuade such committees to allow voluntary workers to continue to do the work that has always been done by them, such as running Red Cross libraries and hospital shops, and not be turned back by the picket lines for doing work that they have always done, even when the NHS was fully operational?
Mr. Ennals: I do not think that much is served by a competition in robustness. It is very easy to devise words of condemnation as though we were competing with each other, so I shall not seek to vie. I think that the right hon. Gentleman knows, from statements that I have made time after time to this House, where I stand in regard to industrial relations in the NHS.
On the question of management, I had the opportunity this weekend of discussing with chairmen of all the regional health authorities the best way in which they could respond to this very difficult situation. What they said—I believe that it was right—is that management must respond in the ways that are best to meet local situations. They were not wanting national edicts about what should be done, because almost every situation is different, and it is they themselves who want to have the opportunity of taking those decisions. They do not want to be told precisely what to do from London.
Mr. David Young: In view of the stores strike at Bolton, to which the Minister previously referred, and because many of these hospitals were in a near-derelict condition before the dispute began—indeed, before the present Government took office—will he keep hon. Members concerned informed of the situation as it develops?
Mr. Ennals: I promise that before the end of the day I shall inform both of my hon. Friends who have asked questions about the stores strike of the exact situation. I shall keep my hon. Friend in touch.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call three more Members on each side of the House.
Mr. Graham Page: Is the Secretary of State aware that when a number of my constituents offered their voluntary help to the hospital authorities—both district and regional authorities—they were refused? They were turned away, because the authorities said that they had no instructions and no directions. They also applied to the emergency committee, the Government's regional committee, and received the same discouragement. Is there a deliberate refusal of voluntary help because of a fright of the unions?
Mr. Ennals: The work of our hospitals the year round benefits greatly from volunteers, who do an enormous amount that adds to the humanity and warmth of the care of patients. Volunteers are still working in the Health Service. In some situations where there has been a breakdown of emergency services, they have responded to calls to help. I think that whenever a call goes out to volunteers, they will respond. Of course there is no opposition from the Government side to the normal work that volunteers can do in a hospital. What is not right is that they should seek to do professional tasks which are carried out by others in the hospital.
Mr. Buchan: Does my right hon. Friend agree that if society is asserting that certain groups of workers should not come out on strike, society must face that problem and create the wages and conditions under which they are not compelled to come out on strike? Do not two things follow from that? First, the whole country would welcome and accept an immediate substantial payment towards the low-paid public service workers as a means of returning to sanity in the incomes policy position in this country. Secondly, will my right hon. Friend consider the kind of agreement that was made last year with a similar group, the firemen's union, on a link basis, to give us a long-term solution? Will my right hon. Friend try acting on those two propositions?
Mr. Ennals: Certainly this period of industrial dispute and the inevitable damage that it does to the NHS must cause us to reflect on the way in which those who work in the Service can use the strike weapon, or the weapon of industrial action, for the purpose of wage bargain
1682
ing. These questions must be reflected upon, perhaps with a little more coolness than we can expect in exchanges across the Floor of the House.
As regards the low-paid, my hon. Friend knows of the initiative taken by the Prime Minister, which is the point from which discussions have proceeded between those working in the NHS, particularly the NHS ancillaries, to see whether we can find a basis of a settlement, recognising the points made by the Prime Minister.
Mr. Raison: Does not the Secretary of State understand that he and he alone is responsible for what happens in the NHS? Does he really contend that throughout the NHS over the last year there has not been a very strong sense of a complete vacuum of leadership, and does not he realise that everything that he has said today reinforces the impression of a vacuum?
Mr. Ennals: It would be extraordinary if we thought of the National Health Service as a sort of one-man band, in which the Secretary of State issued edicts from the Elephant and Castle as to how everything should be run throughout the regional health authorities and the area health authorities. That would be a nonsensical way of handling the Health Service. We have suffered enough from the reorganisation imposed upon the Service by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, and in the light of that experience we have to reflect pretty clearly on what lessons we can learn from the great damage done to the Service through the management structure imposed on it by the party opposite when in power.
Mr. Grocott: Does my right hon. Friend agree that one surprising benefit derived from the present difficulties is that there is now apparently unanimous agreement in the House that there is only one satisfactory way in which to deal with sick people, and that is by dealing first with those who are most sick, and so on, until we get to the end of the queue? If that is the case, will my right hon. Friend now take the Opposition at face value, if this indicates their conversion to this principle, and introduce legislation, which would have widespread support in the House, to abolish private practice and private medicine?
Mr. Ennals: I must say that I find it very difficult to take the Opposition at their face value. Therefore, it is difficult to proceed on the lines suggested by my hon. Friend.
Mr. William Clark: Is the Minister aware that his statement today will have given no comfort whatever to patients throughout the country—in fact, the very reverse? Will he, when he sees the official trade union leaders, suggest to them that the irresponsible minority, the small commissars throughout the country who are not paying attention to what the official trade union leadership is saying, should have their union cards taken away? Lastly, does the Minister realise that his complacency and sheer incompetence in running the Health Service call for only one thing, his resignation?
Mr. Ennals: That is easy, cheap stuff to throw across the Floor of the House.
I think it is true that the irresponsible minority who have taken action within the Health Service that has gone far beyond the guidelines and advice of their unions have not only endangered patients' welfare but have done great damage to the trade union movement itself. Some of them—I believe that it is a small and irresponsible minority—are challenging both the spirit of caring one for another within British society and the sense of brotherhood that is a basic element of our trade union movement.
Mr. George Rodgers: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the attitude of Opposition Members is in startling contrast to that displayed when the consultants were in dispute with his predecessors in power? Does he also agree that it is enormously difficult for the low-paid workers in the Health Service to get attention focused on their dispute without taking some action that is bound to cause offence and disturbance to some people? Finally, does he agree that in view of the merits and justice of their claim it would be better to settle it earlier rather than later?
Mr. Ennals: Naturally, I should like to see a settlement of this dispute as quickly as possible, and I said in the House the day before yesterday that I do not think—I regret this—that we can expect to see an end of the dispute until
1684
there has been a wage settlement, which I hope will be reached as soon as possible.
In answer to the first part of my hon. Friend's question, it is certainly true that there is a striking difference between the attitude taken by the Conservative Party to the action of the doctors, which did very great damage to the Health Service, and the attitude that they are taking now. I believe that we should condemn industrial action that does damage to the Health Service, whether it comes from doctors, nurses or anyone else who works in the Service.
Mr. Patrick Jenkin: Does the right hon. Gentleman recognise that that last statement was totally false? Does he not recollect that both I, on many occasions, and my predecessor the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) have repeatedly condemned strikes in the National Health Service wheresoever they occur, and that my hon. Friend's remarks were made with specific reference to the industrial action taken by doctors in 1975? Will the right hon. Gentleman withdraw that last statement, therefore?
Mr. Ennals: I welcome the statement now made by the right hon. Gentleman but if he is going to talk about irresponsible statements, I would refer to a question that was put to my right hon. Friend the Minister of State on Tuesday. I have a very long statement here alleging that I had made some statement in relation to a consultant in Birmingham. That is absolutely irresponsible. I made no statement in relation to the consultant in Birmingham; I simply published a statement that had been issued that day by the area health authority.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall saying a few minutes ago that you would take three more questions from either side, and quite rightly you recognised, following those six questions, the spokesman for the Opposition to seek specifically to deal with the matter that the Minister had put before the House. That, of course, was the exercise by you of your discretion, which I think everyone would support. But in those circumstances must it not be right, to protect the balance of the House, that when the spokesman for the Opposition speaks again at the Dispatch Box on a specific

1685
matter, he gets a specific answer? He did not get such an answer.
Mr. Speaker: I want to make it clear once again that when I tell the House that I will take two or three questions from either side I always exclude the Opposition Front Bench, because very often I have to call on the spokesman to ask the final question. That custom has now become well established.
Mr. Rost: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Hon. Members will have heard the Minister in his opening statement refer specifically to the Trent regional authority as one of the three most seriously affected areas. May I seek your guidance on how an hon. Member representing one of the constituencies in the East Midlands can catch your eye, because I do not think that any of us have been called upon?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that it is impossible, whoever sits in this Chair, to call everyone who is affected by the current dispute. It is an impossible position, and all I can do is my best.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: The notice announcing the private notice question that was in the Members' Lobby this afternoon was specific, in that it referred to the term "industrial action". Since the National Health Service is not an industry, and since there is a world of difference between action and obstruction, is there any way in which the House can be defended from this sort of misrepresentation, because clearly what we have been discussing this afternoon is social mutiny?
Mr. Speaker: I think that the hon. Gentleman ought to talk to his hon. Friend who tabled the question.

QUESTIONS TO THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. Pavitt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I seek your guidance on a question which from time to time we have had to deal with—the question of the transfer of questions for the Prime Minister. It is very well understood in this House that where a question clearly falls within the sphere of another Department it is quite proper for the Prime
1686
Minister to transfer it to the Secretary of State of the Department concerned. We now have a series of questions which are in order, and very few that escape that particular barrier, but when a question is put to the Prime Minister asking whether he, the Prime Minister, will meet a specific body within the country, if that question is transferred to, say, the Secretary of State for Education or Health, the answer is immediately given that the Secretary of State may well be prepared to meet the interests concerned. But the question is not posed to the Secretary of State, because the Secretary of State is already prepared to have that meeting. The question is put to the Prime Minister. Is it possible, therefore, for guidance to be given whether it is possible to put a question to the Prime Minister whether, in certain circumstances, he and not his departmental chief may be prepared to meet a certain section of the community?
Mr. Speaker: The House knows that I am not responsible when Ministers transfer questions. That has been explained many times. Perhaps I can repeat the advice that I gave earlier; the hon. Gentleman should have a word with his right hon. Friend.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mrs. Thatcher: May I ask the Lord President to state the business for next week?
The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The business for next week will be as follows:
MONDAY 5 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Vaccine Damage Payments Bill.
TUESDAY 6 FEBRUARY—Supply [6th alloted day]. There will be a debate on the disruption of the education services, on a motion for the Adjournment of the House.
The Chairman of Ways and Means has named opposed private business for consideration at Seven o'clock.
WEDNESDAY 7 FEBRUARY—Remaining stages of the Nurses, Midwives and Health Visitors Bill.

1687
THURSDAY 8 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Crown Agents Bill.
FRIDAY 9 FEBRUARY—Private Members' Bills.
MONDAY 12 FEBRUARY—Second Reading of the Credit Unions Bill.
Motion on EEC documents R/3185/78, R/3089/78, R/3090/78, R/3146/78, and R/3093/78 on the Communities budget.
Mrs. Thatcher: I should like to put three points to the Leader of the House. This is yet another week in which the right hon. Gentleman has failed to provide a day for hon. Members to discuss current disputes as they affect their constituencies. We all know from the many questions that have been asked that many hon. Members wish to have more time available to them properly to bring before Ministers the full effects of strikes on hospitals, schools or otherwise, and the lives of their constituents. Will he please provide a day? We have a half Supply day only and we are giving it for that purpose, but not once since Christmas have the Government provided a day.
Secondly, the EEC documents on the Communities budget are extremely important and will require at least a half day to discuss. I take it that it is the right hon. Gentleman's purpose to provide that half day and that, should the Second Reading of the Credit Unions Bill continue for longer than expected, he will provide extra time so that we shall have a full half day to discuss the Communities budget.
Thirdly, the right hon. Gentleman will know that there have been various statements today about the future of our defence contracts with Iran. Will he arrange for the Secretary of State for Defence to make a statement on that important subject?
Mr. Foot: I shall take the three matters raised by the right hon. Lady in reverse order.
On the last matter, concerning Iran, the Foreign Secretary will in any case be answering questions next week. I think that it is next week. But if it is thought desirable that he should make a special statement on this subject, I shall certainly consider any such representations. [Interruption.] I thought that it was next
1688
week. If I am wrong, in any case I have already said that if the House would like to have a special statement from the Foreign Secretary on this subject I shall certainly consider it.
The second matter related to the business on 12 February. It is our hope that there will be longer than an hour and a half to discuss those EEC documents. It is certainly hoped that it will be a considerable time, because we do not believe that it is likely or necessary that the Credit Unions Bill will take the whole of the time. If that does not prove to be the case, I agree with the right hon. Lady that we should on some occasion try to provide extra time. If we discover that we do not get the extra or necessary time on that Monday, we shall have to make some other arrangement.
On the first question, I fully understand the right hon. Lady's desire that the Government should provide time for these matters. If the House looks at the way in which we have dealt with these questions, as I said last week, it is evident that the House has had an opportunity of raising these matters. There will be further opportunities of raising them next week. I think that the House is adapting itself to deal with this situation in a sensible manner.
Mr. Stoddart: Will my right hon. Friend consider setting time aside for a debate on industrial relations and the future of wage bargaining? That might then give us an opportunity to find out and reconcile the conflicting and often absurd statements made by the Opposition, because they could perhaps tell us exactly how they would solve the present problems without the use of troops, bayonets, and so on.
Mr. Foot: I fully accept that the House might wish to have a further opportunity of discussing many of these questions. But this issue figured prominently in the debate last week, when the House of Commons confirmed its support for the Government's approach to the matter.
Sir Anthony Meyer: In view of the concern expressed by Opposition Members about the use of volunteers to maintain essential services, will the Lord President find time to debate early-day motion 209 standing in my name and the names of several of my right hon. and

1689
hon. Friends, calling for the establishment of a corps of volunteers, under the control of the Home Secretary, to ensure the maintenance of essential services threatened by natural disaster or industrial action?
[That this House calls for the establishment of a Civil Emergency Force under the control of the Home Secretary consisting of part-time volunteers with the necessary skills, or ready to undergo the necessary training, to ensure the maintenance of essential public services disrupted by natural disaster or industrial action.]
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise any early time to discuss the hon. Gentleman's suggestion.
Mrs. Bain: Will the Leader of the House clarify whether the Supply day debate on Tuesday will be wide enough to include the Scottish education service, where disruption is particularly worrying in view of the advanced time scale for its examination system?
Secondly, may I yet again ask whether the right hon. Gentleman envisages an early debate on the shipbuilding industry? Is he aware that since British Shipbuilders last week announced expected closures at Falmouth and Teesside there is a great deal of uncertainty throughout shipbuilding communities? Is not the best way to counteract rumour, speculation and denial for the House to have an early debate or at least a statement from the Department of Industry?
Mr. Foot: On the first matter, the subject is selected by the official Opposition. I should have thought that the questions that the hon. Lady wishes to raise would be in order during that debate.
On the second matter, I shall certainly consider whether it is desirable or necessary to have an early statement on the shipbuilding industry. I cannot promise it for next week, but I shall certainly look into the matter as the hon. Lady has raised it.
Mr. Spearing: Will the Lord President tell us whether the debate on the EEC budget on Monday week will be on a motion to take note? Will he also tell us which budget will be taken note of—the Council's or the Assembly's? Since
1690
they are in disagreement, is it not all the more important that we should have a motion setting out Ministers' duties concerning the Council? Will he also inform those of his hon. Friends who do not think that we should have such a motion that their action will be interpreted as wanting to send the power from this House to the EEC institutions?
Mr. Foot: On the first question, all these matters will be in order in the debate. As I have already indicated to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, we certainly envisage that there must be sufficient time to discuss the various aspects of the documents which will be before the House.
The second question, which my hon. Friend has raised on a number of occasions, I fully accept is an important matter that the House still has to resolve. The Procedure Committee has made a report on that subject. I hope that at a fairly early date we shall be able to debate that matter, too.
Mr. Andrew MacKay: Has the attention of the Leader of the House been drawn to early-day motion 212, which has been signed by 112 right hon. and hon. Members, referring to the statement made last Thursday by the Secretary of State for Social Services when he strongly criticised the director of radiotherapy at the Queen Elizabeth hospital, Birmingham? Bearing in mind that a few moments ago the Secretary of State denied that he made that statement, and as his Minister of State on Tuesday confirmed that he made it and strongly supported it, would it not be sensible to have the Secretary of State come to the House next week to make a statement so that he can, preferably, withdraw his remarks, which have done great harm to the National Health Service in Birmingham, and clarify matters to the House, because there has been considerable confusion all round?
[That this House regrets that the Secretary of State for Social Services is not prepared to withdraw his remarks dissociating himself from the Director of Radiotherapy at the Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham despite the fact that over 100 doctors and nurses at the hospital have confirmed Mr. William

1691
Bond was right to state that cancer patients' lives were at risk because they were sent home as a result of the National Union of Public Employee' action; further regrets this slur on Mr. Bond's professional reputation; and believes doctors rather than union officials know when patients' lives are at risk.]
Mr. Foot: I think that my right hon. Friend successfully disposed of that matter this afternoon. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] If Opposition Members wish to put down any further questions on the subject, the Order Paper is open to them.
Mr. Wigley: Will the Lord President, as a matter of urgency, find time to debate early-day motion 202, standing in the names of Labour, Liberal and Plaid Cymru Members, which relates to the use of the Local Government Act 1972 by Conservative groups on South Glamorgan and Gwent county councils to use ratepayers' money for political purposes?
[That this House deplores the proposed misuse of ratepayers' money by Gwent and South Glamorgan county councils who intend to spend it on literature advocating a 'No' vote in the referendum on the Welsh Assembly; supports the assertion by the Secretary of State for Wales that the use of the Local Government Act 1972 in this way is extremely dubious, and opens the door to possibilities of further misappropriation of funds; and calls on these two county councils to reconsider their unfortunate decisions and to leave the resolution of the Referendum to the good sense of the residents of their two counties.]
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a debate on the subject. However, it certainly seems a peculiar way to use ratepayers' money, and I think that the ratepayers might have something to say about it.
Mr. Rooker: May I draw the attention of my right hon. Friend to early-day motion 211?
[That this House does not believe that it was the intention of Parliament in passing the Social Security Pensions Act to deprive men and women of their jobs simply because they were forced to give their incorrect age to their employer in order to obtain employment; regards the intention of the Government to inform
1692
all employers of the age of those workers who have reached retirement age as an invasion of individual privacy which will cause untold human misery to the individuals and their families; and therefore calls upon the Government urgently to bring forward an Order amending employers' contribution payments before the end of the current financial year so that this information is not divulged and to include arrangements for any such worker who wishes to remain at work to continue to pay national insurance contributions without extra benefit or refund.]
Will he give time to debate that matter next week in order that the House may decide whether it was the intention in 1975 to pass an Act which this year will give the Government power to tell employers in this country the ages of their employees? If so, people who in the past have had to tell fibs about their ages in order to get jobs will face a difficult problem this year if they reach genuine retirement age, because they will be forced out of their jobs. The reason why they were forced to tell fibs in the first place was the result of the age discrimination practised by this society on people over the ages of 40 or 50 who found difficulty in getting jobs.
Mr. Foot: I accept everything that my hon. Friend says on the subject. I agree that it is a question that the House might wish to raise and discuss. I know that my hon. Friend says that time is short, but he is an extremely ingenious Member and I should be surprised if he did not find a further opportunity of raising the subject.
Mr. Rost: I believe that the Leader of the House is ducking his responsibilities in the most disgraceful way by failing to provide at least one day—preferably two—of Government time to discuss the increasing chaos from which the nation is suffering. Has the Leader of the House not noticed that there has now been more than one month of increasing shambles and that every statement has had to be squeezed and bullied out of Ministers on the Front Bench? No Minister has volunteered to make a statement about anything. It is time that the Leader of the House stopped ducking his responsibilities and allowed us a proper debate.
Mr. Foot: The hon. Gentleman has just made a totally false statement. If

1693
anyone outside this House is inclined to believe him—I do not suppose that there are many who will—it will be misleading and injurious to the reputation of the House. My hon. and right hon. Friends volunteered statements on a series of occasions during the past two or three weeks. Statements have been made in answer to private notice questions but more generally Ministers have volunteered statements—for example, the statements made day after day by my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food that have served the House extremely well. The troubles are serious and the House wishes to be informed of them. Anybody who believes that the House has not been so informed cannot have been applying his mind properly to the business of the House.
Mr. William Hamilton: May I make a novel suggestion to my right hon. Friend? Will he arrange, as quickly as possible, preferably next week, an early debate on the problems of the low-paid in juxtaposition with a debate on the Peachey Corporation? That would show the greed, venal deceit and corruption in the City, as represented by the Tory Party, as against the problems of the poor, with which the Government are most concerned.
Mr. Foot: I am not sure about the juxtaposition of debates. It is a matter of interest that during the whole of the period the only demands made upon myself and the Government for discussions and answers about the low-paid have come from Labour Memers. The Government are fully aware of the serious concern that hon. Members feel for the low-paid. We shall continue to put our minds to the subject. A debate may be held at some stage on the subject, although it did enter into recent debates.
Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Is the Lord President aware that it is well over two years since the annual Welsh day debate was held? Has he abandoned the practice of holding that debate? Is he further aware that many of the services that are the responsibility of the Secretary of State for Wales have been badly disrupted by the present industrial disputes? Will he therefore arrange for his right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State
1694
for Wales to make a statement to the House next week, so that we may have the opportunity of questioning him?
Mr. Foot: I will examine the last suggestion made by the hon. Gentleman. No proposition has been put forward for abandoning the Welsh day debate, and none would be accepted. I am glad to see the hon. Gentleman taking an interest in Wales. I hope that he will vote "Yes" at the referendum and assist the Government.
Mr. Raphael Tuck: Has my right hon. Friend seen early-day motion 187?
[That this House is strongly of the opinion that films which are categorised as 'X' films at cinemas and which it is prohibited to show to persons under the age of 18 years should not be shown on television.]
The motion seeks to stop the showing on television of films of sex and violence that are regarded as unsuitable for cinema showing to persons under the age of 18. The motion has been signed by 119 right hon. and hon. Members from all parties in the House who are concerned about the evils that the showing of these films may bring. Will the Leader of the House give us an early date in order that the matter can be debated?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise a date, although the number of Members who have signed the motion shows that there is considerable interest in the matter. It is a question for the broadcasting authorities, and if the House wishes to alter their decision there will have to be a debate. There are other opportunities for raising debates. Private Members have extensive rights and I believe this to be a suitable proposition for the use of those rights.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Is the Leader of the House aware that the main anxiety felt on Iran is not only the safety of British citizens but the potential large-scale loss of exports and jobs? Will he therefore reconsider whether it is appropriate for the Foreign Secretary to make a statement as requested by my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition? I believe that it would be better for the Secretary of State for Defence or one of the Industry Ministers to make such a statement. The matter is urgent, and

1695
I hope that a statement will be forth-coming next week.
Mr. Foot: I accept the urgency of a statement. However, I have a sense of priorities and I must give prior consideration to the request of the right hon. Lady.
Mr. Christopher Price: Has my right hon. Friend studied the House of Lords' judgment that appeared this morning exonerating the magazines and newspapers that printed the name of Colonel Johnstone last year? The judgment found against the Attorney-General, at considerable cost to the taxpayer. Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the judgment is an excuse for the Committee of Privileges to get on quickly with its deliberations, so that we can have a debate to clear up the matter?
Mr. Foot: I have not yet had the opportunity of studying the judgment of the House of Lords; therefore, it would be wrong for me to comment upon it. I do not believe that while a Committee of this House is sitting I should comment upon the speed or slowness with which it conducts its affairs.
Mr. Aitken: Does the Lord President recall that under the terms of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1976 the Government are currently preparing to bring in a statutory code of conduct that will deal largely with trade union matters that appear in the press? Does he believe that higher priority should be placed on statutory codes of conduct for picketing, including picketing in the National Health Service?
Mr. Foot: I recall the debates when the hon. Gentleman raised those matters. However, I am doubtful whether the second question that he raises can be dealt with satisfactorily by statutory means.
Miss Richardson: Now that the Home Secretary is looking urgently into the practice revealed by the case of the Indian lady who arrived at London airport to be subjected to an examination to discover whether she was virgo intacta—[Interruption.] This is not a laughing matter. When the Home Secretary is ready to report, will the Leader of the House find time for a discussion so that the House may let its feeling be known on this degrading practice?
Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend that this is no laughing matter. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister indicated that the Home Secretary is now urgently studying the report. I agree with the sentiments expressed by my hon. Friend but I do not know whether there should be a debate.
Mr. Marten: I do not believe that the Leader of the House is aware that the EEC documents that are to be debated on Monday week are of fundamental constitutional and financial importance. I believe that shovelling them on after a Bill about credit union is not treating the Common Market with the respect that it deserves. Will he therefore bring the debate on as first Order of the Day, as the Bill is not of great importance?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise to do that, but I acknowledge the importance of the matter. The House will want time to discuss it. If we find that there is insufficient time under the proposed arrangements, we shall re-examine the matter.
Mr. Heffer: Together with other hon. Members from Merseyside, I have been requesting for a considerable time a discussion on the Floor of this Chamber on the problems of Merseyside. In view of the fact that there are now 100,000 unemployed on Merseyside, 2,500 declared redundancies at Dunlop, and another 1,000 at Plessey today, and in view of the fact that most of these are private enterprise companies, is it not time for the Government to bring a great deal of pressure to bear, through the National Enterprise Board, so that something may be done about these problems?
Does my right hon. Friend agree that we should have an early debate so that the subject can be discussed in depth? If it cannot be done immediately, could it not be done in the week when we are due to have a recess as a result of nonsense such as the referendums in Scotland and Wales, especially as there are real problems in areas such as Merseyside which need the fullest discussion?
Mr. Foot: I agree with my hon. Friend that the position on Merseyside is very serious. I fully appreciate his reasons for expressing his concern. I cannot make any promise about an early debate on the subject, but I shall look into his representations. There are other parts of the

1697
country which have similar claims, although I am not in any way seeking to diminish the significance of the problems on Merseyside.
Mr. Blaker: It is quite right that Ministers should regularly make statements in the House about the industrial disputes that we are suffering, but does not the Leader of the House realise that that is not enough? What is required is a debate, preferably over two days, so that Back Benchers can ventilate and properly debate the anxieties and difficulties of their constituents. The right hon. Gentleman used to have a reputation as a defender of the rights of Back Benchers. Would it not be nice if he did something to recapture that reputation?
Mr. Foot: In reply to an earlier Opposition suggestion to the effect that the Government had not volunteered statements, I tried to correct that impression, because it is completely false. The Government, throughout the whole of this period, have never been backward in ensuring that the fullest information was given to the House. It is perfectly natural that the right hon. Lady and other Opposition Members should press for the Government to provide time. Even so, it is quite wrong for the impression to be given that the House of Commons has not had full opportunities to debate this matter. We had a full debate last week, on a motion chosen by the Opposition. The House of Commons repudiated the Opposition's view and upheld the view of the Government.
Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I propose to call those hon. Members who have already risen. Mr. Cryer.
Mr. Cryer: Will my right hon. Friend clarify his previous answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) concerning a debate on the Peachey report? My right hon. Friend did not indicate whether he was prepared to make time available. The report exposes the seamy side of capitalism and exposes shortcomings in company law.
As the Companies Bill is going through the House, is not an early opportunity for debating this report necessary,
1698
in order that we can put through legislation to stop the kind of behaviour, which has outraged all decent people throughout the country? Will my right hon. Friend accept that there are many company reports which are gathering dust, which have never been debated, and which this House should examine in detail?
Mr. Foot: There are such reports. I am not sure whether any of the issues raised in the Peachey report could be dealt with by any amendment of the Companies Bill that is now going through the House. It is obviously a matter that will be studied both in Committee and on Report. This is an illustration of the way in which the House of Commons provides many opportunities for raising such questions.
Mr. Michael Latham: Are we to have a debate on the public expenditure White Paper soon, or are the Government waiting until they have announced their further cuts?
Mr. Foot: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is eager to hear the Expenditure Committee's comments. I am sure that he is as much on tenterhooks as I am to hear what the Committee has to say. It might be regarded as discourteous if we were to have the debate before we had the report of the Committee.
Mr. Grocott: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the very important White Paper dealing with local government's organic change. In view of the tremendous effects that this would have on very many people who work in local government, and that it is the first time that we have had an opportunity to put right the damage to ratepayers inflicted by the Conservative Government's reorganisation of local government, will he agree that we should debate this very important subject very soon?
Mr. Foot: I cannot promise it very soon, but I fully accept that the proposal made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is one of major importance for ensuring a restoration of democratic rights which were taken away by the Conservative Party. My own city of Plymouth had essential rights taken away by the Conservative Party. It is eager to get them back. I am glad to say that this is going

1699
ahead. I should be happy to have such a debate and, indeed, to participate in it if I had a chance to be called.
Mr. Steen: I assume that the Lord President has seen early-day motion 217, entitled "Embalming of Dead Bodies", in my name and in the names of a number of my hon. Friends.
[That this House believes that the death grant should be temporarily raised by at least a further £18 to meet the additional costs to relatives of deceased persons for embalming bodies which cannot be buried or cremated as a result of the current strike of grave diggers and crematorium operators.]
Is he aware that today in Liverpool there are 278 corpses unburied and that, because of the risk of deterioration, the family of each of the deceased is having to pay at least £18 for an embalming process? Will the Lord President ensure that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services comes to the House and tells the House whether, as he pays out benefits to strikers' families, he will pay out a special embalming fee to the family of each deceased?
Mr. Foot: I do not think that the method suggested by the hon. Gentleman is the best way to deal with the subject. The whole House listened most carefully to what was said yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, and I think that he will be coming to the House to make a further statement on the subject. He has stressed to the House and to the whole country the seriousness with which the Government view the position.
Mr. Skinner: Will my right hon. Friend reconsider his remarks about the need for a debate on the Peachey report, taking into account that many of us would like to know just who organised the parties at No. 10? We all understand that there are such things as bottle parties, but it is quite another thing to have people dragging cases of champagne behind them when they go to these functions.
Would it not also be appropriate to give an opportunity to the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) to come to the House and explain his role in the affair—
Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) knows that criticism of another hon. Member—[Interruption.] It sounded to me very much like criticism. It did not sound like a compliment, at any rate. The hon. Member suggested that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) might come to the House to explain. I think that those were the words. Hon. Members may express criticism of the personal conduct of another hon. Member only on the basis of a motion before the House
Mr. Skinner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, so that the right hon. Gentleman can come and explain his role in the affair—
Mr. Speaker: Order. I will not repeat that the hon. Gentleman is not to cast a reflection by implication upon any right hon. or hon. Member of the House
Mr. Skinner: The point has to be made, Mr. Speaker, that if there has been any reflection cast upon the right hon. Gentleman initially, it has been done by the authors of the Peachey report, and I am suggesting that an opportunity should be given to him to come along—
Mr. Speaker: Order: The hon. Gentleman will resume his seat. Mr. Grylls.
Mr. Grylls: May I draw the attention of the Leader of the House to early-day motion 175, signed by hon. Members of all parties, asking the Secretary of State for Industry to publish British Shipbuilders' corporate plan?
[That this House calls on the Government to place in the Library of the House a copy of British Shipbuilders' Corporate Plan.]
It is a matter of immense importance to hon. Members in every part of the House, as it concerns the future employment in and size of the industry. Will he arrange for a debate on this very important matter?
Mr. Foot: I have already replied to a question on this matter. The British Shipbuilders' corporate plan was received at the end of December and is now being carefully examined. The plan contains commercially confidential material and cannot, as such, be made public. My right hon. Friend will, however, be considering,

1701
as part of his review of the plan, what information can be made available to the House. I have already indicated that I shall see how soon that statement can be made.
Mr. Loyden: Returning to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) on the question of a debate on Merseyside or North-West unemployment, does my right hon. Friend agree that as most firms to which he referred are in the private sector—and the National Enterprise Board was set up for the purpose of assisting in those situations where private sector industry had failed—we should now review the role of the NEB? Now that there is an amending Bill before the House, could we not take the opportunity to discuss the role of the NEB in the problems of regional unemployment?
Mr. Foot: I shall fully take into account what was said by my hon. Friends. It is highly desirable that further measures should be taken to deal with the extremely serious unemployment situation in Liverpool. However, considerable measures have been taken by the Government already and considerable amounts of public money have been devoted to that purpose. That does not mean to say that there is not much more to be done. My hon. Friend must appreciate that a considerable amount has been done already.
Mr. St. John-Stevas: With reference to my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), is the Leader of the House aware that, unfortunately, my right hon. Friend is unwell and in hospital? I am sure that we all wish him a speedy recovery.
As to the Peachey report, would it not be prudent to remember the old adage that people in glass houses should not throw stones?
Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) began his question by indicating a reference to No. 10. He was not drawn to order for that. An hon. Gentleman has just made another reflection upon the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson). He was not drawn to order for
1702
that. Surely justice in this House should be even-handed.
Mr. Speaker: It should be, I quite agree. However, the hon. Gentleman should be factually correct. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) did not, in my hearing, mention No. 10. He referred to bottles of champagne. No name was mentioned. I waited until a name of a right hon. Member of the House was mentioned. I would have done the same for anyone, as the House knows.
Mr. Molloy: May I ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House if he would reconsider the request from the Leader of the Opposition and other members of the Opposition that we should debate the current situation of the lower-paid workers in local goverment and the hospital services? As we understand it from speeches from Opposition Members, if there is any settlement that might result in an increase of wages the Opposition will oppose it, as it will increase rates. If the Government give a subsidy, that will increase taxes. The Opposition appear to have no solution. If there were a debate, we could gain some idea of what precisely the Opposition mean. At one time they do not seem to mind increases for local government workers as long as there is no increase in rates and as long as the Government do not give any subsidy or increase taxes. We want to know what other miracle the Opposition have in mind.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friend is mistaken in this. I have not received any request from the Opposition for a debate on the low-paid. I have heard from them only on the subject of what was said by the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe) in the debate last week, when he flatly turned down even the proposal for the £3·50.
Mr. Brooke: I entirely understand that you, Mr. Speaker, were not able to accord us a debate on the refuse situation in South Westminster earlier this week. However, would the Leader of the House ensure that the Departments of his Government make a small substitute contribution to the solution of the problem by moving their garbage to the Westminster emergency dumps, like all other ratepayers?
Mr. Ron Thomas: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Department of Trade report into Peachey indicated examples of more being spent in one night on champagne than an ambulance worker can earn in a year? Does he accept that there are many Government supporters who are appalled and outraged by this report? We believe that there should be a debate and that any Members of Parliament who have been involved should explain how they became involved.
Mr. Foot: I understand what my hon. Friend is saying. However, I cannot promise an early debate on the subject.
Mr. Canavan: Will the Leader of the House reconsider what he said? It would be ideal to give the House the opportunity to discuss the need for a better, stricter code of conduct for Members of Parliament and Ministers. The revelations in the report about the free gift schemes for certain Members of Parliament, including former Ministers, is in danger of bringing Parliament into disrepute, especially at a time when the trade unions are under attack for defending the rights of low-paid workers, many of whom earn less in one year than the amount that was spent on one extravagant champagne junket at No. 10 Downing Street.
Mr. Foot: My hon. Friends and others may wish to debate that and other aspects of the report. However, I cannot offer the immediate prospect of a debate on the subject. Some aspects of the report no doubt arise in other fields as well, as was indicated by my hon. Friend who originally raised the matter.

PUBLIC SERVICES (INDUSTRIAL DISPUTE)
Mr. Cormack: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"the effects of the current industrial unrest, in particular on hospital patients and on burial, cremation and other local authority facilities".
Since yesterday, Mr. Speaker, when I made a similar application in respect of the crisis in the National Health Service, the situation has become even more acute. It is now even more essential that we should have a debate. I submit that its scope should be widened beyond what I suggested yesterday.
In spite of the statement made by the Secretary of State for the Environment, it appears that the appalling situation resulting from the action of certain gravediggers and crematoria workers has deteriorated. During the past few hours news has come through of an extension of the dispute in the public services in Scotland and increased industrial activity by school caretakers.
I am sure that most hon. Members will agree that the matter that deserves the greatest and most urgent attention is that arising from nationwide unrest in the National Health Service. In spite of attempts to agree a code of practice to alleviate the results of that unrest, there are more and more acute cases of real distress. Since I have been in the House this afternoon I have been handed a copy of the code of practice, which indicates clearly that services for children must be fully maintained at all times. At the same time I have been informed that NUPE has called a 24-hour all-out strike at Great Ormond Street children's hospital. That one example illustrates the need for the debate.
I submit that in the distress and discomfort of hospital patients and their relatives, in the anguish of the bereaved and in the anxiety of those who see more and more of the services upon which civilised living depends being threatened, we have a chorus of protest that we cannot and should not ignore.

1705
I know the constraints under which you have to operate, Mr. Speaker, and I appreciate the significance of the business before the House. However, Mr. Speaker, I hope that you will feel that the matters to which I have referred—especially the example of the Great Ormond Street strike—justify an immediate debate before the weekend.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) has repeated the application that he submitted to the House yesterday. His application today is in wider terms, referring to
"the effects of the current industrial unrest, in particular on hospital patients and on burial, cremation and other local authority facilities".
Yesterday I told the hon. Gentleman that I could not grant his application. I used the words "this day". I have spent a great deal of time today considering the matter anxiously. I believe that the best way in which I can serve the House, having listened to the exchanges and having listened with especial care to the hon. Gentleman's submissions about what is happening in the country, is to follow the course that I took a fortnight ago on the lorry drivers' strike and to say that if the hon. Gentleman will make his submission on Monday, and if I believe that the circumstances warrant an emergency debate, the debate will take place at seven o'clock on Monday night.
I inform the House that in addition to the application that has just been made I have received notices of application under Standing Order No. 9 from eight other hon. Members—namely, the hon. Members for Chester-le-Street (Mr. Radice), Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker), Edinburgh, North (Mr. Fletcher), Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Sir W. Elliott), City of London and Westminster, South (Mr. Brooke), Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. Eyre), Kensington (Sir B. Rhys Williams) and Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley).
All the applications relate to different aspects of the same general situation described by the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South-West, with whose application I have just dealt. They may all be covered in debate if and when an emergency debate is granted.
1706
I recognise the pressures that all hon. Members have to take into account during a period of widespread industrial unrest. I recognise the pressures from their constituencies. However, I hope very much that hon. Members will be prepared to exercise restraint in the interests of the House and will not follow up applications under Standing Order No. 9 when they know that they will receive only the same answer as I have already given.
Mr. Alexander Fletcher: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With respect, I agree with you about applications under Standing Order No. 9. As you know, the Secretary of State for Scotland has wide-ranging responsibilities. It would be helpful if, instead of trying to get in on statements made on almost a daily basis by other departmental Ministers, you were to see your way to consider an application under Standing Order No. 9 on the serious situation facing local government and other services in Scotland.
Mr. Speaker: Certainly. I take into account what the hon. Gentleman has said. I am deeply grateful to him and his colleagues on both sides of the House, who, I believe, have acted in the best interests of the House.
Rev. Ian Paisley: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sorry that you thought that the application that I was to make today had anything to do with the matter that will be debated on Monday. My application has nothing to do with that situation. It relates to a matter relevant to the Royal Victoria hospital, Belfast.
Mr. Speaker: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I should have said that the hon. Gentleman's application was an exception. The others all relate to the crisis in the country.
Later—
Mr. Radice: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I respect your ruling on Standing Order No. 9, but you will be aware that my own Standing Order No. 9 submission was in slightly wider terms than the one we have just heard. If you call an a emergency debate on Monday, will you allow hon. Members to range widely over the disputes in the public services as a whole?
Mr. Speaker: If there is an emergency debate, it will be on the Adjournment. An Adjournment debate is always very wide.

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST
Rev. Ian Paisley: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
"that four patients admitted to the Royal Victoria hospital on 15 January died before they could get treatment in wards 10 and 11 because of deplorable overcrowded conditions".
The conditions have nothing to do with the present industrial unrest or with strikes among hospital workers. A top consultant surgeon at the Royal Victoria hospital issued a statement in which he described the present condition of the Royal Victoria hospital as
"outrageous and a discredit to any concept of modern medicine".
He gave as an example that on 15 January no beds were available in wards 10 and 11 and that of the 29 patients admitted four died before they could receive any treatment in those wards. That is a matter of great concern in Northern Ireland. I take this opportunity to raise it on the Floor of the House.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) gave me notice this morning that he would seek to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific
1708
and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration, namely,
"that four patients admitted to the Royal Victoria hospital on 15 January died before they could get treatment in wards 10 and 11 because of deplorable overcrowded conditions".
The hon. Gentleman has undoubtedly raised a serious matter. He knows, as the House knows, that under Standing Order No. 9 I am directed to take into account the several factors set out in the order but to give no reasons for my decision. The hon. Gentleman knows that I decide not whether the matter should be debated, but merely whether there should be an emergency debate tonight or on Monday. I regret that I cannot submit his application to the House.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, on the interruption of business at this day's sitting, any Amendment selected by Mr. Speaker to the Prime Minister's first Motion relating to Special Commission on Oil Sanctions (Joint Committee) may be moved, and Mr. Speaker shall thereupon put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the proceedings on the said Motion and any such Amendment, if not previously concluded, and shall then proceed to put forthwith any Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining Motions and any Amendments selected by Mr. Speaker which may be moved thereto.—[Mr. Michael Foot.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &C.
Ordered,
That the Nurses and Enrolled Nurses (Amendment) Rules Approval Instrument 1979 (S.I., 1979, No. 49) be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.—[Mr. Foot.]

ORDERS OF THE DAY

  RHODESIA (OIL SANCTIONS)
  5.2 p.m.
  The Attorney-General (Mr. S. C. Silkin): I beg to move,
  That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report.
  Mr. Speaker: Before the Attorney-General begins his speech, I should tell the House that I have selected the following amendments: amendment (a) in the name of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore); amendment (b) in the name of the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon); amendments (e) and (f) in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop); amendment (h) in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton); amendment (k) in the name of the hon. Member for Tiverton.
  It may assist the House if I explain the procedure that I suggest should be followed. When motions setting up Select Committees are moved in the House, they usually go through "on the nod". For that reason, the Questions on orders of reference, nominations and powers and so on are put en bloc to save time. But when such motions are debated, and more particularly, as today, when amendments have been selected, it is clear that the practice is to put a separate Question on each motion.
  I propose, however, that all the motions before us in this instance be debated together first, together with such amendments as I have selected, so that we may have a broad debate on the whole matter and discuss all the amendments and all the motions.
  At the conclusion of the debate tonight I shall, in accordance with the business of the House motion that has just been passed, put forthwith the separate Questions on each motion, calling first each Member whose amendment I have selected to move his amendment if he so
  1710
  wishes at the proper place in the motion concerned.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Might it not save individual hon. Members from seeking to catch your eye on a number of different occasions if all the amendments that you have decided to call were moved formally right at the beginning? In those circumstances hon. Members would need to speak only once, and could refer to any of the amendments they wanted. Otherwise, would it not be out of order for hon. Members who had caught your eye to refer to amendments that had not yet been moved?
  Mr. Speaker: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I think that it will help the House if we continue as I have suggested, and have a broad discussion, with hon. Members feeling free to refer to amendments that have not yet been moved but are on the Order Paper. It will make better sense for the whole of the House if the matter can be dealt with in that way. There will be an opportunity at 10 o'clock tonight for those who wish to divide on their amendments to do so.
  Mr. David Steel: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you clarify what you said about the Divisions? Will we take the motion, paragraph by paragraph, with the appropriate amendments, as we come to them, or will we deal with all the amendments first before coming to the motion?
  Mr. Speaker: The amendments come first, as is the custom of the House, and I shall put the Question "That the amendment be made". Then I shall put the motion, or the motion as amended, as the case may be, as the main Question. At the end of the day, we will all be very clear about it.
  The Attorney-General: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, for that indication of the procedure to be followed.
  During the debate on the Gracious Speech last November, two days were devoted to Rhodesia. An important aspect of that debate turned on the question of what, if any, further inquiry should follow the publication of the Bingham report. On behalf of the Government, it was repeatedly stated that the views expressed by right hon. and hon. Members

  1711
  would be studied and that the Government, following that study, would bring forward their proposals for consideration by the House. It was made clear that the issue was essentially one for Parliament.
  In that debate, my function was objectively to describe the possible choices so as to try to assist the House in weighing up their advantages and disadvantages. I believe that that process secured two benefits. First, the predominant view of the House became clear. It was that there should be a further inquiry and that it should be a parliamentary inquiry. Secondly, having fully deployed the pros and cons on that occasion, it is not necessary for me to repeat them today. I had expected that to be greeted with acclamation.
  Having accepted the predominant wish of the House for a parliamentary inquiry, the Government have been concerned to preserve, so far as practicable, the essential safeguards to which I referred in my speech in November. Indeed, the need for them was voiced by many others, both here and in another place.
  In December, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced the form of inquiry which the Government proposed in order to give effect to their assessment of the wishes of the House and of the need to preserve their safeguards. At the same time, he made it clear that the decision is for Parliament: to accept it, to reject it, or, subject to one important consideration, which I shall come to later, to amend it. The type of inquiry proposed, taking the form of what we have called a Special Commission, has now been on the Order Paper since we returned after the Christmas Recess. The House has had full opportunity to study it.
  In their report, Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray investigated in detail the way in which oil had reached Rhodesia since 1965. The task given to them, which they accomplished with scrupulous thoroughness, was to establish the facts and in particular those facts which suggested the leakage of oil through possible breaches of British sanctions legislation during the periods of two Labour Governments and one Conservative Government. The legislation was in force in all three periods.
  As I informed the House in November, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary has referred the Bingham report to
  1712
  the Director of Public Prosecutions. The Director at once arranged for a senior police officer to lead the investigation into the possible commission of criminal offences. I can tell the House that that investigation is proceeding with all practicable speed. But it was not Bingham's task to consider issues of political responsibility whether to Parliament or more generally. It is that to which the controversy was mostly directed in our debates.
  Some right hon. and hon. Members, and certainly most of those who spoke in another place, saw no need for a further inquiry and thought that it would be a useless exercise in raking over the ashes of the past. Many speakers pointed to the problems which such an inquiry could pose if it is to be effective. But the predominant feeling, certainly in this House, in the Government's judgment, was that the issue of responsibility should not be left to the historians. Both in Fairness to all who were involved, and to some who have been attacked, and so as to avoid any charge, however ill founded, of cover-up, the majority of those who spoke in this House expressed the view, and expressed it strongly, that responsibility should be investigated while the participants are still available to give their accounts.
  The Governent have taken account of those differing views. They have concluded that the exceptional nature of the events covered by the Bingham report and the importance of the questions raised by hon. Members justify the predominant feeling in this House in favour of a further inquiry. This is indeed consistent with the path of openness which has characterised the Government's whole approach to these events. The further inquiry proposed will be another step along the same path.
  As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said, the function of the proposed Special Commission will be mainly to make political judgments. But, in making these judgments, the inquiry must be as fair as is possible to all who were in some way concerned with the material events. It is, moreover, essential that the inquiry should not damage the processes of government or the interests of this country abroad. It is with these considerations in mind that the Government have decided to recommend the particular form of a

  1713
  Special Commission, with terms of reference concentrated on the major political issue, with a carefully devised procedure, and with members drawn from both Houses of Parliament.
  If these resolutions are carried, the Government's intention is to nominate two of my hon. Friends—I repeat, my "honourable" Friends. I cannot speak for other parties, which, of course, will make their own nominations. But I hope that what I have said will help to relieve the fears, at least of my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) and others, with regard to the Commission's composition.
  The terms of reference will, we believe, enable the Special Commission—
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify what the total size of the Commission will be? On 15 December, the Prime Minister said that the Commission would be composed of eight Members drawn from both Houses, sitting under the chairmanship of a Lord of Appeal. That could mean eight or nine. It could mean eight inclusive of the Chairman or eight exclusive of the Chairman. Will my right hon. and learned Friend clarify that point?
  The Attorney-General: The Government's hope is that the total number will be eight. Of course, it is a matter for the other place to pass a motion in relation to its part of the composition of this Special Commission.
  The terms of reference will, we believe, enable the Special Commission to concentrate upon the issue of political responsibility not dealt with by Bingham, and to avoid traversing again the ground already covered by Bingham. Equally, it will be able to avoid the areas of criminal investigation which are being conducted under the Director's guidance. Thus, it will be for the Commission to investigate the way in which successive Governments pursued the oil sanctions policy, and to do so as deeply as may be necessary in order to ascertain and report whether Parliament and Ministers were misled concerning that policy. If the Commission concludes that Parliament or Ministers were misled, whether intentionally or not, it will have the further task of seeking to determine the responsibility
  1714
  of those, whether Ministers, officials or persons outside Government, who were providing, or failing to provide, information.
  There is a strong consensus that any inquiry should be completed quickly. The Government believe that with those terms of reference the Special Commission should be able to carry out its investigation speedily. But it is also important that any inquiry should be effective. The Government believe that the powers and the procedure proposed for the Commission should enable it to reach effective conclusions. It will have the power to send for persons and papers.
  In an amendment which he may or may not move, the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) asks that that power should expressly extend to compel the attendance of Members of the House of Commons. Of course, it is true that the power as proposed in the Government's motion does not confer a power on the Commission itself to compel a Member of the House to attend. But I find it very hard to believe that any right hon. or hon. Member would be minded to decline an invitation to appear before the Commission if invited to do so. However, if that should happen, which I would regard as being a most unlikely and reprehensible action, the Commission could bring the matter to the House and the House would then be able to move the necessary motion. It is unusual to do in these circumstances what the hon. Member proposes. Therefore, I hope that the House will come to the conclusion that we can follow the normal precedent and that such an amendment will not be necessary.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: The right hon. and learned Gentleman suggested that the purpose of the inquiry would be to reach "effective conclusions". That is a most interesting concept. Can he give the House an idea of what an effective conclusion in this context might be?
  The Attorney-General: An effective conclusion will be to give to the House as full a report as is possible on the conclusions reached on the terms of reference of the Special Commission. No one could ask the Special Commission to do more than that, and the hon. Gentleman

  1715
  could not expect anyone to do better than that.
  Mr. John Lee: My right hon. and learned Friend was dealing with the question of compelling hon. Members to attend. The gravamen of his argument was that it was not necessary to provide for this now but that if a situation arose the matter would come back to the House for this power to be granted. Would not it be better to anticipate the situation? It may not be necessary, but it would certainly avoid a measure of delay if anyone proved to be obdurate.
  The Attorney-General: I do not think so. We are following the precedent which has been followed in countless inquiries of this kind, when it has not been thought necessary expressly to give the power to a Select Committee to call hon. Members before it. I do not know of any case—perhaps there have been some—where hon. Members have refused. I think that it would be undesirable to set a new precedent which would be liable to be followed in some other cases—perhaps not all—and would suggest that there was some particular reason for supposing that right hon. and hon. Members would in this case behave in a way that they do not normally do.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Since he has referred to my amendment, is the Attorney-General aware that this House ordered all its Members to enter into the Members' register any business interests that they might have in certain categories? To his knowledge, one right hon. Member has consistently refused to do so. With that knowledge, how can the right hon. and learned Gentleman assume that Members will automatically make themselves available when they are not ordered to do so by the House, when they do not necessarily comply with orders which the House has made?
  The Attorney-General: That is an entirely different matter. However, in a matter that all right hon. and hon. Members would regard as being as important as this one, they would not treat it in the same way as a single right hon. Gentleman has treated a matter that he clearly does not regard as being important. We
  1716
  ought to be able to leave it at that and assume that right hon. and hon. Members will act in an honourable way. In the last resort, however, as I have said, we have our remedy.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Will the right hon. Gentleman make it clear in the terms of reference that the question of the Beira patrol will be included? It is not clear in the terms of reference whether commercial activities are covered. Will the Attorney-General reaffirm to the House that the question of the Beira patrol, which ran for almost 10 years, will be referred to and that the rights and wrongs of a situation which incurred great expense will be considered.
  The Attorney-General: The terms of reference have been drafted in a way that will enable them to be construed by the Special Commission as widely as possible. It is for the Commission to decide, though I would have thought that the Beira patrol was part of the oil sanctions story. It is a matter for the Special Commission to decide whether that matter falls within the scope of those issues which it regards as being relevant and important to investigate.
  Mr. Clemitson: On the question of attendance of witnesses, in his statement of 15 December my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister referred to the precedent of the Dardanelles Commission. That Commission and the Commission on Mesopotamia were set up by Act of Parliament. Section 21 of that Act specifically says that the Commissioners shall have all such powers, rights and privileges as are vested in the High Court or in any judge thereof and talks about enforcing the attendance of witnesses and examining them on oath, affirmation or otherwise.
  The Attorney-General: Of course, if we had decided that we required a statutory type of inquiry we would have set it up, by a resolution of both Houses, under the Tribunals and Inquiries Act. Provisions of a similar kind are already incorporated into that Act, and the Act would have applied. But this is a parliamentary inquiry, where we are making our own rules, and so far as possible the Government propose to follow the ordinary rules in inquiries of this kind. Therefore, the particular requirement to which

  1717
  my hon. Friend referred is one that is not necessary. I hope that the House will accept that and leave it there.
  I have said that the House will have the power to send for persons and papers and it may be that the papers will be more important than the persons in this context. Those papers will include Cabinet documents and Government files. The Government recognise that this step is unprecedented but are convinced that it is required. They are also convinced that it ought not to become a precedent. But short of leaving the verdict to history this step is inevitable in the circumstances of the oil sanctions story. If Parliament believes that that story should be fully and fairly investigated, the Commission must see the material contemporary documents. To rely wholly on the fallible, and perhaps differing, recollections of past events would be fair neither to the investigated nor to the investigators.
  Sir Harold Wilson: In connection with the papers, will the Government for their part make available to the inquiry the evidence for their statement to the United Nations in 1976 that the competent United Kingdom authorities, having examined the issues, were satisfied that there was no evidence of sanctions-breaking by any British company. That was said in September 1976. Will the Government give their full documentation and how they came to say that?
  Secondly, will the Government provide all the papers relevant to the discovery, by The Sunday Times—nobody else knew about it—last September of further sanctions-breaking by BP? That allegation was denied by BP on that day but later admitted by it. With regard to Cabinet papers, does the Attorney-General agree that the Government should hand over for inquiry not only departmental minutes and Cabinet and Cabinet committee papers referring to sanctions-breaking but all those papers referring to sanctions generally? If there were no suggestion of sanctions-breaking, the competent authorities presumably could not have known that it was going on, but if there were meetings and documents saying everything that was known to Government Departments about sanctions and they did not refer to sanctions breaking, that in
  1718
  itself is important and will obviously be essential to the inquiry.
  The Attorney-General: I will come to the way in which the Government propose to the House that this should be dealt with, but I can assure my right hon. Friend that it is not the wish or intention of the Government that any material document in the Government's possession should be held back. The problem will be the vast quantity of documents which may be marginally material. I shall come to that shortly.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. and learned Friend going to say something about the fact that the period with which the Committee will be dealing spans more than one Government? Since we accept in its entirety the Government's offer—and, indeed, the offer of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)—that any papers should be made available subject to the safeguards to which he has referred, and given that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) was against this inquiry and was unhappy about the papers of a Conservative Government being made available, what will happen to the papers of that period?
  The Attorney-General: I shall be coming to that in due course. What I was saying concerned the difficulty in inquiring into these events without having the fullest reasonable documentation. That would not be fair to the investigators or the investigated—still less would it have been satisfactory to the public or opinion abroad. It is for these reasons and because of the special circumstances and importance of the task which the Commission is being given that the Government are prepared to agree in principle that the customary rules will be waived. However, it is essential that these rules should not be relaxed more widely than is required for the particular purpose.
  I gave the reasons for that in November and I shall not repeat them. The Government therefore propose that papers bearing on the inquiry—and I use that term in the widest possible sense, in reply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson)—shall be made available to the Special Commission only through its Chairman. As my right hon. Friend

  1719
  the Prime Minister explained, it is proposed that the Chairman should be a Lord of Appeal. It will be for him, with the assistance of the Treasury Solicitor—into whose possession all potentially relevant papers will be placed—to examine and decide, if necessary after consultation with the other members, which of those papers shall be made available for the purpose of the inquiry. Similarly, the Chairman will decide which of those papers it will be essential to publish or to refer to in the report of the inquiry.
  There is an immense amount of marginally relevant material. It will be for the Chairman, whose judicial experience will make him peculiarly well suited for this task, to confine the documents which are disclosed and considered to the essential minimum so that the matter can be dealt with as quickly and as fairly as possible. If he is in doubt as to whether any particular document or series of documents will be helpful and material, he will be able to consult the other members of the Special Commission. If a witness desires to bring a particular document to the Commission's notice, it will be for the Chairman under this same procedure to decide on its materiality and importance to the issues which the Commission will be considering. Former Ministers will have the customary opportunity to consult contemporary documents to which they had access at the time.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I wish to take up the subject of using the Chairman as a filter. My right hon. and learned Friend says that the primary object of setting up the Special Commission is to establish a political responsibility, and I agree with him. Yet the Chairman, who is not a politician in the normal definition of the term, will be asked to decide on the materiality of evidence in a political inquiry. Surely it is essential that in the first instance all members of the Commission, and not merely the Chairman, should have a right to decide on the materiality of a document.
  The Attorney-General: My hon. Friend is entitled to his view. But the Government's view, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear when he announced the setting up of this inquiry, is that the arguments in favour of not releasing Cabinet documents and public
  1720
  documents—documents which are not normally released other than within the rules in the Public Record Act—are so strong that, although this occasion is regarded as unprecedented, it is none the less desirable, indeed essential, that the number of documents which are made available to the inquiry, and subsequently when a report is made, should be confined to the bare minimum that is relevant. We believe that a Lord of Appeal, who is not likely to be ignorant about political matters and who will have the opportunity of consulting his colleagues if he is in any doubt, is the right person to act as a filter for this purpose.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: What are the criteria which the Lord of Appeal will use in describing what the Commission will or will not see? Furthermore, what are the criteria by which he will decide what shall or shall not be published? For example, is he to have discretion to decide for himself whether Cabinet documents shall be published?
  The Attorney-General: In regard to the first point, it will be a matter for the Lord of Appeal to decide what, in his experience, is likely to be material and not simply peripheral. This is on the clear understanding that the Government are making these documents available as a special exception. It is felt that one should not travel any wider than is necessary beyond the bounds of materiality. That relates to the investigation itself.
  As for the report, I hope that the Chairman, consulting as necessary the Special Commission, will be able to go much narrower, and that he will not find it necessary to append to the report a large number of documents of the kind which normally are not published if it is possible to give their effect or to produce the necessary conclusion in the report without publishing the document.
  Sir Harold Wilson: As my right hon. and learned Friend knows, I pressed for this inquiry, and I want it to be a proper inquiry. Is he aware that there will be anxiety in the House and outside it if we have the system he is describing involving a Law Lord? I am making no reflection on the Law Lords, who have vast experience, although not always vast experience of administration and the

  1721
  conduct of industry, the Government or the Civil Service. Will this not put hon. Members, and indeed Members of another place, in an individious position? Is there any reason in the mind of my right hon. and learned Friend for not trusting hon. Members? Are they likely to betray secrets of this kind? Surely if they betray secrets or offer to peddle them outside they will be amenable to the discipline of this House, which will come upon them in a terrifying form. Surely there cannot be two or three different classes of members of the inquiry.
  The Attorney-General: My right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton earlier drew attention to the fact that there may be wide ranges of documents which, although not necessarily relevant to sanctions breaking, may nevertheless be relevant to the task of the Commission. The major function of the Chairman, which is a function with which an experienced judicial officer is highly familiar, is to decide, if necessary consulting his colleagues, which are the material documents, and certainly whether documents brought to him by the Treasury Solicitor or those which a witness may wish to tender to the Special Commission are material. Therefore, members of the Commission will not be compelled, required or permitted to travel any wider than is necessary for the purposes of the inquiry.
  It is not a question of trust. It is a question of confining as narrowly as possible the exception to the normal rules—rules to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton has subscribed strongly in the past. Judicial officers, such as a Lord of Appeal, are well used to this task of examining documents and deciding whether, on balance, they should not be disclosed.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: My right hon. Friend the Member for Huy-ton (Sir H. Wilson) said that judges are not necessarily well versed in administration. But the issues to be investigated by the Commission are highly controversial political issues and relate to the conduct of politicians and civil servants in relation to the House. In that area not even a Lord of Appeal is necessarily well experienced. Surely the judgment of what is or is not material is in this case as
  1722
  well to be dealt with by a politician as by a lawyer. If we are to trust the members who are to investigate this matter, surely we can trust them with the question of what they should select and disclose.
  The Attorney-General: As I have said, if the Chairman of the Committee feels it necessary because of any doubt on a document to consult other members of the Special Commission, he will do so. There will be seven other members, all of whom will presumably be well skilled in the arts of politics. I do not think that the Lord of Appeal in the chair of this body will find himself in difficulty about giving full weight to the political aspects of this matter.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: Before the Attorney-General leaves the question of collecting the evidence, will he tell the House the position concerning the Official Secrets Act and the Naval Discipline Act? Within the House we may know the extent of parliamentary privilege, but the Attorney-General should state publicly that there can be no prosecution under the Official Secrets Act for revealing to the Committee information which would outside the House be an offence, and, in terms of the Beira patrol, that there could be no prosecution under the Naval Discipline Act. He has not made it clear whether the judge is in the dark and feels around, hoping to find relevant information, or whether naval officers are expected to send in any information that they may think is relevant, as individual civil servants send in information that they may think is relevant. We need to cover this ground.
  The Attorney-General: As the hon. Member knows, proceedings in Parliament are absolutely protected, as are authorised parliamentary reports of those proceedings.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: The Attorney-General is completely undermining his own case. He said earlier that there were two alternatives—the second inquiry or, ultimately, the verdict of history. If the second inquiry is fundamentally based on the exercise of discretion, however wise, surely the final judgment must remain with history.
  The Attorney-General: The House will have the opportunity to express its view on that matter in due course. I am

  1723
  putting to the House what the Government propose, and they regard this part as absolutely essential. Without it, the Government would certainly not have put the proposal to the House.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: The Attorney-General has not answered my point. As I understand it, the protection that the privilege of this House extends to witnesses is punishing those who take legal action against them. Will the Attorney-General confirm that it is not the case that a naval officer who submits evidence contrary to the Naval Discipline Act or the Official Secrets Act is not committing an offence? He would still be committing an offence, but the privilege of this House can act against anyone who brings a charge against him or who tries such a case. Will the Attorney-General confirm that we would be misleading people outside if we led them to believe that passing this motion turns into not an offence that which is an offence? All we can do is block prosecution.
  The Attorney-General: My understanding of the law in this respect is that it is founded on article 9 of the Bill of Rights, which is part of the law of the land. That makes it quite clear that proceedings in Parliament are absolutely protected in relation to the courts of the land. If I am wrong on that, the hon. Member will no doubt have the opportunity of showing me that that is so.
  Sir Harold Wilson: I am grateful to the Attorney-General for giving way again. Will he tell us what precedent there is for the distinction between members of a Committee set up by Parliament? Secondly, is he not proposing that the Committee shall consist of first and second-class members? Is it not an affront to hon. Members who are used to receiving highly sensitive and secret material in their membership of Select Committees? I have less experience than most, but as Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee I remember that we heard a great deal about nuclear weapons. This material was highly sensitive, it was never leaked and no one was asked whether he was a Privy Councillor. We did not have a Lord of Appeal on the Committee. Is it not offensive to suggest that hon. Members appointed by the Government and noble Lords are in a second-class
  1724
  capacity and cannot be trusted with this material?
  The Attorney-General: It is not offensive and is not intended to be offensive to any Member of this House or of another place that their task should be confined to only that which is essential. As my right hon. Friend has stressed on many occasions, in this field the conventions and rules that govern us—and he knows the reasons for those rules—normally require that there should be no disclosure within the 30-year period. That is the Government's dilemma in trying to give effect to what they understood to be the preponderant wish of the House that there should be a parliamentary-type Committee, while at the same time giving effect to what the Prime Minister has said is an absolute sine qua non of an inquiry of this kind—that is, that there should not be a free range among governmental and Cabinet documents in the course of the inquiry.
  The procedure for making Government papers available is through the recommendation of the Prime Minister to Her Majesty. It is the convention that the papers of a previous Administration are not made available without the consent of the Prime Minister who led that Administration. The right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) takes the view that it is not right to set up an inquiry of this kind at all. But both he and my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton have, as I am informed, agreed to give their consent in relation to the papers of their respective Administrations, provided that Parliament agrees to establish a Special Commission.
  I must also make it absolutely clear to the House as a whole that acceptance of the procedure that I have described and which is contained in the Instruction is a condition precedent to the Prime Minister making his recommendation to Her Majesty. The Prime Minister emphasised the paramountcy of this consideration on 15 December when replying to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, and his decision is unchanged. On no other basis will the precedents be waived.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: Is the Attorney-General saying that if an amendment is passed to the resolution put down by the Prime Minister, it will not be accepted

  1725
  by the Goverment and they will ignore that decision of the House?
  The Attorney-General: I am saying that if this part of the resolution containing the Instruction at the end, governing the way in which Cabinet and Government papers are dealt with, is amended to alter the arrangements proposed there, my right hon. Friend, as he said on 15 December, will not recommend to the Queen that Government papers be made available.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The Attorney-General has made an important and crucial statement. Are we to understand that my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) has agreed, without condition, that the documents of his Administration should be made available to the Commission?
  The Attorney-General: As far as I understand it, the right hon. Member has agreed that the documents of his Administration will be made available, provided that the Special Commission is set up in these terms. I cannot tell the hon. Member whether he has said that in precisely those terms, word for word.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I am slightly confused by the Attorney-General's last statement. Will he indicate which amendments, if carried, would lead the Prime Minister to withdraw any recommendation to the Queen to set up the Special Commission?
  The Attorney-General: It is not a question of withdrawing the recommendation. I have explained to the House—and I am sorry the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) did not hear—that Government papers, whether of the present Administration or a past Administration, are by convention not made available except by recommendation of the Prime Minister of the day to the Queen. If the safeguard that is built in to the Instruction at the end of the resolution is one which the House feels it cannot accept, the Prime Minister would not then feel entitled to make that recommendation to Her Majesty.
  Sir Michael Havers: Will the Attorney-General confirm that any of the proposed amendments to the last
  1726
  paragraph on the Order Paper, if successful, will mean the end of the recommendation of the Prime Minister? Is it a condition that that paragraph remains absolutely as it is now?
  The Attorney-General: I shall have to consult the list of amendments before I can answer that. Two of them have not been selected. The only one with which we are concerned is in paragraph 9, to leave out the words "if necessary". If the House deleted the words "if necessary" so as to make it an obligation on the Chairman to consult the members of the Commission on all documents, then the consequence that the right hon. and learned Member mentioned would follow.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: If this House by majority expresses its will to set up a Committee, generally within the terms of reference, and the Prime Minister then refuses to accept that decision, is this not contempt of the House?
  The Attorney-General: The Prime Minister has a duty of the highest importance to this House—no one disputes that—but he also has the highest duty in relation to the custody of Government and Cabinet papers, and to the ordinary rules, procedures and conventions which have been followed by Governments and never brought to an end.
  I made it abundantly clear in my speech in November the problem that arose if Government papers were made available. We have produced what we believe is a sensible and viable compromise which will enable such papers as are material to be made available to the Special Commission. If the House asks for greater erosion of the basic principles, my right hon. Friend has made it quite clear that he will not accept that.
  Mr. David Steel: I understand what the Attorney-General is telling the House, but I do not think he has given a full answer to the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers). My understanding of the Prime Minister's view is that it is not just amendment (k) which is concerned with this, but amendment (a), which would alter the nature of the Commission altogether, and amendment (h), which deals with the subject of publishing the proceedings. All of these bear on what the Attorney-General has just said.
  The Attorney-General: I agree entirely that amendment (a) is so fundamental that it totally alters the whole concept. Any amendment—and I was looking at those which amend the Instruction—which fundamentally alters the basis that I have put forward would lead to the consequences that I have outlined.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. The Attorney-General has been very reasonable and patient. I agree that the subject matter requires proper investigation but at this rate we shall never have any debate, and we shall spend all the time dealing with interventions.
  Mr. Lyon: But this point is absolutely fundamental to our constitution. The Attorney-General is claiming that, if the House passes a resolution, it will not be binding upon the Prime Minister because he is purporting to exercise some power of the prerogative. I have never heard of such doctrine since Cromwell came to this House. I do not accept that there is any authority for the proposition that the Prime Minister can reject a motion passed by this House. If I am wrong, I should like to hear the authority.
  The Attorney-General: It is not a question of the Prime Minister not accepting a motion passed by this House. It is a question of an executive act which is required to make available certain Government papers over which the Prime Minister, as Her Majesty's first Minister, has custody and control. It has nothing whatever to do with the motions before the House. That particular function is a function of the Prime Minister as such, which he can exercise whether there is a motion or not, The Prime Minister will not exercise that function which is within his power as Prime Minister except on the basis that the House passes the resolution in substantially the terms before the House, and particularly having regard to this principle which is absolutely cardinal.
  Mr. Peter Rees: The Attorney-General is making the position clearer but we still have not reached a final point. I understand about the Prime Minister's recommendation to the Queen, but, supposing
  1728
  that some amendment which offends against the principle that the Attorney-General has laid down were to be carried tonight, would the Prime Minister refuse to recommend to the Queen in respect of the papers only of his own Administration, or those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and those of the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) as well? If his recommendations were only in relation to the papers of his own Administration, do we understand from the Attorney-General that the right hon. Member for Huyton would none the less allow his Administration's papers to be examined? Would this also apply to my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup and his Administration's papers? Are these conditional consents, or what?
  The Attorney-General: I can understand the uncertainty of the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal about this aspect of the matter because it is complex. The Prime Minister of the day has custody and control over all Government papers, Cabinet papers or whatever they may be. That applies to those of both current and past Administrations. But it is one of the normal conventions that before the documents of a past Administration are looked at or released the Prime Minister of that day will, as a matter of courtesy, give his consent or withhold it.
  The right hon. Member for Sidcup, if he saw fit—but he has not—could say "No. Courtesy or not, I shall not give my consent to the papers of my Administration being made available." The Prime Minister's function is to make a recommendation to Her Majesty in respect of all the papers. Of course, he would not do so in respect of the papers of the Administrations of my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton or of the right hon. Member for Sidcup unless, as a matter of courtesy, they gave their consent. That does not arise in this case because they have both given their consent.
  The Prime Minister is therefore in a position to make those papers available as well as his own. The condition precedent that I have emphasised, and must emphasise again speaking on behalf of the Government, is one that applies to all documents—not any single part of them

  1729
  but all Government documents and Cabinet papers that may be material to the issue of the Special Commission. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister announced that to the House on 15 December when replying to the Leader of the Opposition, and his decision is unchanged.
  The Special Commission will sit in private, as is normal in the case of Select Committees when considering the conduct of individuals. It was the procedure of the Select Committee on the conduct of Members about two years ago and it is the usual procedure of the Privileges Committee. If there is criticism, it will come out in the report.
  Anxiety has rightly been expressed about those who may necessarily be involved in this inquiry knowing in advance the case that is being alleged against them so that they are able, if they so wish, to have the benefit of legal assistance. It will be for the Special Commission to determine how, within its terms of reference and the powers given to it, it proceeds. I am sure that it will have those considerations very much in mind. The Commission will have power to hear counsel if it so decides. It will be for the Commission to decide whether to follow the advice which I gave when the House set up the Select Committee on the conduct of Members and to inform, in advance of its report, any persons whom it intends to criticise of the nature of the criticism so as to give them an opportunity to reply. I hope that the Commission will be guided by that advice, which the House will recall was the subject of controversy when the report of that Select Committee came out because that Select Committee had not followed that advice.
  Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Will the Director of Public Prosecutions have completed his inquiry before the Special Commission starts its meetings? If the Special Commission starts its inquiry before the Director of Public Prosecutions has come to a conclusion, could not some of those who might appear before it find themselves at a serious disadvantage?
  The Attorney-General: I shall come to the link between the Director of Public Prosecutions' investigation and that of the Special Commission, if the hon. Member
  1730
  will allow me to take the matter in turn. Indeed, it is the very next matter.
  One of the motions on the Order Paper requires me to give the Special Commission such assistance as may be appropriate. This of course I shall do. But the particular importance of it is the possibility of difficulties which might arise should the Special Commission and the police—and through the police the DPP—encroach upon the same area of investigation. This is a difficulty which arises in any large-scale inquiry where there is a concurrent inquiry by the police. It is a difficulty which arose in relation to the Crown Agents inquiry. By regular contact with the DPP and the Chairman of the Commission, I hope to avoid those difficulties. That is the primary reason for the insertion of that proivsion in the motion. It is for the House to decide, subject to the reservation that I have made quite plain.
  The Government commend the Special Commission to the House as the best means of ascertaining the truth, speedily and effectively, of protecting the national interest and our system of government, and of avoiding the unfair exposure of individuals to premature and unjustifiable attack and condemnation. In the Government's view, the subject matter of this inquiry is pre-eminently within the province of Parliament. We believe that an inquiry conducted by the parliamentary Special Commission is essential so that it is seen that there is no cover-up, so that those attacked have an opportunity to deal with the allegations in the most appropriate forum, and so that the full truth may be revealed.
  I therefore invite the House to adopt these motions and let the Special Commission get on with its work in order that this chapter in the story may be speedily concluded.
  6.7 p.m.
  Mr. Norman St. John-Stevas: I am sure that the whole House is grateful to the Attorney-General for the extremely lucid and painstaking way in which he dealt with what is a very complicated problem and an issue that has no precedent in the House.
  This debate is not about the Bingham report as such—that debate was held on 7 and 8 November last year—although, clearly, the Bingham report must be the

  1731
  constant background to our discussions. It would certainly be unwise to mix up this issue with any general consideration of policy on Rhodesia. It is not a debate on sanctions. It is not a debate on Rhodesian policy. Those matters have been discussed by the House. I also hope that it is not a party political debate, although there are certainly strong feelings about the proposition.
  This debate is about the constitution, the role of Government and the role of Cabinet secrecy within Government. Members of the House must take responsibility as Members for their decision. There are differing views on the Opposition Benches. There are differing views on the Government Benches. There is no party line. There is no Whip on the Opposition Benches and I imagine that the same applies to the Government Benches. Is that so? Ministers indicate that it is so. There is a free vote for the Opposition.
  However, I have no doubt that since the Prime Minister announced the Government decision to table this motion on 15 December, opinion on the Opposition Benches has tended to harden against it, because the conviction has grown among hon. Members that there are dancers and difficulties in the course on which the Government are counselling the House to embark. We saw some of those difficulties and dangers today in the debate that has already taken place.
  The more I reflect upon the matter, the more I am driven to the conclusion that the course that the Government are advocating is unnecessary, untimely, likely, to prove ineffective, and contains grave dangers both for the reputation of this country in the world and to our tradition of constitutional government.
  I deal first with the point about the lack of necessity. By common consent, the Bingham report is a thorough, painstaking and objective report. It goes into this matter at great length. It runs to 500 pages. It is a truly comprehensive document. It was the Foreign Secretary himself who said, on 7 November:
  "The report is a model of careful research and balanced judgment. It brings out a whole range of facts and issues and provides helpful background for the specific debate tomorrow night on the order to renew section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965."—[Official Report, 7 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 696.]
  1732
  That is a judgment that was echoed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath).
  I believe that that view of the Bingham report will command widespread support throughout the House. The facts are all there. There is one file which has not been published because, I understand, it deals with the actions of individuals. That has been sent to the Director of Public Prosecutions. If, after the DDP and his staff have studied that file and the report that has been published, it is thought that the criminal law has been broken, no doubt they will take the appropriate legal action. If the criminal law has been broken, it is essential that those who are responsible should be brought to justice and should be punished.
  What is left? There remain the political issues. One of those questions is how much the Government headed by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) during the period 1966–68 knew about the swap arrangements made by certain oil companies to ensure that oil went to Rhodesia. If the right hon. Member for Huyton did not know about them—this is another question—was he culpably negligent in not knowing? Should he have taken steps to inform himself on this point? Those are two political questions.
  There is the further political question, which is also a question partially of fact. This concerns the famous meeting on 21 February 1968 attended by the then Commonwealth Secretary, Lord Thomson as he now is, when he was informed of the arrangements by the oil company—I am sorry. I have mixed up two meetings. It is the famous meeting of 6 February 1969. There was a previous meeting, but it is not quite as well known as this one. However, the critical meeting was on 6 February 1969, when the oil companies explained to Lord Thomson what was going on. Did the then Prime Minister know about that meeting, and, again, should he have known about it?
  The right hon. Member for Huyton said that he did not know about it, and he has declared so in the House. I do not want to go back into that again. The right hon. Member defended his view very thoroughly and at great length, in what I can call an apologia pro vita sua. Perhaps it was of the same length as the

  1733
  original by Cardinal Newman, but not necessarily of the same spiritual quality. But the defence is there.
  Lord Thomson takes another view. That was summed up in a report in The Guardian in September 1978, in which Lord Thomson maintained that he
  "conveyed in writing to the Prime Minister and other Ministers most directly concerned a full account of all that passed at my meetings with the oil companies".
  Sir Harold Wilson: I think that the hon. Member is getting just a little confused, because the September 1978 comment was not about that. The Guardian comment was not, in fact, about the second meeting. It was about the letter.
  As to the letter, there was no doubt that I saw it, and I said so in the House. It included the phrase that a Minister was being asked in the House of Lords to deny that any of this was going on. Indeed, a special occasion was seized for that to happen in the House of Lords.
  The question which mentioned British and French was interpreted by me, and I think by others, at that time, as meaning the leakage from Laurenco Marques, about which I had been asked by the Cabinet to complain to General de Gaulle, which I had done. There is a slight confusion.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am most grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I am not seeking in any way to pass judgment on the matter. I take the view, however, that questions of this sort are much better resolved by the historians of the matter once the protagonists in this have passed from the scene to their various rewards. We cannot anticipate the judgment of history and it is futile to attempt to do so. The Attorney-General rather dismissed history. He did not quite say that history was bunk, but he did not think that the judgment of historians was very important. They are the only people who can really give an objective judgment on this matter, and they will need a certain passage of time before they can do so.
  To be fair—having referred to the right hon. Member for Huyton—there is a further political question. It is the question whether the Conservative Government knew of the swap arrangements. There is no evidence in the Bingham report that
  1734
  the Conservative Government of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup did know. There are no records of any meetings between oil companies and Ministers in that period of the Conservative Government from 1970 to 1974 that ire referred to in the report.
  On the point about whether the then Prime Minister, my right hon. Friend, knew the records of the preceding Government, my right hon. Friend made it quite clear in the debate on 8 November that he did not know. That is, as the right hon. Member for Huyton knows, the practice of Governments. The rule is so strong that it might well be called a convention of the constitution. The incoming Government do not have access to the papers of their predecessors.
  In this connection I refer to what was said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup on 8 November:
  "It is accepted in government that it is not only Cabinet records and Cabinet Committee records but the minutes on which a Minister writes his opinion or asks for advice and the minutes on which officials advise him, and it has also been accepted that what a Minister says to an official in discussion is also not repeated to his successors in an Administration."—[Official Report, 8 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 992.]
  Sir Harold Wilson: The hon. Member is absolutely right about this. There is the exception, which I mentioned in the House, that on any matter affecting relations with third parties, particularly international questions, of course an incoming Government must be told what has been said to them, because otherwise a Prime Minister would look very foolish at international gatherings. Also, it helps such degree of continuity of policy as is considered desirable by both Governments.
  However, every Government must tell international organisations the position over many years. That was why I asked my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister—although I do not know the Government's position on it—why it was that in September 1976 Her Majesty's present advisers informed the United Nations, virtually in these words—I am rather simplifying it—that there had been no question of British oil companies supplying oil, themselves alone or with others, in the sense that has now been shown to have happened in Bingham, and that this had not been happening. For them to say

  1735
  that it had not been happening and to say that the position was exactly as it was in 1968, when it was not going on at all, suggests that the present Government are equally unaware of these things, and I would have thought they would be aware if it had been happening.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I agree that it is a convention that is flexible in its application in the sense that the right hon. Gentleman has suggested.
  It is also clear from the Bingham report that the swap continued until 1974 and beyond, and this raises the same question as I raised with regard to the right hon. Member for Huyton, namely, ought the Prime Minister of the day to have known of these arrangements? There is no evidence that he did, but it is fair to ask whether he ought to have known and whether he ought to have done more. But, again, that is a political, not a judicial, question and it can be judged and seen only in a historical perspective.
  So on this point I conclude that the facts and certain questions can be both established and raised by an inquiry—indeed, they have been—but the other issues, the political questions, can be decided only by historians. They cannot be decided by contemporary politicians, however many inquiries are held, because however hard one strives one cannot, in the nature of things, be objective in matters such as this. The history of previous Select Committees which are parallel to this Commission proves that abundantly.
  My second point is that it is an extraordinarily untimely moment for the Government to produce this Commission. Quite apart from the difficulties that I have outlined, is it possible to imagine a more unsuitable moment to embark on the inquiry, during one of the gravest crises, if not the gravest crisis, that this country has faced since the war? I agree with the Prime Minister when he says that we are facing a moral issue, and the gravity of the crisis is precisely that we are up against the question whether, under the stresses that have been induced by various strikes, industrial action, and so on, we can remain a community sustained by shared values and a sense of common interest; or is British society about to dissolve into a welter of conflicting interests and pressure groups in which
  1736
  everyone pursues particular interests, some legitimate, others not, pressing them to the limit, without any self-discipline, self-restraint or concern for the common good? That is the issue which makes our present position so grave and it is that question to which the Government should be addressing themselves, instead of diverting the political and other energies, the energies of this House and its hon. Members, into what I suspect will turn out to be a dead end.
  My third point is that the inquiry is likely to be ineffective. No doubt some new facts will emerge, but it is highly unlikely that there will be anything startling or anything very new. The political questions will remain at the end of the inquiry, just as they exist at the beginning, and those who are dissatisfied with the Bingham report will not be satisfied when this report sees the light of day.
  Indeed, they say as much. It is quite clear, it is already there. Why look in the crystal ball when one can read the Order Paper? There, in the name of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedge-more) and his hon. Friends, is an amendment of a radical kind which is really a manifesto of their dissatisfaction with the proposed arrangements. They want the whole inquiry to be held in public and they want all the evidence, including the relevant Cabinet papers and departmental files, to be published.
  Well, the Attorney-General has made it quite plain that the Prime Minister will not agree to that, and the hon. Member and his hon. Friends have made it equally clear that they will be satisfied with nothing less than that. So there is going to be a great clash of opinion within the Government over this.
  I ask myself this question, and I think it is a fair one: who really wants this inquiry? There is no very strong evidence that the Prime Minister wants it. To do him justice, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have made it quite clear what they want, and they have followed their desire to a logical conclusion. I wonder where the Leader of the House stands on this. Perhaps we shall hear at the end of this debate. Perhaps he is a great protagonist of this course. But it is quite clear that the Prime Minister, while tabling these suggestions, is not exactly in the van in leading for this approach.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has studied the debate that took place on this matter and the demands, requests or pressure for an inquiry that came from many quarters. Perhaps, as he is commenting on the views of some of my hon. Friends—who will no doubt put their own views in the debate—he will give us his view on the view that was expressed by the chairman of the 1922 Committee, who made a very strong plea that there should be a further inquiry. Indeed, he almost suggested that it would be a disgrace to the House of Commons if that did not occur. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would give his judgment on that attitude.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I have, of course, read very carefully the speech of the chairman of the 1922 Committee. As a former member of the Executive, I attach great importance to that Committee, its officers and its chairman, and I can assure the House that I have modified what I had thought of saying in the light of that speech. Had I not studied that speech closely I should have spoken in a much more unambiguous way than I have. The chairman's remarks have been subsumed into mine.
  The fourth point, which I think is perhaps the most important point of all, is that we are embarking on a dangerous course, dangerous first of all to the reputation of this country. I know that those who support this scheme are not animated by unpatriotic motives; they think they are going to do the country good. I am afraid that they are not, because the mere fact that an inquiry of this sort is set up is damaging to the reputation of the country, since what is going on is in effect an inquisition into the whole process of parliamentary government as we have known it in this country and into the assumptions on which it is based.
  The first assumption on which we all base our actions is the integrity of Ministers and their respect for this House, and here a question mark is raised straight away over that. The second thing we all rely upon is the morale and the standing of the Civil Service. If we make the suggestion that the Civil Service could have deliberately set out to mislead Ministers, if we raise that question, we are again attacking a basic assumption, which is
  1738
  accepted throughout the world, that we have an incorruptible, impartial and dedicated Civil Service.
  Perhaps I might intervene in the sedentary dialogue between my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Norman Tebbit) and the Leader of the House, which is no doubt most interesting but is out of place in the middle of my constitutional reflections.
  I turn now to the danger to the constitution.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: The hon. Gentleman said that the raising of questions regarding the integrity of Ministers and civil servants would do us great damage in the world. Nevertheless, the questions have been raised. Does he agree that, their having been raised, if it were seen that there was no attempt to answer them, it would be far more damaging than to have the inquiry?
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: The hon. Gentleman's point would be valid if there were a great demand for this inquiry, but there is not. There is a demand from a minority of people, but there is no general demand throughout the country for this inquiry. Although there is a demand from a number of hon. Members, I do not think that it has passionately gripped the House. Looking around, although the membership here is distinguished, this is not one of those occasions on which the House of Commons is in fact demanding that something be done. The Prime Minister is proposing something and the House may, with many reservations, acquiesce in it.
  The Attorney-General: The hon. Gentleman speaks about "this inquiry". I want to get clear whether his opposition is to any further form of inquiry of any kind until, as he put it, the historians get at the matter in years to come, or to the form of inquiry which we are proposing.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: My view is that we do not need any further inquiry into this matter. We need to await the result of the decision of the Director of Public Prosecutions on what further action needs to be taken through the criminal law.
  We have no written constitution; we have only procedure and convention. The thing on which our constitution rests

  1739
  perhaps more than anything else is the convention of Cabinet responsibility and unity and Cabinet secrecy.
  The importance of Cabinet secrecy is that Cabinet responsibility depends on secrecy for its maintenance. In this respect I should like to quote from "The English Constitution" by Walter Bagehot, edited by myself, but not written by me. I quote him as an authority on the constitution. Writing on the Cabinet, he said:
  "The meetings are not only secret in theory, but secret in reality."
  I offer that point to the right hon. Member for Huyton
  "By the present practice, no official minute in all ordinary cases is kept of them. Even a private note is discouraged and disliked. The House of Commons, even in its most inquisitive and turbulent moments, would scarcely permit a note of a cabinet meeting to be read. No minister who respected the fundamental usages of political practice would attempt to read such a note. The committee which unites the law-making power to the law-executing power—which, by virtue of that combination, is, while it lasts and holds together, the most powerful body in the state—is a committee wholly secret. No description of it, at once graphic and authentic, has ever been given."
  [Interruption.] I am quoting from 1867.
  "It is said to be sometimes like a rather disorderly board of directors, where many speak and few listen—though no one knows."
  After the late Mr. Crossman we know something but I do not think that we know all the truth.
  I am not saying that the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy has not undergone development. The constitution is not a fossil; it is alive and growing. Nevertheless, the foundation of Cabinet secrecy is there. It was so strict that until the War Cabinet of 1916 there was no formal agenda and no minutes were kept of the Cabinet. The only record of the Cabinet was the Prime Minister's personal letter to the Sovereign. That was the only record of the Cabinet. When the secretariat was formalised in 1916, minutes began to be taken. But those documents were always most closely guarded, and they are today. There was the 50-year rule of restriction, now replaced by the 30-year rule.
  Both the Attorney-General and the Prime Minister have stressed the unprecedented nature of this application to make these documents available. It is not secrecy for its own sake that lies
  1740
  behind this rule; it is for the proper working of Cabinet government. If every Minister was free to reveal what happened in Cabinet and the documents thereto, there would be an end of Cabinet responsibility. If a Cabinet Minister knew that everything he said was to be published later, that would be an end of any frank and open discussion in Cabinet. Every Minister would be looking not back over his shoulder but forward over the shoulder and to the pen of his neighbour waiting to see what version was likely to be peddled around in future.
  That is the case against the publication of documents such as the Crossman diaries, fascinating though they may be—and I confess to having read them. However, I found that any reference to me seemed to be totally inaccurate. If the general level of accuracy of the diaries is the same as the level of accuracy regarding references to myself, they are not very valuable documents.
  Sir Harold Wilson: Hear, hear.
  Mr. St. John-Stevas: I am glad that the right hon. Member for Huyton agrees with me. Those diaries were a glancing blow. But I think that, potentially, this is a more serious one that is being aimed by the Prime Minister. I fear that we shall return to the bad practice of Ministers taking away their own Cabinet papers in order to prevent them being published or being published in a prejudicial context.
  Those are strong constitutional arguments against this Commission, and we must seriously consider them. I hope that the Lord President of the Council, who holds very high office in the State, will address his mind to these constitutional points of a general character when he replies to the debate.
  There is a free vote in this House. The views that I have expressed are personal, but I think that they fairly represent the views of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, the Shadow Cabinet and the majority of Opposition Members.
  The Prime Minister, in putitng this proposal before the House, has embarked on an imprudent and dangerous course. It will not achieve the aims which it sets out to fulfil. While leaving the critics unsatisfied, merely whetting their appetites

  1741
  for further revelations, it will threaten two of the fundamental doctrines of our constitution—Cabinet responsibility and secrecy. That is too high a price to pay to satisfy the gentlemen who cluster below the Gangway on the Government side and who appear to have intimidated the Prime Minister—lawfully, no doubt—into losing his judgment and derogating from his constitutional responsibilities.
  6.38 p.m.
  Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am sure that we all agree that the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) has put his case with his usual eloquence. He has argued with impeccable logic, moving from false premises to false conclusions. We can all summon Bagehot in aid at this time of our need. I believe that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that, in his introduction, Bagehot was so antithetical to the democratic process that he wrote:
  "Vox populi will be vox diaboli".
  We have heard the same kind of feelings expressed by the hon. Member for Chelmsford as were expressed by Bagehot.
  The hon. Gentleman, in effect, said that he strongly believed in Florentine corruption, which is secret government by secret processes, and he is prepared to use the doctrine of collective Cabinet responsibility to uphold that view of our constitution. In that sense, I think that he has probably opened a fundamental division between the two sides of the House. Everybody must be disappointed that he has told us that the Leader of the Opposition does not really want any inquiry at all. To that extent, my first words to the Government are congratulatory. I must congratulate them on having decided to set up an inquiry.
  The Prime Minister recently gave an example of lawful intimidation relating to the right hon. Lady and the grandson of Winston Churchill. But an example of lawful intimidation which must have seriously wounded parliamentary democracy was announced on behalf of the Prime Minister by the Attorney-General today. He said that if the House passess amendments about the Production of certain Cabinet, Cabinet committee and departmental papers, the Prime Minister will not recommend to the Queen that the usual rule be relaxed.
  1742
  That is not becoming conduct in a Prime Minister who heads a parliamentary democracy. That is not government by integrity. I do not even believe that the Prime Minister is exercising his usual standards of decency. I hope that this message will go back to him. It is not good enough for the Prime Minister, in effect, to threaten the House in that fashion.
  I said that the hon. Member for Chelmsford spoke from false premises. He began by saying that all the facts were known and that there was nothing new to come out. It is certainly not my purpose to stand here and make revelations even if I had any to make—although I do not think that there is much about the Bingham report to come out which I do not know, so I am not worried about it in a personal sense.
  But it does not matter what I know or what the hon. Member for Chelmsford knows. What matters is what the public know and whether they have legitimate concerns about the values by which we are governed and the integrity of the constitution. Like the hon. Gentleman, I believe in the integrity of the constitution, but I come to an opposite conclusion.
  The hon. Gentleman said that Bingham had seen that all the files had come out except one. I can assure him that that is not true; not nearly all the files have come out. There are plenty of files from the old Ministry of Power, the Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence which Bingham did not see and which the public do not know about.
  I do not even believe that Bingham got to the core of the cancer which I regard as being involved in sanctions-busting. I shall not go into the merits or even say what I believe that core to be, because that is for the inquiry to decide. We are here only to say what is the best method of getting the facts out. But the reason why I do not think that Bingham got to the central cancer is that he concerned himself with the basic process of sanctions-busting and with what happened from then on. He did not concern himself with the discussions leading up to the legislation or with the period between the legislation and the sanctions-busting.
  It is my contention, for what it is worth—I do not think that it is worth that

  1743
  much; what is of value here is the evidence—that if the public knew the way in which industrialists, civil servants and Ministers discussed the legislation that they intended to pass and which they did pass and what happened between the passing of the legislation and the beginning of sanctions-busting, they would see a value system that they would not put up with. They would never countenance it.
  In that sense, the hon. Member for Chelmsford is right. Of course it will damage the integrity of the constitution if that value system comes out. But how much more, as one of my hon. Friends said, will it damage the integrity of our constitution if all we can do in this House is say "There may be unpleasant things to come out: let us not deal with them in too much detail"?
  I believe, and here I become more friendly to the hon. Member for Chelmsford, that he touched on a raw spot when he asked who wanted this inquiry—or who wanted an open inquiry. The amendments that I have put down amount to two things. First, they call for a much wider inquiry than the Government want. The Government have carefully qualified the inquiry with the phrase
  "with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise".
  I do not believe that that is adequate, for the reason that I have given. I do not believe that Bingham got to the core of the relationship among civil servants, industrialists and Ministers.
  We want an inquiry to go into that central relationship and deal with the relationships among those groups and also involving foreign Powers. I suspect that when the public learn about some of the meetings which went on between industrialists and the Head of the South African Government, their eyes will pop open at the way in which we are governed and in which this business was conducted. Therefore, essentially, we need a wider inquiry than the Government have suggested. Certainly we need a more open inquiry.
  One thing and one only about the inquiry is relevant. In this sense, the hon. Member for Chelmsford has got it right. The Government have equivocated and, in my view, they have made a mistake. All that matters is the evidence. We need
  1744
  to see the witnesses giving their evidence to make judgments about them giving their evidence. Anyone who has been a barrister—far too many hon. Members, myself included, have been in that invidious position—know that it is by watching witnesses give evidence and by looking at their demeanour and the way in which they respond to cross-examination that one learns a lot about the value of the evidence.
  Secondly, we want to see the written evidence, and we want to see it all. We want to see those Cabinet files. But, more important, we want to see those departmental files and we want to let the public see them and make up their own minds. They do not necessarily want my view of what has happened—or the hon. Gentleman's view or the Prime Minister's view. They, and we, should be allowed to see the witnesses. We should be allowed to hear the questioning and see the written evidence.
  I believe—I am sure that my right hon. Friends on the Front Bench will think that I am getting slightly contentious now—that there have been a number of pressures on the Cabinet and a number of different strands which have led to this curious suggested inquiry, with the arbitrary presentation of evidence by the Chairman, possibly in conjunction with his Committee, and witnesses questioned in private.
  We are discussing something that stands somewhere between moral corruption and treason. I do not use that last word wildly, because the least important thing in the inquiry is the legal aspect. It is not my concern to get civil servants, industrialists or Ministers into court. That is the trivial aspect of the case. The important aspect is the value system which produced the result which it did.
  I have made some inquiries of various people, and it seems to me that three strands led to this suggested form of inquiry and that there were three pressures not to have the sort of open inquiry that I and some of my hon. Friends would require.
  The first strand, to put it crudely and in the vernacular, is that we are not dealing with minnows. Some of the lawyers have taken that attitude to this sort of inquiry. In a sense, that attitude has been borne out not only in high places fairly

  1745
  near the centre of Government but also by Mr. Rees-Mogg and some of his colleagues on The Times before it went out of print.
  The Times wrote that it would be unreasonable to put the full weight of the law into operation in this case, because a number of eminent top people were involved. That is a curious proposition from a newspaper which believes in the rule of law—one law for the mighty and one for the weak, one for the rich and one for the poor, and perhaps one for the rest of us and one for the friends of the people with whom Mr. Rees-Mogg and his colleagues move in conjunction.
  That pressure has come on people, but another pressure has come on the Cabinet. That is the pressure which says "We must sweat it out." In other words, there has been pressure not to have an inquiry. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) mentioned the Beira patrol. If one were the Minister running the Beira patrol at that time, spending several million pounds of public money on an abortive exercise, one might want to sweat this out. I can understand that there might be fear in the stomachs of some of the people concerned, but I do not believe it is right to sweat it out—even by holding a limited inquiry where evidence is not given in public.
  Some people have taken the extraordinary attitude that if a full-blooded inquiry is held Labour Members will criticise civil servants and industrialists. What do we make of that? It has been said that our Civil Service is incorruptible and impartial. I question that. If there has been something between moral corruption and treason committed by industrialists and civil servants, do we say that the public should not know it? If we suspect or know it, should not Labour Members criticise the industrialists or civil servants at an inquiry where those criticisms can be mooted?
  Bearing in mind his speech, I am sure that the Attorney-General will be pleased to answer the important questions about civil servants. It is now known that certain Cabinet documents were given to Mr. Bingham. That raises a number of terrifying questions about the Civil
  1746
  Service. I speak as a former civil servant and I know, as well as my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir. H. Wilson), that there is a strict rule that Cabinet papers on departmental files should be returned to the Cabinet Office at the end of the period of office of a Government. It would appear that the rule was broken recently by the Foreign Office. There is also the 30-year rule governing the publication of Cabinet papers.
  When the Foreign Office handed those papers to Mr. Bingham, they were published and the 30-year rule was broken. I hope that in winding up the Leader of the. House will be able to correct me, but studies reveal that the papers were given to Mr. Bingham without the consent of the Foreign Secretary. Therefore, three strict rules have been broken.
  A fourth point is that no papers—if there are any—concerning the Conservative Government reached Mr. Bingham.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray were appointed by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. They did not receive Cabinet papers. However, they did receive certain documentary material. Therefore, the arguments of the hon. Gentleman against the Government and the Secretary of State are unfounded.
  Mr. Sedgemore: It is my understanding that Mr. Bingham received Cabinet papers, and that the rules to which I have referred were broken.
  It has been suggested to me that it was accidental that the papers were handed over and that the Foreign Secretary was not consulted. If that is so, and such accidents occur in the Foreign Office, the time has come to have somebody running the office who is less accident-prone. I refer to the permanent secretary at the Foreign Office.
  At the time that the papers were handed over, the parties were passing off the blame among themselves. Some worried Ministers sought to say that they had been misled by civil servants and industrialists, civil servants said that they had been misled by industrialists, and the industrialists said that they had not misled anybody. Therefore, one is bound

  1747
  to ask whether the giving of the papers to Bingham was accidental or whether there was something more serious behind it. As far as I can see, that point cannot be examined in the inquiry.
  In the Christmas Recess I read Haldeman's "The Ends of Power". The book depressed me and made me wonder whether that is the way in which modem Governments function in modern society. Three images presented themselves. One was McCarthyism. There are historians present, but I do not believe one needs to be a historian to see that the values of the one are similar to the values of the other. The other two images which sprang to mind were British. One was Suez. That occurred about 10 years before sanctions-busting, but it does not need a historian to tell us that the values of Suez are not different from the values of sanctions-busting.
  As I read the book, an almost unanswerable question came to my mind: would Suez have happened if a Labour Government had been in power? I shall not try to answer the question, but I make the point because I feel that it brings out the seriousness of what we are discussing. We are discussing international relations, international duplicity, unhappy relations between civil servants and industrialists, and an unhappy state of affairs among civil servants, industrialists and Parliament.
  Rear-Admiral Morgan-Giles: The hon. Gentleman is making an interesting point, but will he take it from me that, had a Labour Government been in power at the time of Suez, the troops would not have been stabbed in the back by the Opposition as they went over the beaches?
  Mr. Sedgemore: I do not believe that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made a helpful point. Whether he agrees with me or not, we are now discussing serious constitutional issues. I believe that the public have a right to this knowledge in an open inquiry—even if that means that in the process the reputations of some innocent people are damaged.
  Just as in Watergate the tapes were important, in this case the departmental files are of critical importance. For the first time in my life I see the value of
  1748
  departmental files. Everything gathers on them—people sign their names on documents and there are telegrams about this and that. For me, Government departmental files have become things of beauty and they are what the public want.
  I hope that the House will have the courage to pass the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself. If it does, it will be a good day for the democratic process; if not, it will be a bad day for the democratic process.
  6.59 p.m.
  Mr. David Steel: I shall return to the amendments of the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) at the end of my speech. I do not propose to detain the House for very long because I made a lengthy speech on this subject in an earlier debate, to which reference has already been made.
  I welcome the terms in which the Government have put forward the motion and the setting up of the Special Commission. I believe that the case put forward by the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) against having a further inquiry was shot down by the events that have occurred since the publication of the Bingham report. The hon. Gentleman said that the Bingham report was thorough and that further inquiry was unnecessary. However, we have already been enlightened by the debates that have taken place in this place and in another place after the publication of the Bingham report, when further information came to light.
  I agree with the hon. Member for Luton, West that a great deal more has still to come to light. I argue more strongly now in favour of a further commission of inquiry and I base my argument on the fact that the statements made in these two debates by some of the main participants, namely, the two previous Prime Ministers and previous Ministers who were involved, lead one to the conclusion that further inquiry is necessary.
  There is the question of who was right, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) or Lord Thomson of Monifieth. There is also the question not of what the incoming Conservative Government were told but what they were doing during their period of office to pursue their publicly proclaimed policy.

  1749
  This seems to me to be a matter of some importance.
  These issues cannot just be swept aside as being of purely academic interest to future historians. The hon. Member for Chelmsford accepts more or less that further inquiry is called upon, but he says—I do not wish to be unfair to him—that we should allow that inquiry to take place after the normal lapse of time, after many of the personalities are out of operation, or deceased, that there should then be a great advance in publications and great use made of the Public Lending Right Act, as it would then be, and that historians would have a general field day.
  The hon. Gentleman's argument might have some force if this were purely a domestic political consideration, but it is not, and I have been very forcefully reminded of this in the past few weeks. During the Christmas Recess—it was immediately after the announcement by the Prime Minister that the Commission would be set up—I was travelling in Africa. In the countries that I visited, some politicians were aware of the fact that I had taken an active part in calling for such an inquiry; others were not. At no time in my travels did I raise the question of the Bingham report, yet in every country that I visited—Kenya, Tanzania, Zambia, Mozambique and Rhodesia—the question was raised with me. I was able, as a Member of this House, to say in reply to the questions that we were not leaving the matter as it stood and that the Prime Minister had told the House of Commons that there would be a special inquiry. I said that I could not guarantee that the House would accept the findings of the inquiry and that this would be a matter for the judgment of the House of Commons, but I was able to reassure all those who were concerned that further action was at any rate contemplated by the Government.
  I must tell the hon. Member for Chelmsford that it would have been a pretty poor answer for me to have said to those who were much exercised on these matters, and who are calling in question the integrity, if not the honour, of this country in its policies in Africa, "These are very interesting matters, my friends, but let us leave them to future historians." I am afraid that that is not
  1750
  a view that is taken in those countries. We have to take account of the very strong feeling which has been raised on this matter in other countries.
  Mr. Norman Tebbit: Surely the right hon. Gentleman is not advancing, as one of his principal arguments, the idea that because the leaders of other countries are interested in what is in the Cabinet papers we should breach our custom and our constitution and reveal them. I am sure that he would not think that it would be right, for example, for this House to suggest to the Zambian Government that their State papers on the matter of sanctions-busting should be subject to the sort of inquiry that the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) wants to have. If I were a Zambian, I would think that that was impertinence.
  Mr. Steel: I see no reason why the Commission should not trail its net fairly widely and attempt to secure whatever external information it can get. I am not making such a simplistic point. I am not in any way diminishing the point made by the hon. Member for Chelmsford concerning the constitutional aspect. I think that his reasoning was sound. What I am saying is that at the end of the day we have to make a balanced judgment about these dangers, which he was right to draw to the attention of the House, as against what I know from my recent experience to be the very real anxiety in other parts of the world about the record of British policy.
  The hon. Gentleman gave us another reason for not pursuing the inquiry when he said that this was not the right time for it. He said, in effect, that the country is in a hell of a mess and that we ought not to be wasting time now on issues of this sort. My view is that we must look at these things in perspective. We have talked a great deal in this House—indeed, I have myself—in recent days about intimidation. The intimidation that is going on in this country is as nothing to the widespread scale of intimidation taking place in Rhodesia at the present time.
  The public policy of this country has failed in Rhodesia. It is a tragedy. If at the time of UDI or, indeed, in the years since UDI—I do not want to refer

  1751
  to the period of office of any one Government—the policy of this country had been to wash our hands of the whole affair and to recognise the regime, passing the whole problem to the United Nations or to Rhodesia itself, that would have been reprehensible, but it would at least have been a straightforward, honest and openly declared policy. If we had said "This is a rebellion against the authority of this House and we shall deal with it in the usual way by putting in the troops", that would have been a commendable policy, but it was not the decision taken by the Government.
  We were left, therefore, with the publicly proclaimed policy, not only in this country but internationally, that the matter would be dealt with by the use of sanctions. That was a policy endorsed by both Conservative and Labour Governments, it was taken to the United Nations, and legislation was passed through this House and ratified by the House. We, as Members of the House of Commons, were told time and time again that certain things would flow as a result of that policy.
  We now discover that, although that was the proclaimed position, something quite different was going on. To say that somehow we should ignore this, that it is all very interesting and that historians will look into why it happened, is to misunderstand the importance of maintaining some kind of reputation in this country for honest international dealing.
  That is why I support the terms of the motion, which has been very carefully drafted, and that is why I cannot agree with the hon. Member for Luton, West. I think the Government are correct—no doubt after a great deal of hesitation—in bringing forward their motion and in striking the balance in this way. I believe that because the production of Cabinet and allied papers will be essential to the work of the inquiry it makes the Commission almost unique. That is why it has a unique form, with a Law Lord in the chair and members from each House of Parliament. We have to accept that, because the question raised by the revelations of the Bingham report is almost unique.
  My only advice to my colleagues—who are as free as every other Member of any other party to ignore it—is that they
  1752
  should resist the amendments. I do not wish to have it suggested—I thought I heard a sotto voce comment—that Members of my party ignore my advice any more then members of other parties ignore the advice of their leaders, and on this occasion the Members of my party are entirely free, of course, to make their own judgment. But I advise resistance to the amendments which, however superficially attractive, might endanger the success of the entire operation. The hon. Member for Luton, West, having heard what the Attorney-General told us, must surely accept, if he stops to think about it, that that would be the result if we were to follow his course. I would advise him, therefore, to think twice before pressing his amendment to a Division.
  Whatever my respect and regard for the Prime Minister, I have never regarded him as being the most enthusiastic apostle of open government. We have to live with the facts and not pretend that they are otherwise. I hope that the House will not endanger the position by passing amendments which would in my view be foolish in the circumstances, and that we shall give a welcome to the Commission. I hope that it will do something to rescue the rather sorry reputation of this country in this matter over the last decade.
  7.8 p.m.
  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop: It is my hope that at 10 p.m. the choice before the House of Commons will be a clear choice between setting up a Joint Committee, with sufficient powers to discharge the task that is entrusted to it in the first declaratory paragraph of the motion, and rejecting such a Joint Committee endowed with the necessary powers.
  It would be unsatisfatory to the Members of this House, and to the esteem in which one would wish them to be held outside this House, if the question were a different one, namely, whether this House should accept or reject a Joint Committee which, by negligence or deliberately, in the terms of the motion setting it up, has been deprived of the necessary powers to enable it to discharge the task given to it in the first declaratory paragraph.
  It is my contention that the Government motion contains defects of such a

  1753
  serious nature that I would rather see it rejected than see a Committee set up but shorn of the powers that it needs, knowing that it may well fail in its task because of Government incompetence or because the Government did not intend it to succeed in the first place.
  Let us first dispose of a bit of spurious window dressing. The motion describes the Joint Committee as
  "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions".
  It is not a Commission, special or otherwise, of any kind. It has no commission, Royal, special or otherwise. It has no powers that a Joint Committee does not have. Nor does it have any attributes. Indeed, calling it "Special Commission" adds nothing to its powers or its significance.
  Why, then, the Government might say, do I object to this bit of window dressing? I object to it because I believe that it will mislead. Outside the House there are people who are familiar with the term "Royal Commission", which has a legal significance. I think that they are likely to be confused by the term "Special Commission" into believing that it has some import when it has no import whatsoever. For instance, evidence given to a Royal Commission may have a special status under the Official Secrets Act. But there is no such thing as evidence given to a Special Commission, because the term "Special Commission" has no meaning. It has no existence. We are talking about a Joint Committee of the Commons and the Lords.
  As we look at the phraseology that the Government adopted, either through incompetence or malice, we find that its defects are not marginal. They are serious. They are not just theoretical. They are practical. The Committee will have power to send for persons, papers and records. Unless we give it specific powers to send for Members of the House of Commons—which would be matched by the Lords empowering their complementary half to send for Members of the House of Lords—it cannot force the attendance of unwilling Members of either House.
  The Attorney-General led us to believe that this was an entirely theoretical consideration that could not or would not
  1754
  arise. Would it not? The Attorney-General himself in this Parliament refused to give evidence to a Select Committee of this House. He wrote asserting that he had no duty to give evidence or to advise Committees of the House unless he was ordered to do so by the House of Commons. However, this motion does not order him to assist the Joint Committee. It says:
  "That Mr. Attorney-General shall give such assistance to the Special Commission as may be appropriate."
  But who is to be the judge of what is appropriate—the Joint Committee or the Attorney-General? As it does not say that it is the Joint Committee—call it "Special Commission" if you will—the Attorney-General is at liberty to do the same to that Committee as he did to a Select Committee of the House in this Parliament and say "I have not been specifically ordered to assist it and I refuse to do so."
  There is another case in this Parliament. The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster refused to appear before a Select Committee as he did not want to give evidence about the Iranian Chrysler contract. I hope that I have established to the satisfaction of the House that this is not just a theoretical matter of something that could happen hypothetically. I am dealing with events that occurred in this Session of Parliament and with one of the Ministers sitting on this Front Bench. Yet he claims that this is something that could not happen. Why, therefore, did the Government not endow this Joint Committee—or the half of it that is subject to the resolution of this House—with that power? This defect may be remedied by inserting the words
  '(including Members of the House of Commons)'
  after the words "persons" in paragraph 3. That is the power to summon Members. The power to force the attendance of the Attorney-General is given if, in paragraph 6, we leave out the word "appropriate" and insert the words
  'required by the Special Commission'.
  The Joint Committee then has the power—which will be matched undoubtedly by a parallel mirror resolution on behalf of another place—to send for Members of either House and to send for the Attorney-General if it should require his assistance.

  1755
  When we follow on through this motion we find other interesting aspects. This body will be empowered to send for persons, papers and records. Yet in paragraph 9 the Instruction is limited to papers. Why is it not extended to cover records? Is it through negligence in drafting, or with intent? If it was with intent, with what intent? Why is it that records may be sent for but the Instruction does not apply to them? It applies only to papers. There must be some reason, unless it is sheer incompetence. I tabled an amendment to insert the words "records". The amendment is not so attractive that it will be called.
  It will also be noted that the Instruction applies only to papers that have been submitted. It does not apply to papers that have been sent for. There may well be a distinction between the two.
  By analogy, President Nixon offered to submit tapes selected by him to an investigatory body. However, the investigatory body realised it would not be able to discharge its function in that wise. It sent for what it wanted. Yet this Instruction applies only to papers submitted to the Special Commission and not to papers which have been sent for by the Special Commission. That is why I put down an amendment to insert the words "sent for or" in paragraph 9 after the first word "papers".
  Alas, that is a defect that must remain in the motion as it has not been selected by Mr. Speaker for moving and Division.
  As we progress through the final paragraph of the motion, we find two highly significant words—"if necessary". The paragraph reads:
  "That it be an Instruction that all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the members of the Special Commission."
  Who shall decide when necessity arises? Is it the Chairman or the members of the Joint Committee who shall decide? That is not clear. Not being clear, it lies within the power of the Chairman to say "As the words immediately following are 'Chairman who shall determine', I interpret it as meaning me. I
  1756
  shall decide what is and what is not necessary."
  I do not interpret the deletion of those two words—the subject of my amendment (k), which the Chair has selected—as meaning that the Chairman is bound to show the members of the Joint Committee every paper that he sees. I interpret it as meaning that he would be bound to discuss with them the characteristics of papers that he showed them and those that he withheld from them so that they would know what was being withheld from them.
  Although we are told that the Chairman of the Joint Committee is to be a distinguished judge, that is not defined in the motion. The normal procedure, as set out by "Erskine May", is that the members of the Joint Commission elect their own Chairman unless the procedure is set out in a motion. Unless there is an instruction to the Committee to elect Lord Scarman, we cannot he certain that he will be the Chairman. It may be that that event will follow.
  Whatever Lord Scarman's admirable attributes may be, I am not aware that he has extensive experience of government or politics. If someone is to judge what events, including advice and information, influenced Ministers in taking certain action and in not taking other action, or in making certain statements to the House when they might have made other statements, what is needed is considerable experience either of the House or of government. To entrust that task solely to someone who has experience of neither seems to put the remaining members of the Joint Committee in a position in which they will be asked to agree a report not knowing what evidence there has been which they would have considered relevant had they seen it and which they have not seen because someone else decided that it would not be relevant for them to see it. That is a matter of immense substance.
  I accept that there is a strong argument that it is difficult to preserve complete confidentiality and that that is the practical difficulty in putting all the papers before the entire Committee. Surely the reasonable compromise would be for the Chairman to be bound to consult the other members of the Joint Committee about what papers they should and should not

  1757
  see. That seems to be a reasonable compromise. If the words "if necessary" were deleted by the passage of amendment (k), there would be a situation, although not in my judgment a perfect one, which would represent the nearest one to perfection which we are likely to achieve in a motion of this sort.
  I hope that when the time comes the House will agree to the passage of amendments (e), (f) and (k), which the Chair has indicated it will allow to be put to the vote although they will not be debated. That will enable the substantive motion on which the House votes to be one of accepting or rejecting a Joint Committee adequately equipped to carry out the task that appears in the first declaratory paragraph.
  The House will do a great disservice to itself and to the country if it establishes a Joint Committee that fails in its task because it has been denied from its birth the minimum necessary powers to be competent to discharge its task.
  7.24 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) devoted his speech to the details of the motion and the amendments. His speech was none the less valuable for that.
  I shall address myself to two central themes. The first is whether we need a further inquiry. The second is, if the answer is "Yes" to the first question, what sort of inquiry should we have?
  It is right that the House has been reminded of the origins of the debate. It is not merely a technical matter of setting up a committee, nor does it stem solely from the publication of the Bingham report. It arises from the unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia.
  As we have already been told, the Government of the day had three choices. Their first choice was to do nothing in recognising the new regime. Their second choice was to send in troops and to put down the regime by force. Their third choice was to adopt some middle compromise position. The Government decided to take the middle compromise position and to apply sanctions, saying that sanctions, although a compromise and middle position, would be no less effective in ending the illegal regime than
  1758
  the use of force. We were told that the rebellion would come to an end in weeks rather than months.
  It was not the failure of sanctions to bring down the regime in weeks rather than months that led to the great concern of those who knew that oil was reaching Rhodesia against the declared position of Governments of both political persuasions and the decision of the United Nations. The failure vigorously to apply the policy of oil sanctions, although it applies to other sanctions as well, is directly responsible for the loss of life that is now taking place in Rhodesia and has taken place for some years in the recent past. It will continue for a long time to come. The loss of thousands of innocent lives of blacks, whites and whatever other colour has made no difference. Those lives have been lost because of the failure of the application of the sanctions policy. That gave rise to demands for an inquiry, the report of which was eventually published and is now known as the Bingham report.
  The Bingham report made clear that there had been a breach of sanctions. We all knew that. It told us that British companies were involved in a way that we did not know previously. It told us that certain Ministers and Government Departments knew much more about it than any of us had cared to think possible. When the Bingham inquiry was established it was said by some that we should not learn anything beyond that which we already knew about oil reaching Rhodesia. However, the Bingham report told us a great deal. I should not like to forecast what will emerge from the further inquiry that the Government have set up. In principle, I applaud the decision to set up a further inquiry. If we knew what would emerge from it, there would be no need for the inquiry.
  It may be that a great deal of valuable information will come out of the further inquiry. It may be that we shall discover at what level the decision was taken to neglect the sanctions policy. We may learn what considerations were taken into account when it was finally decided that we did not need to worry about British oil companies conniving at getting oil to Rhodesia.
  I agree with the right hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) that not only the integrity of certain civil

  1759
  servants is involved. More is involved than the integrity of individual Cabinet Ministers or the Cabinet or Cabinets of the time collectively. There is involved the integrity of the policy of the British Government.
  The hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit), who has now left the Chamber, said that it would be impertinence for Heads of African Governments or others in Africa to suggest that our constitutional processes should be rigorously examined. He said that it would be impertinence for hon. Members to suggest to the Zambian Government that their Cabinet papers of the period should be rigorously examined. If any stones need to be lifted to see what is crawling underneath, it does not matter where they exist, whether it is Zambia, Mozambique, Britain or anywhere else. We have to look for the information. We have a direct responsibility in this House for the policy of our Government. What is at stake is not simply the cleansing of conscience and clearing up the past but the future.
  Other issues of great importance are being dealt with in Africa today. Our Government say, for example, that they are not supplying arms to South Africa. There are many issues on which we need to know how Government policy is made. We need to learn how to ask the right questions. Looking back on replies they received from Ministers about oil reaching Rhodesia, a number of hon. Members now realise that they did not ask the right questions. We did not know the right questions to ask. To get the right answer, one must ask the right question.
  The whole future of Southern Africa is at stake if we fail to answer the question "What are you going to do to find out why the policy was broken?" This is no simple matter that we can easily slough off. Those hon. Members who believe that they can vote against this motion in its entirety and against the principle of a further inquiry had better think again, particularly if they imagine that they are helping international relations and that their action will not be taken into account in the world.
  If we are to have an inquiry—we must have one—what kind of inquiry should it be? In my view, it should be the most open inquiry possible. If the amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Luton,
  1760
  West (Mr. Sedgemore) is not carried, I shall support in its entirety the Government recommendation. That would be better than nothing. I am not as certain as my hon. Friend the Member for Luton. West that the public are demanding that great and beautiful thing, the Civil Service file. The fact that it is in plain covers does not necessarily mean that the contents are lurid. But we ought to see every possible document.
  I want to refer briefly to the proposition put by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General on behalf of the Prime Minister—I know he would accept that this is the Prime Minister's view—that if the House dares to assert itself and changes one or two of the fundamental premises written into the resolution, the Prime Minister will not recommend to Her Majesty that the papers be made available. That is the most preposterous remark I have ever heard in this House. It must be the most preposterous remark made in the House for many generations.
  We are dealing with a convention. I am sure that constitutional historians better versed than myself will agree that at one time we were told that if the 50-year rule was broken the whole fabric of democratic and Cabinet government would fall apart. We took a bold step and knocked the rule down to 30 years. We are saying, on this special occasion, that there should not be a time limit. But the 30-year rule itself is a convention. If it wishes, this House can decide that the 30-year rule should not apply. Are we being told that the Prime Minister will defy Parliament, and defy the orders of this House, encouraged to some extent by the Opposition?
  I wonder what the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) or the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) would have said last December when the House defeated the resolution on the Government authority for sanctions if the Prime Minister had stood at the Dispatch Box and said "It is all right. The House has taken a decision that the Government shall not apply sanctions in the industrial situation, but I am the Prime Minister and I shall take no account of Parliament's view. Sanctions will continue". Would any Conservative Member, never mind a

  1761
  Labour Member, have remained silent? We would have heard about constitutional crisis, dictatorship, failure to accept the will of Parliament and demands for the Government to go to the country. I realise that the Conservatives consider this issue to be a matter of lesser importance, that they do not consider sanctions against Rhodesia to be as important as sanctions on companies.
  The Attorney-General: Is not my hon. Friend aware that this is not something that has been sprung upon the House when the motion was put on the Order Paper? My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in his announcement on 15 December, said:
  "I should not be prepared to advise Her Majesty to make me free to disclose Cabinet papers, except under the very rigid conditions which will be laid down in the resolution which will be placed before the House in due course."—[Official Report, 15 December 1978; Vol. 960, c. 1185.]
  My right hon. Friend was stating clearly that the Government would not put down a resolution except in those terms, and those are the terms which the House will have to accept.
  Mr. Hughes: I am aware of that. I was not surprised when I heard the Attorney-General state this principle. I am not saying it has been sprung upon us, but I am saying that it is thoroughly wrong.
  I consider myself an experienced Back Bencher with some experience in government and, therefore, an ideal person to serve on the Committee. I do not want to be too unkind to the Prime Minister, but it ought to be said that I took great exception to his coming to the House on the last day before the parliamentary recess to make his statement without any prior announcement that it was to be made. It would have been different if he had said earlier in the week that he intended to make a further statement about the inquiry, on the Friday. That would have been proper. I do not complain in the sense that hon. Members have to choose whether to remain here for Friday sittings. I maintain, however, that the statement was made very late and that a number of questions were raised. If I recollect correctly, Mr. Speaker did not wish to encourage too much questioning
  1762
  of the Prime Minister because Back Bench Adjournment debates were due to take place.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: Let us not confuse the issues. The Prime Minister is entitled to put down a motion in any terms he wishes, and to add conditions to it if he wishes. But, if the House overrules him, he has no right to say that he will not present the motion as it was passed by the House. If he did say that, it would be a gross violation of our power and we ought to assert it here and now. I did not feel strongly about this matter until I heard the Attorney-General. After that assertion of Government power, the House has to say that they were wrong.
  Mr. Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing my view that it would be a contempt of Parliament, and a contempt of Members of this House, if the House decided to pass an amended motion and the Prime Minister were then to say that he did not accept it. That, in essence, is what we are being told.
  I want to addres myself to the question of executive privilege and the threat to the constitution raised by the hon. Member for Chelmsford. The hon. Gentleman said that the very fact of raising the question of integrity of civil servants and Ministers was a threat to the constitution. He quoted from Bagehot in 1867. He seemed to be suggesting that the doctrine of Cabinet secrecy, and the inviolability of the rule that Cabinet papers should not be seen, except in a certain period, was absolute and that there was never any time when or any condition whereby these matters should be challenged.
  In drawing this analogy, I ought to make it perfectly clear that I am not drawing an analogy between the Prime Minister and former President Nixon. That is not my intention. But when some of the questions were raised about the executive privilege of President Nixon, it was said that the rule of law and faith in the constitution of the United States would be undermined. When the former President stood by executive privilege and denied to the elected representatives papers, tapes and various other things, they went ahead and destroyed any idea of executive privilege. They were absolutely right to do so.

  1763
  We are right to say that there can be no absolute doctrine of executive privilege, or the privilege of Cabinet papers, if we think that the matter is serious enough. I happen to think that this matter is serious enough to merit going ahead with the widest possible inquiry.
  The motion is drafted in terms suggesting that there should be a Joint Committee of both Houses. What is the Government's intention if the other place decides not to take part? I suspect that discussions have taken place through the usual channels, which might well result in the other place accepting this, but, if by chance it should decide not to do so, may we have an assurance that a Committee of this House will be set up to do precisely the same job?
  Of course, I accept the dilemma and problems that the Government have had to face in coming to a satisfactory solution in order to have a further inquiry. I applaud their decision in principle to have a further inquiry. It is in the highest traditions of the Labour Party and Labour Government that we should be willing to go ahead and investigate matters, even though embarrassing things may emerge. I am sorry that the Government have not gone to the extent of making the inquiry as open as I would wish. But I applaud the principle.
  I shall support some of the amendments tonight, but my right hon. Friends can be assured that I will support the proposition on the Order Paper if that is what survives.
  7.43 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Rhodes James: I concur with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) in at least one point—that this is a very melancholy debate which relates to a very sad chapter in the history of our nation. On whatever side of the House we sit, we must look back on the events that occurred 10 years ago with a sense of shame and a sense of concern about how even now the matter can be remedied.
  We owe a considerable debt to Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray for the quality of their report. However, I take issue with the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North on the two questions that he raised—whether an inquiry is necessary at all and, if so, what form it should take.
  1764
  My reading of the Bingham report led me to the clear conclusion that at the very least one could see the outlines of a conspiracy. I refer the House particularly to what I believe is the key section of the report. It occurs on page 111 and relates to the role of the then Government and their relationship with the oil company and the swap agreement. It states:
  "Oil would still reach Rhodesia, but it could be truly said that it was not British oil. In the minds of the Groups, the significant thing was HMG's acceptance that oil would continue to reach Rhodesia. It thereafter seemed to them that HMG was more concerned about allegations of sanctions breaking (and in particular with allegations that British oil was reaching Rhodesia) than with any attempt to prevent oil reaching Rhodesia."
  Slightly further on, in the next paragraph, it states:
  "It was undoubtedly felt to be desirable that the Total arrangement should not be publicly disclosed; this was (perhaps primarily) because of the indication given to the companies that HMG would not disclose it, but also because of the use which could be made of the information by critics of British sincerity."
  That seems to summarise not only the large report but also the dismal history of what happened. I must confess a divided feeling on this. I feel ashamed at what has happened. I have strong sympathy with the views expressed by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgmore) and the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North, but I would like to know rather more about who knew, when did they know and what did they do about it.
  I lived in America during the unrolling of the Watergate episode. There is something to be said for a nation facing what has happened, and inquiring into what has happened, regardless of whom it may affect. Certainly, no one is above the law. I feel this strongly, because I see in the Bingham report the clear outlines of a conspiracy. At the same time, I respect the views expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) and other hon. Members relating not only to the need for an inquiry but also to the form of the inquiry.
  The Prime Minister specifically referred to the fact that this inquiry would be based upon the precedent of the Dardanelles Commission. That is probably the worst precedent which could have been chosen. The Leader of the

  1765
  House never ceases to remark that I write history but never make it. I actually wrote the history of the Gallipoli campaign, and I am convinced that the Dardanelles Commission is the most inadequate of all precedents for a great variety of reasons. It was one of the causes of the creation of the 1921 Act, because the Commission itself was so inadequate.
  But the essential problem of the Government's proposals are as follows. This inquiry will sit in private. It will publish its findings, but not the evidence. The agreement on the availability of Cabinet papers depends on the agreement of former Prime Ministers, not necessarily former Ministers or officials, and the test of the relevance of Cabinet papers is to be applied by the Chairman, whose name we do not yet know.
  These seem to be formidable arguments against the Government's proposals. But I should like to put the argument on a rather different plane. I feel that it would be unwise for this House and this country to look back at a time when not only its domestic but also its international problems are so substantial. I have very deep sympathy for the point made by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North about our reputation in the Third world, and particularly in Africa. I have thought very greatly about that. But I have come to the conclusion that it would be wise for us to accept the Bingham report, to accept whatever blame lies upon all of us, whether or not we were in the Government, to regard that chapter as closed and as a nation to look to the future, not only nationally but also in Africa. It is for that particular reason that I shall vote against the Government's proposal.
  7.49 p.m.
  Mr. Ivor Clemitson: We are dealing with some very fundamental questions. We are dealing with questions about the probity of civil servants and people in public life. We are dealing with questions about the relationships between people in public service and people in the service of private companies. We are dealing with the relationships between Governments and multinational companies. We are dealing with relationships between Ministers and civil servants. As the right
  1766
  hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. Steel) said, we are dealing with the very standing of the Government of the country in the eyes of other people in the world.
  It seems to me that though the breaking of oil sanctions was in itself a serious enough matter the sort of questions which are raised run far wider than this particular issue. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said earlier today that we did not want to have a cover-up or a whitewash in this inquiry. It would need to be seen as something established by this House itself.
  Against that background and the seriousness of the fundamental issues, I believe that we should judge this motion according to several criteria. The first is that the composition of this Commission—it should, as the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) said, be called a Joint Committee—should be seen to have the approval of this House and not be something cobbled up in a corner by the different party establishments. Second, there should be the maximum possible openness in the Commission's proceedings consistent with the requirements of national security and the reasonable protection of those individuals who might be implicated. The third criterion is that the inquiry should be as broad as possible.
  Looking at the motion against these criteria, I make one or two points. I was disturbed by what the Attorney-General said earlier today concerning the terms of reference. He seemed to imply that the scope of this inquiry would be very narrow. Perhaps I misheard or misinterpreted him, but he seemed to imply that. My hope is that the terms of reference as set out in the motion will be interpreted as widely as possible, because we are concerned with the whole complex of relationships as among persons, Governments and companies. If the inquiry is too narrow, we shall be dealing with matters out of context. This would be wrong.
  Second, on the question of the membership of the Commission, I was pleased to hear the Attorney-General say that the two people to be nominated from the Government side would be hon. Gentlemen rather than right hon. Gentlemen. I hope that the other two parties will follow this good example. However, there is a second point about the size

  1767
  of the Commission. When I asked the Attorney-General today about its size, he told me that there would be eight members. That is not quite the end of the matter, is it? Surely there is nothing to stop the House of Lords—assuming that it agrees to the setting up of this Commission—saying that if the House of Commons is to have five members, why should not the House of Lords have five, or even more? What guarantee do we have that the membership will be eight, with five members from this House and three from the other House? This point needs to be cleared up.
  My third point concerns the secrecy of the Commission's meetings. The Prime Minister called in aid the precedent of the Commission on the Dardanelles. This was the one precedent to which he referred in his statement on 15 December in this House. Whether or not that Commission performed its job well I do not know, but the point is that it was created by an Act of Parliament rather than by a resolution of the House. In this context, that seems to me to be a red herring, because the fact was that in the Act that set up that Commission power was given to it to decide whether its meetings should be open.
  I find that quite remarkable because, after all, the country was in the middle of a war and the Commission was to investigate matters concerned with the conduct of the war. Yet, for good or ill, it was thought fit to leave it to the Comission itself to decide whether or not its meetings should be open.
  If that was good enough in 1916, it ought to be good enough now. The motion as it stands clearly bars all public meetings. It is made quite clear that all meetings must be in private, leaving no discretion to the Commission. Here we come back to the question of trust. Do we, or do we not, trust the members of this Commission? Do we trust them sufficiently to accept that they will have due regard to such matters as national security and the protection of those individuals who are implicated? It seems to me that in this motion we are saying that we do not trust the Commission members. That is a rather poor basis on which to start.
  The basic point is that the issues at stake are fundamental ones, about the
  1768
  nature and integrity of Government and Parliament. If everything is done behind closed doors, suspicions about a cover-up or a whitewash will inevitably arise. Though the Attorney-General is seeking to avoid that situation, suspicions will surely arise unless there is the maximum openness in the Commission's proceedings.
  The motion appears to give the Chairman of the Commission enormous and exclusive powers. According to the motion he may consult the other members of the Commission, but he is not required to do so. He may, as the hon. Member for Tiverton pointed out, consult his colleagues if necessary. Who is to decide when that might be necessary? Presumably the Chairman himself. This will obviously create the possibility of tension between the Chairman of the Commission and the other members. It will be very difficult to avoid tensions in that situation. Again, we encounter the question of that trust which the House should surely place in the members of the Commission. I agree with my hon. Friends the Members for York (Mr. Lyon), and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes), who found astonishing the statement by the Attorney-General that the Prime Minister will not make Cabinet papers available unless this House passes the final paragraph of the motion in an unamended form.
  The Attorney-General said that this inquiry was a matter for the House. If it is a matter for the House, how can the House carry out its proper functions without the full freedom to do so? Surely it is quite unacceptable that the decisions of this House should have to be taken under what amounts to a threat or duress.
  I welcome the setting up of this Commission, but I make three points. First, the terms of reference should be interpreted in the widest possible manner. Secondly, we need a serious reconsideration of the ban on the Commission meeting in public, and, thirdly, we need to reconsider the exclusive powers given to the Chairman.
  8 p.m.
  Mr. Raymond Whitney: I am happy to take up the remarks of the hon. Member for Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) about the gravity of the

  1769
  position, but not about the details of the mechanics of the Commission. I believe that we must re-examine the principle at stake.
  I was happy, in the debate on 7 November last year, to recognise the need to consider the case for a further inquiry, but having carefully considered all that was said in that debate and the statement by the Prime Minister and other members of the Government subsequently, and having listened carefully to what has been said in this debate, I have reached the clear conclusion that the case for a further detailed inquiry into Rhodesian sanctions does not stand up.
  Nothing has been said to show that any good can be achieved by such an investigation. We have all had clearly proved to us the amount of damage that can be done to the interest and standing of this country. We must also take into account the situation in Rhodesia. Do we believe that another long and painful raking over of the sad but cooling embers will do anything but make the possibility of finding an adequate solution to that dreadful problem any easier? Clearly, such an inquiry will make the situation very much worse.
  When the debate began, I was not sure whether it was possible for the Government to move away from the principle of having a Commission. The statement made by the Foreign Secretary on 24 January, somewhat appropriately at an anti-apartheid rally, made it clear that he regarded the matter as a fait accompli. This leads us to the question of the relationship between the function of this House in debating the matter and the policies adopted by the Government.
  Let us imagine that on a free vote hon. Members accepted that the case for an inquiry did not stand up, and that the Government accepted that decision. There would be an outcry. We know whence such an outcome would arise. There would be an outcry. We konw and loud protestations about the sanctity of open government. As a former civil servant, nobody could be more passionately devoted than I to the need to improve and open up government. I am well aware of the damage done to the efficiency of the Administration by the resort to official secrecy, and I very much
  1770
  hope to play a part in the proceedings on the Official Information Bill.
  I also share the anxiety of all hon. Members about the need to restore the balance between the legislative and the executive arms of government. I am convinced that an inquiry such as is envisaged will not move in this direction and will do nothing to improve the quality of government. Indeed, I believe that it will achieve the reverse. It will make any Government, whether the present or a future Government, and their servants still more furtive and timid.
  What more do we need to open up? Nobody can answer that in full detail. I endorse the compliments which have been paid to Mr. Bingham and Mr. Gray, who carried out a very full inquiry. Since that inquiry the debate has indeed opened up. There have been debates both in this House and in the other place. We have also had full statements from the principal actors in the drama. I refer to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Stewart) and Lord Thomson of Monifieth. There has been an exchange of letters in The Times, and I am sure that there will be many more articles in the press as a result of this debate. Surely enough information exists to understand that it was a sorry tale, that the decision should probably not have been taken in the first place, and that its execution left a great deal to be desired. It was a sad episode in our history. All that is known. What more can we expect?
  Is it suggested that we wish to bring the wrongdoers to justice? The Attorney-General said this afternoon and in the debate in November that the probability was that the Commission would make more difficult the process of bringing to justice any offenders against the law of this country. The Director of Public Prosecutions has already taken up the inquiry and is handling the papers. If that process runs in tandem with yet another inquiry, the one may prejudice the other and that would create serious legal problems. That could result in difficult legal procedures and could probably render them inoperative altogether. That is not the result which I or other hon. Members would like to see.

  1771
  What other objective is there? The Attorney-General spoke of a political objective. Would we achieve the objective of embarrassing former Members of this House or of another place who were Ministers at the time when these events occurred? What contribution would that make to good government or to our country's interests? Is it being suggested that some unfortunate civil servant should be put into the stockade? Will we discover that some notional civil servant may have been in cahoots with Mr. Ian Smith or with the oil company tycoons? In my Foreign Office days I never had any responsibility for Rhodesian affairs, but I should be most surprised if one were to find a civil servant who is in that category.
  I yield to nobody in my admiration of the British Civil Service. It is rare to find in it the fault of foolhardiness, or any readiness to take bold, independent decisions. I regard that as a laudable quality and, if it ever existed at all, it is rapidly disappearing.
  The pressure has always been for civil servants to get clearance. Anyone who has been in Government service will know the process. It is inconceivable that any civil servant involved in such a sensitive area as sanctions on Rhodesia would not have obtained political clearance. Therefore, I do not believe that anything significant will emerge in this regard in the area of a conspiracy by the Civil Service. On the information that I have, I would be happy to set at rest the fears expressed so passionately by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore).
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Are not the good name and good faith of this country also at stake in the world at large? If efforts are not made to get to the bottom of the affair, will not people abroad believe that the British Government were not sincere in what they were seeking to do and were indulging in a cover-up? Should not we all be proud of the good name and good faith of this country and see that they are maintained by going ahead with the inquiry?
  Mr. Whitney: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I was just arriving at that point. The good name of this country is precisely what we should be discussing, and we should keep it at the forefront of our considerations.
  1772
  What will be the result of the inquiry? I have established the negative results. One clear result will be that the good name of this country will be further tarnished. Britain's standing reached one of its lowest points in history when, two days after Bingham emerged, the Prime Minister was obliged to fly to Kano and apologised to President Kaunda of Zambia for Bingham.
  Mr. Foot: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not attempt to persist in saying that that was the reason why the Prime Minister flew to Kano. He flew there in order to have consultations with the President about the immediate critical situation that Zambia had to face and to offer friendship and support to a friend of this country.
  Mr. Whitney: If the Lord President reads the record, he will see that I did not say that that was the reason why he flew. I said that that was what happened at Kano, among other things.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: I had occasion in October to talk to the President of Zambia about Kano. He specifically denied that Bingham was ever discussed at that meeting.
  Mr. Whitney: My information is contrary to that offered by the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). Where should we be if there were a decision not to pursue the Bingham inquiry?
  I return to the point made by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens). There would be a serious protest, not only from President Kaunda but from President Nyerere, General Obasanjo, Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Mugabe. That would certainly be the case. I am also certain that we should have that chorus backed up by the Soviet propaganda machine. That is what happens. It would be a two-day wonder, but no more than that.
  We have far less to apologise for in this action and much else in relation to Southern Africa than many of the other participants in the drama. I would be interested in the conversations referred to by the Leader of the Liberal Party, when African leaders were talking about Bingham. It would be interesting to talk to African leaders about their role in Rhodesia over the past 10 or 12 years. Nearly

  1773
  every country that has dealt in this sphere could have its own Bingham. We should not be mealy-mouthed about that. That is the way the world is working. If we move against the grain of that, we do ourselves serious harm.
  The standing of the House is at stake in everything that we do. As has been mentioned, this country is at a point of severe crisis, domestically and internationally. In order to be seen to act responsibly in this House, we must understand the realities of the world, where British interests lie, and what we can really achieve. We can firmly make it clear that the breaking of oil sanctions was a sorry story, and Bingham exposed it. We must leave the rest to history. This House and this Government must get on with the job of protecting British interests and solving the problems of this country.
  8.15 p.m.
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: When I saw the motion on the Order Paper I was concerned that the members of the Committee appointed by this House should include a goodly sprinkling of people who were not Privy Councillors. On the whole, Privy Councillors tend to be either members of Cabinets or senior members of Government. A Privy Councillor is a member of Government who is seen to be a good boy, rather than a bad boy, and therefore the climate of Privy Councillors is conducive to explaining away any difficulty in which the Government find themselves. I want to see someone on the Committee who will apply a critical mind so that when we get the report we shall know that we have the plain unvarnished truth.
  I was glad to hear that the two members of the Committee who will be nominated from the Labour side of the House will not be Privy Councillors. I hope that that example will be followed by the other parties. Therefore, I have decided not to push my amendment which has been selected.
  I am intervening in the debate for two reasons. The first is the question of Cabinet papers. An enormous mystique has grown up around this question. We have heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) reading what Bagehot said 100 years ago, but things have
  1774
  changed since then and minutes are kept of Cabinet proceedings. Anyone who thinks that Cabinet proceedings are anything like the revelations in Richard Crossman's diary is in for a shock. As a junior Minister, I saw some Cabinet papers. I was not bound either by any oath as a Privy Councillor or by the Official Secrets Act, and I found those documents extremely dull. It was difficult to find out who said what, because, apart from naming the Minister who introduced the discussion, the debates are recorded in general terms. I do not believe that any great danger would be done to the fabric of our society if we discussed Cabinet papers on a wider basis than we do at present. But there is strong resistance on the part of members of the Opposition as well as the Government to allowing that principle to prevail.
  I suspected that there would be a compromise, and compromise there is. That compromise goes too far in my view, but initially I was prepared to accept it. However, in the light of what the Attorney-General has said, I feel more disposed to vote for the amendment put down by the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop).
  It is one thing for the Prime Minister to say that this is a serious matter, and, although it is not normal to disclose these documents and he personally does not want to, he has agreed to do so in the interests of indicating to the House that there is nothing to hide, knowing that there are certain careful safeguards, and hoping that the House will accept them; it is quite another for him to say that if these safeguards are not agreed to be is not prepared to release the documents. That is an impertinence to the House and a contempt of it. It is not within the power of the Prime Minister to flout the authority of this House expressed in a vote. On that basis, I am persuaded to vote for the hon. Member's amendment. If the Prime Minister were to flout the authority of the House, he might find himself in some hot water. The House has ways of expressing its disapproval of that kind of conduct. I am sorry that the Prime Minister's motion was put in such terms.
  The other matter which has arisen in the course of the debate which prompted me to speak is perhaps even more serious.

  1775
  It is the attitude of the Opposition as indicated by their official spokesman and by almost every Opposition Member who has spoken. It may be a free vote, but it looks suspiciously as though the whole of the Opposition will vote one way. I do not regard that as a satisfactory response to the challenge with which we are faced by Bingham.
  It has been asked "What more do we need, since Mr. Bingham has disclosed so much?" From the debates that followed Bingham, we know that there is an acute conflict between the account put forward by my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) and the account put forward by Lord Thomson of Monifieth in the other place. It was said that a Cabinet Minister sent a document across to Downing Street and the Prime Minister of the day said that he never saw it.
  I am not so sanguine about civil servants as the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). I recall when I was a Minister and he was a civil servant and we had our discussions. I cannot say that his response encouraged me to believe that civil servants do not sometimes act in a manner inconsistent with the directive of a Minister.
  Mr. Whitney: We have never really gone through this, and I do not want to delay the House, but I hope that the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) will agree that as a civil servant I followed my duty by pointing out the errors of certain courses as I saw them. If he, as Minister, elected to follow a certain course, I followed that loyally.
  Mr. Lyon: Since in this House we always accept the word of hon. Members, I should like to believe that. I can only tell the House that, until the hon. Member assured me just now, I was in some doubt. If anybody wishes to know more about it, he ought to consult a report in the Library by a gentleman called Hawley. That report was disclosed to the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr. Powell), though I do not know where it came from. From that report it is perfectly clear that civil servants in the post in which the hon. Member for Wycombe was then, Deputy High Commissioner, took a very strong view which was different from that of the Minister. Indeed, the civil servants pursued their
  1776
  own policy long after the Minister told them not to do so.
  Mr. Whitney: I should like to pursue this. I understood, when the hon. Gentleman began his remarks about me, that he was suggesting that I was in some way linked with the Hawley report. I should make it clear that I had left that post before the Hawley report and its leakage occurred. This is obviously not the appropriate time to discuss any particular episode.
  Mr. Lyon: I accept that it is not the appropriate time. I am simply making the point that it is not the case that civil servants always act in accordance with the direction of their Minister. I have concrete evidence from my own experience that they always present the Minister with papers that they should present, but it is not the case that they always keep the Minister fully informed on matters about which he has a right to be informed. However, I am not aware that that occurred in the case of this account from Mr. Bingham.
  On an issue which is of such importance as the avoidance of sanctions, it seems to me that it would be very difficult indeed for a civil servant to take upon himself the responsibility of not informing his Minister. If it happened—and I do not put it entirely out of the realms of possibility—we should know about it. As yet, I do not have complete assurance from the Bingham report that it did not happen.
  If the Commission were to come forward with clear evidence that Ministers had not been informed by their own civil servants, I am sure that the hon. Member for Wycombe would recognise that that would be a matter of first importance. This House would then have to act upon that information in order to ensure that civil servants were more accountable to their Ministers and to Parliament. For that reason, I believe it is of supreme importance that we go right to the end of the story and retrieve every morsel of information that we can about what did or did not happen.
  If it becomes plain, as it might, that there are defects in the way in which Ministers are served by their civil servants, or that there are defects in the ways in which Ministers account for themselves

  1777
  before this House, it becomes more and more clear that what we have to do is to increase our power over the Executive and over the civil servants. I hesitate to make the case when the Leader of the House will be winding up this debate, but the case would then become stronger for strong Select Committees which would be in constant communication with civil servants and Ministers about the development of policy as an ongoing thing, and as that happened they would be able to avoid this kind of thing.
  I make two final points. It is suggested by the hon. Member for Chelmsford that the country is not really terribly interested in whether we have an inquiry. I think that that is right; but it is right for all the wrong reasons. It is right because most people, having read about Bingham, have said "What else do you expect from politicians?" I believe that cynicism to be the greatest threat to our democratic system. Far more threatening than the trade unions or the right to strike or picket is the cynicism that Parliament is not a body in which people can have trust. I want to remove that cynicism. It is essential that we should have the report of the Joint Committee, if only to remove that cynicism.
  Then, further, there is a case for trying to explain to our people why it was—if this is what the Commission finds—that, Ministers having decided that the operation of sanctions would involve us in difficulties with South Africa which they did not want to take on, they therefore decided not to come to the House and say publicly "This is the dilemma and this is what we have decided to do." They tried to conceal that difficulty by making or, at least, sanctioning a swap arrangement which was a breach of sanctions but, at any rate, enabled them honestly, or apparently honestly—I am never much given to the idea that just because the words are not wrong something is not a lie—to say that the oil was not coming from British companies.
  If the Prime Minister of the day had come to the House and said "This is our dilemma", the House would have had to discuss it. It would have had to ask whether sanctions could proceed in that case, or it would have had to say "If
  1778
  sanctions are to proceed, we must take on South Africa."
  I accept that that, particularly at the time, would have been a serious development of policy in Southern Africa. I happen to believe that it was the right policy to follow, and that if the Prime Minister had come to the House with that dilemma I would have known my answer to it. I do not say that it is the answer that the House would have given, but I know what I would have said. We would then have had a discussion about the real issues underlying sanctions, whereas what we did was to continue, unbeknown to ourselves, a charade in which we played our parts.
  Those of us in the so-called Back-Bench Africa lobby were constantly saying that such-and-such should be done, when we did not realise at the time that a swap arrangement had been sanctioned by our own Government. Had we been able to use that information as part of the dialogue in forming policy, it is possible that a different policy would have emerged, a policy which would have been more effective in dealing with the Rhodesian problem, and a policy which would have led to the collapse of Mr. Smith long before the fighting broke out in earnest in 1972. The loss of many lives would have been avoided. We never got to that because some people, members of the Government, apparently took a decision that they would not tell.
  The political process cannot develop unless we know all the facts, unless we have a sensible discussion about the facts and arrive at policies that are properly related to the facts. I do not believe that a policy can be built upon sand merely because it is convenient as far as public opinion is concerned that the harsh nature of the reality should not be disclosed. I fear that in many ways until quite recently we were pursuing that kind of policy in relation to whether or not there should be support for an internal settlement. The reality is that the internal Government have lost all credibility within Rhodesia, yet we are still arguing in this House on the basis of assumptions that are totally unjustified by the facts.
  If for that reason alone, I think we should have the full facts before us about what happened and a proper discussion

  1779
  of what implications that has for policy making in the future.
  8.32 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Rees: I am almost diffident about intervening in what had become a rather interesting and private debate between my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) and the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon). I look forward to hearing on another occasion a full statement of my hon. Friend's case and particularly of his relationship with the hon. Gentleman when he was a Minister. Let me reassure the hon. Gentleman that I do not think that the Opposition will be presenting a united front on this. He may even have the uncomfortable experience of finding himself in the same Lobby as myself on the main issue, and may even want to reconsider his position after hearing that.
  I agree with him, and not with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe, that the Bingham committee's report, admirable, cogently argued and lucid though it may be, cannot possibly be the last word on this whole question viewed as a political and historic episode of some importance. This is no criticism of Mr. Tom Bingham and his colleague, because their terms of reference were far too narrowly drawn to throw up all the essential evidence on which to form a political judgment on this very important episode.
  The fullest and most cogent case against the setting up of the Special Commission was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas), who is not present at the moment. He made the point first that this was really a matter to be left to historians. Of course, no one is better equipped than he to make that observation, except perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mr. Rhodes James), and we have been particularly privileged to hear contributions from both of them. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about the Leader of the House?"] I do not know whether or not the Leader of the House can be considered a historian I know that he has made a contribution to history and has written a biography of his predecessor in Ebbw Vale, but I do not know whether he regards that as a political work or a work of serious history. Perhaps he will enlighten us when he replies to the debate.
  1780
  At any rate, the historians and men of letters in our midst make a particular and often sparkling contribution to our debates.
  I do not believe, however, that whatever conclusion we reach or whatever conclusion the Special Commission reaches will prevent historians of the twenty-first century from going over this ground again. I am not conscious that because a Select Committee was set up to consider the Jameson raid—which I find to be perhaps the closest parallel, because these questions of connivance and collusion and, indeed, the integrity of a Minister, in that case Mr. Joe Chamberlain, were at stake—it was important to determine as one of the issues how far Mr. Chamberlain knew of the plans of Dr. Jameson. But that is a matter of history and I do not propose to take the time of the House to go back over it.
  The point I wish to make is that certainly the conclusions of that Select Committee have not prevented a future generation of historians going over that ground in infinite depth and with infinite care, and I am quite certain that future historians, particularly perhaps when the missing filing cabinets provided to the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) by the Peachey, property company have turned up, will find a rich fund of material to go over.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The chess set as well.
  Mr. Rees: Yes, the chess set. The hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), like his hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), has a keen nose for what I think the hon. Member for Luton, West described as moral corruption and treason. Perhaps I do not have quite such a sensitive nose. I certainly do not detect any particular connection between a silver chess set and the matters with which the Special Commission will be concerned.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. I understand that earlier Mr. Speaker deplored any reference to that matter. I think that it would be better not to refer to it.
  Mr. Rees: I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for encouraging me to move away from that subject. I succumbed to the blandishments of the hon.

  1781
  Member for Fife, Central. I shall leave it at that.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford and, indeed, Labour Members were concerned that the so-called Special Commission would be ineffective. I do not propose to traverse ground covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) with his usual expertise. I defer to him on parliamentary procedure and powers.
  I doubt whether the Special Commission will be short of oral evidence. I feel that every right hon. Member who is in any way concerned with these matters will be only too ready and anxious to give his version of events to the Special Commission. For instance, I am sure that the right hon. Member for Huyton with the written word, his reminiscences on "The Governance of Britain" and oral evidence will endeavour to clarify his own position.
  However, I entertain some doubts about the quality of the documentary evidence which may be available, particularly Cabinet papers. I recognise the delicacy of the Prime Minister's position—indeed, any Prime Minister's position—and the constitutional proprieties. But I must say to the Attorney-General, whom I know to be an advocate of skill and tact, that the message that he conveyed to the House this afternoon was similarly tactless. It has not done anything to allay the concern of those who have been considering this matter.
  I should have understood if the Prime Minister had said that his Administration's papers, if certain amendments were carried—I am still unclear as to which amendments he takes exception—would not be available. But, whatever the strict constitutional position, I do not feel that the Prime Minister was entitled to say that he would not be able to make a recommendation relating to the Cabinet papers of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton or of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath). It must be a matter of judgment for them whether to make those papers available on the condition that the Cabinet papers of this Administration are made available.
  As the Prime Minister has not been present, perhaps I may convey to him—
  1782
  I hope not presumptuously, but I think that I am echoing the views of many of his hon. Friends—that the message was a little tactless. I hope that, whatever the outcome of tonight's votes on the various amendments, he may choose to reconsider his position on that matter.
  Mr. A. P. Costain: Has my hon. and learned Friend got the same impression as me—that the Prime Minister is prepared to disclose anyone's papers but his own?
  Mr. Rees: My hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain) is a man of great experience and charity. I think that that was a perfectly proper observation. I think that I can leave it there.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford said that the Special Commission was a diversion of effort. So far as I can gather, only five hon. Members will be involved. I doubt whether we shall be in a position to debate their conclusions until possibly the further side of a general election. I have no doubt that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen are concerned with the present discontents in the country and problems in their constituencies, but I do not think that this Special Commission will be substantial enough to divert our attention from more pressing problems.
  I am sensitive to the argument put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Chelmsford—he may not have put it in this way—that a minimum of secrecy is necessary for the efficient despatch of Government business. I am also sensitive to the argument that perhaps a minimum of humbug is needed if the decencies of public life are to be preserved. I leave the argument there, because my hon. Friend deployed it far more effectively than I could.
  However, I hope that this debate will not be regarded as lying between those practical men of affairs who have experience of government and are concerned with the proper conduct of business and those who are without that experience and possibly with ulterior motives and who believe in total exposure. I hope that I have no ulterior motives and I do not believe—I say this to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe—in total exposure.

  1783
  However, as I have considered this problem, another aspect has struck me. Sanctions were introduced by the Administration of the right hon. Member for Huyton as a matter of high national policy. Whether he was right in so doing, we are not now concerned to debate. I merely put it on record that I believe that it was a mistaken tactic that has proved entirely fruitless and has inflicted a great deal of unnecessary embarrassment on this country. But, as a consequence of the sanctions policy, the Queen in Parliament created offences under the criminal law. Some of our compatriots and some companies have already been prosecuted.
  I asked the Attorney-General a question about the number of prosecutions that there have been for breaches of the Rhodesian sanctions orders. With his usual candour and comprehensiveness, the right hon. and learned Gentleman replied:
  "There have been 10 prosecutions for breaches of the Southern Rhodesia (United Nations Sanctions) (No. 2) Order 1968, of which nine have been successful. One prosecution is pending."
  That is presumably the Lucas prosecution, which has now come to a conclusion satisfactory to the company.
  "There have also been 24 prosecutions for breaches of other legislation relating to Rhodesian sanctions, of which 21 have been successful. Three cases are pending.
  In cases where there have been convictions, fines ranging between £10 and £50,000 have been imposed. In some cases, where imports to the United Kingdom have been concerned, goods have been confiscated."—[Official Report, 6 November 1978; Vol. 957, c. 46.]
  As I said, there has been in the public eye the prosecution of the Lucas company and some of its directors. I would recall to the House the fact that one of the directors, a Mr. Lock, was prosecuted for what, in lay terms, amounted to negligent misconduct because he should have known what was carried on by a branch of his company in South Africa. I am happy to state that he was acquitted, as was the company, although one employee of the company was convicted and fined £500.
  In the debate on the Gracious Speech on 7 November, the Foreign Secretary made it clear that the Director of Public Prosecutions would be pressing on with prosecutions in this field, that the Government, so far as they were entitled to do so, would throw their weight into this
  1784
  area and make certain that any infractions of the orders would be brought before the courts and that—I suppose—he hoped they would be prosecuted with the full rigour of the law.
  I feel that if a person were charged with breaches of these orders, certainly with breaches which occurred before the debate on the Gracious Speech, he would be entitled to argue that he thought—indeed, the public thought, as probably most of the public do—that the Government who introduced the sanctions orders initially had considerable doubts about their ultimate efficacy and that although perhaps they had initially been ignorant of breaches of the order in the most important sector, that concerned with the import of fuel oils into Rhodesia, they subsequently connived at, if not colluded over, these breaches.
  I am not saying whether that is true or not—that will be a matter for the Commission—but that is certainly the impression that has been left on those of my constituents with whom I have talked about this question since and before the publication of the Bingham report.
  This is one of the central political issues to be elucidated. But it is not entirely a political issue, because it also touches on the administration of justice, as I have said previously to the House. Any advocate called upon to prepare his speech in mitigation on behalf of a client who had been convicted of a breach of these orders might well point to the minutes of the meeting presided over by Lord Thomson of Monifieth—may I say that I have considerable personal regard for the noble Lord, both for his charm and his integrity—on 21 February 1968. There was a subsequent meeting a year later on 6 February 1969. If I were defending a client in breach of the orders, I would draw the attention of the court—although I might be ruled out of order for so doing—to a consideration of how far the Government which had created the offences of which my client had been convicted had connived at breaches of the orders.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: Whited sepulchre.
  Mr. Rees: My right hon. Friend has a great gift of phrase, a great knowledge of the Bible and classical literature. I recall with pleasure his memory of

  1785
  Plutarch in other debates. I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that he will catch your eye in the debate.
  I believe that a court called upon to determine the penalty in a case such as the one I have described would have to consider whether the Government which created the offence believed that the sanctions orders would contribute effectively towards resolving the problem of UDI. The problems of the impotence of the Government of the day were real. But if one is to create a criminal offence one must come to the House and the country with the cleanest possible hands.
  Whether the penalty for the offence would be pecuniary or a term of imprisonment, the court would have to consider how far the Government had been guilty of connivance or collusion. I do not suggest that the Attorney-General should encourage the Director of Public Prosecutions—he cannot of course give instructions to that Department—to consider the prosecution of his right hon. Friend the noble Lord Thomson of Monifieth or of his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. That is an absurd suggestion and I do not make it.
  Those who tangle with criminal law in the future, upon the encouragement of the right hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, are entitled to have these questions answered. I am conscious that we cannot answer them in the highly charged atmosphere of this Chamber. We do not have the material or the necessary skills to do so. Therefore, in the interests of justice and not of partisan politics, some other form of investigation must be devised.
  I confess that, like many of my hon. Friends, I am not enamoured of the so-called Special Commission and, as I have indicated, I have reservations about its powers. However, I do not believe that any Member of this House or the other place would shirk his duty and not appear before the Special Commisison. If he did, I believe that it would be right for the Special Commisison to draw inferences unfavourable to him.
  I feel that the terms of reference of the Special Commission are a little meretricious. Of course, it would be right for the Commission to consider whether
  1786
  Ministers were deceived, and the question of how far the House was misled will be a key issue. None of the papers was available to the House. Another key issue is how far the Cabinet and the Ministers of the day connived and colluded or how far they remained in ignorance of what was going on.
  In the absence of more attractive and practical proposals, and in the hope that the Special Commission will address itself to what I regard, and I hope the House regards, as an important issue, I shall support the motion.
  8.50 p.m.
  Mr. William Hamilton: The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) referred to the undoubted fact that the British Government, generally speaking, were not interested in this matter. Judging from the attendance in the Chamber, the majority of Members of this House are not interested either. But that, as my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon) said, is no good reason why we should not go ahead to ascertain the truth.
  Indeed, British politics might have been in a healthier state if the Government which perpetrated the Suez disaster had set up a similar committee to ascertain the truth of that disaster. Perhaps we could trace the cynicism now prevalent among the British public to that crisis. However, we have never yet learnt the truth of it. It is very important for the credibility of Government, for the credibility of our Civil Service and for the credibility, more importantly, of the nation as a whole that we should bend every endeavour to get at the truth, however unpleasant it might be for individuals or Government.
  The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) was a fairly high-up civil servant. I do not want to criticise the Civil Service unduly, but he would appear to have been the sort of archetypal civil servant who makes us deeply suspicious of the whole set-up of the Civil Service. Speaking more as a civil servant than as a politically sensitive representative of this House, he admitted, in effect, that it was a sorry tale and that therefore we had better wrap it up.
  I take a completely opposite view, precisely for the reason that, if it is a sorry

  1787
  tale of deception by somebody, it is imperative that we should use all our endeavours to get to the truth, however distasteful it might be and however destructive it might be of the careers of individuals, be they Members of this House, civil servants, oil executives, or anything else. If there are wrongdoers, they must be identified and suitable punishment must be meted out "pour encourager les autres".
  This, more than any other issue that I remember debating in this House, is a political matter of great concern to this House, to our people and to our credibility as a nation in the world. Politically the reputations of former Ministers—and perhaps of existing Ministers—are at stake. Constitutionally what is at stake is whether this House was deliberately deceived by Ministers of the Crown of both Governments and whether Ministers were deceived by civil servants.
  There is a very important matter to which reference has not yet been made, and I hope that the Joint Committee will undertake to investigate it. I refer to the relationship between BP and the Government. The Government have a major shareholding in BP, yet there was evidence that there was either no relationship or that some very questionable relationship existed between the British Government's directors in that company and the Government themselves.
  Not least in importance is a matter which has been referred to by several right hon. and hon. Members in the course of the debate, and which was referred to by the Attorney-General, namely, the Prime Minister's doctrine. I could scarcely believe my ears, but I knew very well that the Prime Minister had said it on 15 December because I was here at the time. It was, I believe, in reply to a question from me that he laid down the astonishing doctrine that if this House does not do what he thinks we ought to do, he will take no notice of it. I tell my right hon. Friend that that is an outrageous and completely unacceptable doctrine, and that we shall not accept it. I hope that no Back Bench Member—and, indeed, no Front Bench Member, apart from Cabinet Members—will accept that doctrine.
  I turn directly to that statement by the Prime Minister on 15 December. After it the Leader of the Opposition had some
  1788
  startling and ominous things to say. The right hon. Lady said that she wanted speedy conclusions, otherwise the interests of the United Kingdom would be damaged. What did that imply? Surely the implication of that was that if we investigated in depth and discovered the facts the Government would be damaged, and that therefore we should have a speedy, inconclusive whitewashing exercise to safeguard the good name of this country. That doctrine was propounded by the right hon. Lady. She almost inferred that the more inadequate the inquiry, the better our interests would be protected in this country and presumably in Africa. The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) shakes his head. I hope that he will read what his right hon. Friend said on that occasion. He may then draw his own conclusions.
  The Prime Minister was questioned more effectively, I thought, by the former Tory Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he referred to the question of the evidence to be taken in private. My amendment refers to that point. In reply the Prime Minister said that if the evidence was not taken in private—if it was taken in public—private characters might be jeopardised, and character assassination of private individuals might take place which could not be remedied easily in the short term. In the nature of events we must take that risk. It is unavoidable. My amendment seeks to deal with that matter.
  All parties pay lip service to the principle of open government until they become the Government. Then suddenly they backtrack. We have repeatedly tried by a variety of measures to obtain more open government. Concessions have been made reluctantly by successive Governments by means of a multiplicity of Green Papers. We have not made much progress in all the time that I have been here in implementing the principle of open government. The idea of having the evidence taken by this Select Committee, with the safeguard that it would be at the discretion of the Chairman and his Committee acting together, would be sufficient safeguard against the abuse of individuals who gave evidence to the Committee.
  Many years ago we heard in Parliament the same argument about Select Committees of other kinds. We always

  1789
  sat in private until relatively recently. The argument was always put by Governments that the press would report the proceedings week by week. The outside public would therefore obtain a bowdlerised version of what was happening and the evidence would be out of date when the report appeared. The press and public would therefore have been fed with inexact, inaccurate, scurrilous stories of which the press is capable. Those arguments were advanced over a long period of years against allowing the public inside the Select Committees. Eevery Select Committee now allows in the public. None of the dangers feared at that time has arisen.
  Mr. Costain: There is still a problem. The press is allowed to report the meetings of the Public Accounts Committee, but as a member of that Committee I am not permitted to give official evidence. It is still half a story. I could not take part in a television programme tonight because a report has not been made to the House.
  Mr. Hamilton: As far as I understand the hon. Gentleman, that is a case for saying that we should go even further and introduce the television camera. I am all in favour of that. If we are to get an accurate description for the public of what goes on in this place, our proceedings must be as open as possible. I should be all in favour of having television cameras in Select Committee rooms and in the Joint Committee.
  The former Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Sidcup, advanced a valid argument about having a report produced by the Committee but published without the accompanying evidence. Nothing could be more calculated to convince the public that a whitewashing exercise had taken place than to produce a report but not the evidence. We should be saying "There is the report, but we shall not tell you the evidence on which it is based." I can think of nothing more damaging to the standing of the House than that procedure.
  There has been and still is constant pressure on the Government not to appoint a majority of Privy Councillors. The argument has been conceded by the Government but the Opposition may take
  1790
  a different view. We have no control over the Opposition, but I hope that when the membership is ascertained a resolution will be put before the House and we shall be able to amend the membership. If a resolution comes before us, and if the Opposition have appointed Privy Councillors, we shall move amendments to delete the Privy Councillors' names and to replace them with Back Benchers. If that procedure is adopted, we shall have that privilege.
  We may talk about the nuts and bolts but we must not lose sight of the principle. My hon. Friends the Members for York and for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) put the matter in the right perspective. It is highly politically charged. Whatever faults we may find with the terms of reference of the Committee and its composition, it is extremely important to our friends in Africa, to the Third world and to everybody in Great Britain to ensure that the House of Commons, a democratically elected assembly, is willing, despite the damage that may be incurred by former Ministers and civil servants, not to shrink from ascertaining the truth. I only wish that the Tory Government had done so in 1956.
  9.3 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Fraser: It is always a pleasure to speak after the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton). I agree with the hon. Gentleman that the House of Commons must not shrink from ascertaining the truth when its honour is involved.
  The hon. Gentleman tried to make a party political point about Suez. I could make a party political point about Admiral Byng and the muitny of the Nore. Neither Suez nor the mutiny created a new criminal offence. Sanctions did so, and many innocent persons, including constituents and those running smaller companies, have suffered. There is a proper emotional viewpoint for the British public to hold. We have all had cases where, for example, a sick person has not been able to return to Britain or where a few goods—for example, a couple of leopard skins or a cow hide—have been prevented from being imported because of sanctions. Everyone in Britain has connections with those who have suffered because a new criminal offence was created by sanctions.

  1791
  The honour of this House is very much involved. I want to look back at the reason why the Bingham report was published. Admittedly, the Foreign Secretary instigated the report, but I hope that the Government are aware that the reason it had to be instigated was because an action was being taken in international law by the President of Zambia and by a British company, Lonrho, against international oil companies.
  I am one of the sponsors of the Official Information Bill. It is wrong to imagine that the Bingham report is sui generis to the House of Commons. It arose only because these international actions were being taken by Lonrho and by the President of Zambia against various oil companies. Let us get that straight.
  The Attorney-General: That certainly is not true. Those actions, no doubt, were taking place, but the Bingham inquiry was set up as a result of certain information being passed to the Foreign Secretary, who consulted me. That information indicated there may have been sanctions-breaking. It was entirely as a result of that. It had nothing whatever to do with anything else.
  Mr. Fraser: This can doubtless be investigated when the Committee is set up. I am told that a great deal of information came from either the President of Zambia or from the Lonrho company in this country. That will be shown later. To imagine that the Government have acted out of their good will is not the fact. This will undoubtedly be shown by the evidence put forward to this Committee.
  I have spoken about the emotional angle and the suffering created for many people by a new criminal offence. There is a much more important angle which should be investigated. People say let history decide. This might have been acceptable 80 years ago or 50 years ago, when Britain was a great Power and this House of Commons was regarded with great respect by the people of this country. It is no longer regarded with respect. That is why I believe there must be a proper inquiry.
  Faults have been committed at a very high level. The main argument for setting up this Committee is not simply the emotional feeling that small men have been persecuted while the great get away.
  1792
  It is not the tradesmen that people want to see hung in this country, it is the politicians. That would be very popular.
  I want to raise the question of the deceit of the House of Commons over a long period of years. The most obvious area of deceit occurred over what was called the Beira patrol. Again and again, the House was told that this was essential to the maintenance of sanctions. If one looks at the evidence, it is clear that the Beira patrol had no influence on the flow of oil into Rhodesia. By 1965, when sanctions were set up, one ship was stopped going in. After that, they all went in to Lourenco Marques without let or hindrance.
  By 1970, the port of Beira had seized up and yet ship after ship, officer after officer, and crew after crew of the Royal Navy were engaged in this fruitless patrol at immense cost to the taxpayer and because we were not allowed to use Simonstown, great damage was caused to naval hulls. This needs to be investigated. Yet when I asked the Attorney-General this afternoon whether the Beira control was to be included within the terms of reference, he was rather doubtful. This is something which cost the taxpayer hundreds of millions of pounds. That is why it must be made clear that the witnesses called will not be subject to prosecution under various naval Acts. That is why I feel very strongly, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop), that the Joint Committee should have the absolute ability to send for the right persons and papers.
  I would like to see the harbour master from Beira sent for. There are two of them, both Portuguese. They know how many ships were wasting their time. They know what it cost the taxpayer, not in terms of money—that is for an accountant to quantify—but in terms of steam, men and ships. Yet again and again we were smoothly told that this was central to the maintenance of sanctions.
  There is another question which ought to be investigated by this Special Commission, namely, whether British sailors were actually protected by international law in the pursuit of their patrol. Looking at the various articles of the United Nations, I have reason to believe that if ever they had taken action British sailors

  1793
  could possibly have been put on a charge either of piracy or of murder. Yet this went on year after year, and the House of Commons was told that it was essential.
  There are many people who say "Let the dead bury the dead, let this be wrapped up in history" I disagree. The fair name of the House of Commons is at stake. Let this investigation be set up, and allow it to send for witnesses under proper protection.
  9.11 p.m.
  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: I agree with the last words of the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) that the honour of the House of Commons is at stake, as is the honour of successive British Governments. That is why I still support the setting up of this Special Commission.
  It has been said that there is not much interest in this matter. I suspect that is right. We would be wrong to think that the people of this country, who have problems with hospitals, heating and so on, are bothered about this debate. But we must face the fact that the people of this country have for some time not bothered a great deal about foreign affairs. We have become increasingly parochial. But, the questions having been raised about the honour of the House and the honour of successive British Ministers, this inquiry is essential with regard to British reputation abroad, where British behaviour in foreign affairs still counts. It should be seen that we have no desire to draw a veil in order to protect individuals or Governments.
  The question that arises in this debate relates to the form of the Special Commission. There are two issues in this respect. There is the issue of confidentiality—of whether or not papers and witnesses should be seen privately. There is also a totally different question, which is the extent to which the Government are prepared to trust the honour of Members of Parliament.
  I do not go all the way with my hon. Friends who have argued for a virtually total openness of the hearing of witnesses. When one is dealing with former senior Ministers and other senior officials, one cannot be sure in advance that a probing question will not produce an answer
  1794
  which may not be totally germane to the inquiry but which may affect some aspect of national security. So long as it is understood that evidence will be published after the Special Commission has heard it, and has considered whether any portions need to be sidelined or excluded, I believe that the Commission can sit in private. I have no worries that there will be a cover-up by a Special Commission of this House if it were to sit mainly in private.
  What does concern me is the doctrine enunciated from the Government Front Bench, namely, that if certain amendments are accepted by the House the Government will not see fit to recommend certain things to Her Majesty the Queen. It seems to me totally intolerable that the Government should trust a High Court judge, however learned and honourable he may be, and not trust the Members of this House, especially since, as we all know, they will be hand-picked by the Government Whips and the Opposition Whips for their general moderation and reliability.
  I find it intolerable that the Government have rejected the amendments of the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). I do not always see eye to eye with him, but on this occasion it seems to me that it is a derogation of the power of the Special Commission that the Government motion says that the Attorney-General should give assistance to the Special Commission "as may be appropriate". That leaves it in the hands of the Executive totally to decide when, and when not, to give assistance.
  The Attorney-General: Will it satisfy my hon. Friend if I tell him that I shall be at the service of the Chairman of the Special Commission whenever he wants me?
  Mr. MacFarquhar: I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend, whom I regard truly as rightly honourable, would intend that. But we have had cases in the not too distant past where Ministers of the Crown were required to appear before a Select Committee and were prevented from doing so by the Government. However honourable my right hon. and learned Friend may be, I believe it is correct for the House of Commons to insist on the

  1795
  amendment of the hon. Member for Tiverton, seeking to delete the word "appropriate" from the Government's motion and to insert the words
  "required by the Special Commission".
  Equally, if one is to trust the Members of the House of Commons, as I believe one should, I do not believe that the other amendment of the hon. Member for Tiverton, namely, to insert the words
  "(including Members of the House of Commons)"
  after the word "persons" in paragraph 3, is necessary. I agree with the Government that any Member of this House who decided not to appear in front of a Special Commission would in effect convict himself, and I doubt whether any hon. Member would behave in that way.
  The other major question concerned the amendment suggested by the hon. Member for Tiverton to delete the words "if necessary" in paragraph 9. This is also fundamental, because for the Chairman of the Commission to decide whether he should consult hon. Members on what is, by Government admission, a highly political matter—a decision to be taken by someone who is not a Member of the House of Commons—seems to me to display a total mistrust of this House. It appears also to undermine the sincerity of the Government's whole approach in setting up the Commission.
  It seems to me that there is a compromise which could be offered by the Government. If the House is prepared to accept the confidentiality of the proceedings of the Special Commission, it would seem that the Government should be prepared to accept that hon. Members are to be fully trusted. I hope therefore that they will be prepared to accept the amendments to which I have drawn attention.
  9.19 p.m.
  Sir Michael Havers: One wonders, having heard the speech about the great demand of the country for this Commission, why that demand has not been reflected by a better attendance in this House. Several times during the course of this debate there have been no more than three Back Benchers on either side of the House and there has usually been one—the Attorney-General has faithfully been here most of the time
  1796
  —on the Front Bench. This is the debate that is meant to be exciting the attention of the country.
  I ask, first of all, why we need another inquiry. Nobody could say of the Bingham report that it was not a full, detailed and first-class report. Are some Members hoping, perhaps, to indict other Members, or some civil servants?
  The right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) wants an inquiry, but made a detailed speech to the House at some length making it clear that no blame lay upon him. Does the House not accept his word? In the same way, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) told the House that there was no discussion of any kind about sanctions-busting and that nothing was known about the swap arrangement entered into by the previous Government. That assertion is supported by the absolute lack of any document to the contrary. Does the House not accept my right hon. Friend's word?
  Why are we undertaking the exercise at all? In a long speech the Attorney-General—it was no fault of the right hon. and learned Gentleman, because he had to suffer many interruptions—demonstrated clearly the difficulties that arise for the Special Commission following this proposal. Does the country demand it? I have not had one letter on this subject, nor have all my hon. Friends to whom I have spoken about it. Certainly the House, judging by the lack of attendance today, does not seem to demand it. Today's attendance has been worse than many an attendance on a Friday. Are we frightened that we shall be accused of a cover-up? If that is the case, why have there been no letters to hon. Members on this subject?
  What pressure from the press has there been? There has been the usual pressure from certain people who hope to find scandal to sell their newspapers. But the pressure is remarkable by its absence in the last few weeks. In my view, some of the pressure appears to come from those who hope to be able to damage reputations—those of Members of this House, civil servants, or even that arch-enemy, the multinational.
  Much more important is the reputation of this country. The damage to this country could be enormous, especially when there are extravagant allegations, such as

  1797
  those made by the hon. Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore), particularly if they are repeated in the way he made them today. Furthermore, there will be damage to the doctrine of Cabinet responsibility and to Cabinet secrecy.
  Mr. Sedgemore: Which of my allegations does the right hon. and learned Gentleman regard as extravagant?
  Sir M. Havers: Has the hon. Gentleman forgotten his own speech? Anybody who listened to it would have been horrified by his remarks.
  Free and frank discussion, as described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup in the debate on 8 November, is essential to Cabinet collective responsibility and Cabinet secrecy and to make Cabinet discussion work. If I may paraphrase an important speech delivered in another place on 9 November last year, are we not reaching the stage where it has become a standard reflex action to follow the report of one inquiry by establishing another to investigate the original inquiry? We are in danger of suffering from the national neurosis of seeing conspiracies everywhere we look.
  Bingham made the fullest possible inquiry. It has been published in full, the DPP is considering the, matter in terms of a possible criminal offence, and there is no evidence in Bingham of any cover-up. Are we not hurting ourselves by unnecessary self-inflicted wounds?
  The reputation of Great Britain is not the end of the matter. To my mind, the most serious consequence of the Government's proposal is that the setting up of the Commission involves a serious constitutional change—namely, the disclosure of Cabinet papers.
  The right hon. and learned Gentleman the Attorney-General says that it is unprecedented, but the Government are convinced that it should not become a precedent. I hope he will forgive me if I say that that is a piece of convoluted nonsense, because if it happens it will be a precedent. It does not matter how hedged in the restrictions are; the moment one breaks the rule, the precedent exists. To say that the Government are convinced that it will never become a precedent defeats the whole purpose of what we are discussing.
  1798
  What safeguard for secrecy is there? I listened with interest to the former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton, but we must remember what bitter experience has taught us in this place. We must remember that there are leaks from Select Committees and that often the leaker cannot be traced. We have had cases in which every member of the Select Committee—one of whom is very likely, if not certainly, to have been the leaker—has denied it. Leaks do not have to be by a Member of Parliament. If the Commission examines Cabinet documents, inevitably some of those documents will be put to witnesses and will be seen by their advisers.
  In those circumstances, how can it be said, as was said by the former Prime Minister in his rather bland and confident way, that the sanction of the House's anger for any breach would be an effective deterrent? Such a sanction would be totally ineffective without knowing who it was who breached the secrecy. Our track record on that is not good.
  The proposed breach of this rule, the creation of this precedent, is so serious that it outweighs any need that there may be for the Special Commission. There is no way of repairing that dam once it has been cracked.
  If the Special Commission is set up, what will be the minimum safeguards? The Government's motion, unamended, is the absolute minimum safeguard that must be imposed when dealing with Government and Cabinet documents of this kind. I agree with the Attorney-General's view. He has had a rough ride. He has perhaps had to bear the blame for the Prime Minister. But on 15 December the Prime Minister made the position absolutely clear. If there were to be a Special Commission that would allow Cabinet papers to be seen by the Chairman and perhaps by members, witnesses, counsel and others involved, that would be such a departure from the rules that it would create the first breach of the dam and safeguards would be essential. There should be no doubt in the minds of those who show shock when the Attorney-General uses a well-known legal phrase that exactly sums up the position—that this is a condition precedent to the setting up of the Commission—that the last paragraph should remain

  1799
  inviolate. We agree entirely about that. If the Commission is set up, those safeguards are absolutely essential.
  On whether access should be limited to the Law Lord presiding, judges often look at documents where privilege and especially Crown privilege is concerned, in order to rule whether a claim for Crown privilege is justified. Documents will be restricted, and the Crown or other parties in civil litigation will seek to say that a document is privileged for one of many reasons. The trial judge will often decide to look at a document and rule upon its admissibility. Can anybody say that a Law Lord is not eminently suitable to do this job, particularly with the assistance of the Treasury Solicitor? To command public support, it will not be enough to leave the Treasury Solicitor with that odious decision. That decision must be made in co-operation with a member of the Commission.
  It will be a huge task. I was horrified when the Attorney-General spoke of the enormous amount of documents that are marginally relevant. I feel sorry for the Law Lord who has this immense task. But, for a speedy and effective result, common sense demands that we have such a filter. Even if a judge is not a politician, he is able to decide questions of relevance and materiality.
  The motion provides that, if he is in doubt, he can consult the other Commissioners. Why does that make the other members—to use the phrase of the right hon. Member for Huyton—"second-class citizens?" I suspect that they will be delighted to be relieved of this burden. If I were a member of the Commission, which, thank God, as a Minister in the the Administration, I cannot be, I should be perfectly willing to trust the judgment of the Law Lord and the Treasury Solicitor. I would welcome the fact that I only had to deal with the documents that they had decided were relevant to the issue. Any dissension from this view means that those who dissent are saying that they do not trust either that eminent Law Lord or the Treasury Solicitor, and I will certainly not subscribe to that.
  Mr. Lee: Is not the right hon. and learned Member addressing himself to the wrong question? The other Members of the Commission will be saying to themselves "Am I not to be trusted, along with
  1800
  my Chairman, to decide what is relevant and to keep confidences when I have been sworn, as it were, as a member of a Commission and given a solemn and serious task to perform?"
  Sir M. Havers: Even if the motion provided that there should be a quorum of two Commissioners, and if one could expect a Special Commission of 10 persons presided over by a Law Lord to be able to go through a mass of those documents with the Treasury Solicitor, within a couple of days the absentee rate would be so high that I doubt whether there would even be a quorum.
  Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: My right hon. and learned Friend has fallen into the trap of assuming that the name that the Government want to use is meaningful. He has referred to "Commissioners". This is not a Commission of any sort at all. The members of it will not be sworn to anything. This is just a Joint Committee of two Houses. It is not any kind of Commission.
  Sir M. Havers: I am delighted to be corrected by the expert behind me. I do not think that I said "sworn". I used the word "Commissioner" because that is the term used in the motion. Any form of inquiry during which a person against whom an allegation may be made or imputed cannot hear all the evidence or cannot cross-examine all the witnesses who might incriminate him must be unsatisfactory. Such an inquiry where the evidence is not published leads to gossip and rumour. The names of the witnesses are bandied about, spies wait outside the room to see who is called in and who is not. Press photographers hang around trying to catch them as they come out or go in. It is not a satisfactory form of inquiry.
  On the other hand, if we are to have an inquiry this is the inevitable consequence of the breach of secrecy rule and cannot be done otherwise. This is perhaps another reason for thinking again as to whether we need the inquiry at all. But if we do have the inquiry we on this side agree with the strict limitations set out in the last paragraph. We have a free vote tonight, but this is my view and I have discussed it with many of my hon. Friends. We even see the reason for the unusual use of "lawful intimidation" by

  1801
  the threat that it is a condition precedent that these safeguards remain inviolate. If we are to have a Commission, I would not accept any Commission that went any wider than the one proposed by the Government.
  9.33 p.m.
  The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Michael Foot): The right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon (Sir M. Havers) started his remarks in the same way as the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. St. John-Stevas) by posing the question whether it is necessary to have this inquiry at all. I shall follow the sequence of events put by the hon. Member for Chelmsford and answer his questions accordingly.
  I believe that it is necessary to have an inquiry for a variety of reasons. First and foremost, it is necessary because of the debate in the House on this subject. We promised in that debate that we would listen to what was said. Had we come to the opposite conclusion, come back to the House and said that there was no need for any inquiry, all the charges of contempt of the House that have been used this evening would have been justified to the hilt.
  During that debate we had a series of requests from all parts of the House for another inquiry. My hon. Friends, who have been consistent throughout on this subject, pressed for the inquiry, and obviously, if we had not proposed it, they would have been fully entitled to say that we had neglected and rejected the consistent advice that they had given ever since the publication of the Bingham report. They gave us that advice in the House of Commons. They gave us similar advice at the Labour Party conference and other such places where these matters were fully and properly debated. I agree with what my hon. Friends have said today—that it would detract from the honour of the House if they had not pressed for an inquiry of this nature.
  It was not only my hon. Friends who pressed for an inquiry. I shall not attempt to make any point about the inconsistency of members of the Opposition Front Bench. I listened to the previous debate and to the speech of the right hon. Member for Taunton (Mr. du Cann), the
  1802
  chairman of the 1922 Committee. I have cited him and I know it apparently touches on some terrible sensitivities on the Opposition Benches if I even mention his name. Why not throw him out of the chairmanship? We should then know what their views were.
  The right hon. Member for Taunton spoke in strong terms. Not only did he plead that there should be an inquiry but he also indicated, in a sense, that it would be a disgrace to this House of Commons if we did not proceed. Those are pretty strong words. The right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone (Mr. Fraser) holds to the view that the right hon. Member for Taunton and others gave on that occasion. Therefore, it is not a question of the Government listening only to Labour Members.
  The Leader of the Liberal Party pressed very strongly for such an inquiry. Therefore, in bringing forward this motion, we are responding to the consistently importunate demands of the House of Commons.
  Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke: Among those who have pressed for an inquiry, has not the Lord President omitted President Kaunda of Zambia? Is not the reality of this situation that the Prime Minister, in order to get out of a difficult situation in Nigeria, promised President Kaunda that he would have this inquiry, and tonight is the pay-off for that?
  Mr. Foot: The hon. and learned Gentleman's statement is absolutely false. That is not the truth. The pressure, the demands, as I have already indicated, came from the House of Commons itself. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister went to Zambia and had a meeting with President Kaunda. I do not know why that should be regarded as a matter for attack by the Opposition.
  Mr. Fletcher-Cooke: It is a fact.
  Mr. Foot: It is not a fact at all, and I hope that hon. Members will not repeat an accusation that has already been denied on a series of occasions. It was denied by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Lyon), who saw President Kaunda shortly afterwards, and denied by many others. I do not know whether Opposition Members have any interest in trying to sustain relations between this country

  1803
  and Zambia. I am not quite sure whether any of them is interested in doing so. I believe that the way in which that intervention was made does not assist in that purpose at all.
  There are other reasons why we believe it is right that there should be an inquiry. I believe that it accords with the highest traditions of this House and this Parliament. One of the strengths of the British House of Commons has always been—or has usually been—that we are prepared to examine and scrutinise charges of misdemeanours, mistakes or errors that have been made by previous Administrations or by those charged with executive office on behalf of the country.
  Anyone who takes his children through Westminster Hall and sees the place where Warren Hastings was tried and acquitted will see one of the great—[Interruption.] He was tried by Parliament, and what happened in this House of Commons was that many Members of this House—Edmund Burke, Charles James Fox and Richard Brinsley Sheridan—fought for the idea that there should be a proper examination of accusations that are made. I believe that it was to vindicate the honour of this House that that happened.
  I believe that the demand that has come for the fullest proper exposure and examination of this question is in the same tradition. It has been made in accordance with the highest traditions of the House. Therefore, I believe that all the sneers and jeers, from whichever quarter of the House they come, and the suggestion that there is something evil or malicious in the demand that there should be such an inquiry, should be dismissed.
  Mr. J. Enoch Powell: Warren Hastings was tried by the House of Lords at the suit of this House by a procedure which was only once again ever followed because it was considered not to conduce in any way to justice or to the credit of this House.
  Mr. Foot: I do not agree with the right right hon. Gentleman's interpretation of history. I was indicating that one of the reasons why the reputation of this country in India was sustained was precisely because a small number of Back Benchers in this House—as most of them were—
  1804
  demanded that there should be a full investigation. Of course, it was a different kind of investigation, but they demanded a full investigation into what had occurred. I believe that the honour and reputation of this House was sustained by those processes. It is part of that demand which leads to this proposal as well. Therefore, for those reasons, too, it is necessary to have the inquiry.
  It is necessary also in the interests of the general relations of this country with other countries. As the right hon. Member for Stafford and Stone said, many accusations have been made. Accusations of hypocrisy have been made against the Government and others engaged in the activities at the time. It is right that those accusations should be examined, and those who have been charged should be able, if they can—as I believe many of them can—to exculpate themselves entirely from such accusations.
  When my right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson), in the earlier debate and on previous occasions, urged that there should be such a full examination, the House also had an obligation to take that into account. Right hon. and hon. Members who may have been subjected to the kind of attacks to which my right hon. Friend was subjected had every right to say "Let the documents be produced and let us see, and let others judge whether our claims are correct."
  Therefore, I hope that the House will recognise that, whatever may have been the temper of this debate today, there has been a very strong demand in the country for such a further inquiry. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] I have already recapitulated to those hon. Members who were not present for the earlier debate how widespread was the demand we had for debates from many quarters.
  Mr. Tebbit: Who from?
  Mr. Foot: It is no good the hon. Gentleman saying "Who from?" I have cited a considerable number of Opposition Back Benchers or prominent Members who pressed us for this as well. Therefore, in responding to this demand, request, or whatever one cares to call it, we are responding, as we are perfectly entitled to do, not only to the views of many right hon. and hon. Members on the Labour Benches but to those in

  1805
  all parts of the House who have put this matter forward.
  Mr. Tebbit: The right hon. Gentleman can quite correctly point in the official record to hon. Members on both sides of the House who have asked for an inquiry. However, he said that there was a widespread demand throughout the country. Where is this widespread demand throughout the country? I have not received a single letter from a constituent, and I should be surprised if any other hon. Member has received one. Who is making this demand?
  Mr. Foot: I do not think that anyone in this country who wants to concern himself with this kind of maintenance of its reputation would be likely to communicate with the hon. Gentleman. They would not think that it was a very useful operation. But there are many other hon. Members who have had representations made to them. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman must not be so disrespectful to some of his hon. Friends who take a different view on the matter.
  Having decided that there was every ground for an inquiry, as I have said, and that an inquiry was necessary, the next question was what sort of inquiry it should be. Of course, that raised considerable problems. The hon. Member for Chelmsford said that an inquiry such as this would be ineffective and would raise serious or dangerous constitutional principles. This is, in a sense, the kernel of the debate and of the reason we have proceeded in the way we have. Of course, there are serious problems involved of constitutional questions concerned with Cabinet secrecy, and it is precisely because of those problems that we have come forward with a proposal for a different kind of inquiry from the kinds of inquiry we have had before.
  However, before I come to that special aspect of the matter, let me mention this. We looked at the other forms of inquiry that we might have embarked upon for this purpose. We might have embarked upon a tribunal of inquiry, which is the way some of these inquiries are conducted. I have seen some of these inquiries set up by this House in years past, and, although some of them conducted their affairs perfectly properly and satisfactorily, some tribunals of inquiry
  1806
  set up under the 1921 Act, in my opinion, and indeed in the subsequent judgment of the House, have done grievous injustice to individuals.
  That injustice sprang almost inevitably from the way they proceeded, but partly also from the fact that they proceeded in public, with no charge being made against the people there to be examined and with the possibility that entirely innocent people might have their reputations and their records undermined without any proper reason and without adequate compensation.
  That happened on a number of occasions, and that is why some of us fought very hard to try to get that rectified. The report of the Salmon committee made recommendations for trying to safeguard such inquiries against such dangers, but I do not believe that any of those hon. Members who have looked at this in years gone by would claim that all those dangers have been removed. I do not think my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West (Mr. Sedgemore) made this point, but other hon. Members have said that it is possible that some innocent people may suffer in the process. No one can give a guarantee against that in any kind of inquiry, but I believe that this House of Commons, above all other institutions in the country, should be very careful before proceeding along a line which runs the severe risk of many innocent people suffering, even for the high purpose of trying to discover—[Interruption.] I know it is an argument against, but it is an argument that has to be balanced if we are to consider what form of inquiry is the right one to have. That is one reason why we said there should not be a tribunal of inquiry such as had been urged on us by some hon. Members in the debate.
  Another obvious alternative we considered, and one which was put forward in the debate from both sides of the House, was to suggest the normal form of Select Committee. I can understand the case for that. Some of my hon. Friends wanted a Select Committee of this House, acting in the normal way in which a Select Committee operates, but that brought us directly up against the whole question of Cabinet papers and Cabinet secrecy. If we were to set up an ordinary Select Committee of the House, and if that

  1807
  Select Committee were to be dealing with Cabinet papers as it deals with other papers in other matters now, we would be setting a precedent with enormous potentialities. There is not the slightest doubt about that.
  Indeed, some hon. Members—my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, West, for instance—are in favour of having an arrangement whereby Select Committees examine Cabinet papers as well as the rest. By the way, I do not join those who wish to attribute some special mystique to Cabinet papers. For light reading I much prefer Byron's letters or something of that sort, and I recommend that hon. Members who wish to use their time profitably should not spend it reading Cabinet papers. But the allocation of Cabinet papers almost indiscrimately, as some would argue for, or at any rate with very few safeguards, to Select Committees of this House would not merely entail the risk of transforming the relationship of the House of Commons and the Government in ways that would not be an advantage to the country as a whole, but would destroy altogether the basis of Cabinet government in this country, and I am strongly opposed to doing that.
  I am in favour of protecting the confidentiality and secrecy of Cabinet discussions. If that principle is abandoned, so far from it leading to open government, I think that it will lead to a new form of closed government. I do not believe that any Cabinet, charged with the essential tasks of governing the nation, would permit every debate and discussion that it had to be open to the public and to Select Committees in the way that some of my hon. Friends would like. Therefore, I am strongly sympathetic to the view that we must have very careful safeguards for dealing with this situation.
  That is precisely why we came forward not with an orthodox inquiry of any kind that we have had before but with what we thought it was right to call a Special Commission, because it is a Special Commission. I know that has given some offence to the hon. Member for Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop). But if we called it a Select Committee people would ask "Why not treat it in the same way as ordinary Select Committees?" If we called it a tribunal, they would ask "Why
  1808
  has it not got the powers of ordinary tribunals?" That was why we went about it in this way. We want it to be special and to be identified with the House so that people should not make any mistake about it. Therefore, we propose to establish it as a Special Commission and to set out the general arrangements under which it can deal with Cabinet papers in a special way.
  That is why we have argued—not argued, but inserted in the proposal, and I think that the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon agrees with us—that the Commission should sit in secret and publish its findings in the manner that we have suggested. That is also why we have set out in the last part of the motion the method of sifting Cabinet papers. The right hon. and learned Gentleman treated that part of the argument with extreme fairness. He put forward reasons why he did not wish to have an inquiry at all. But he said that if we are to have an inquiry, this is probably the best way to get the best safeguards to guard against the dangers which most of us recognise. I suggest that we have made a substantial effort to deal with the natural fears which were bound to arise.
  My hon. Friends the Members for York, Luton, West and Luton, East (Mr. Clemitson) have urged that they wish to have an inquiry which will not whitewash in any sense but will have the power to go into the facts and will command support throughout the whole House. In proposing to the House who shall serve upon the Commission, we shall of course take that into account. The names that we propose will have to be brought before and approved by the House. I believe that that is the proper way to proceed. I am sure that many of my hon. Friends, when they see how we propose to act in that direction, will also feel that we have taken account of their representations.
  Some of my hon. Friends—in particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes)—asked what would happen if there should be a conflict between the House of Lords and the House of Commons about the arrangements for these proceedings. That is an important matter. We had to consider it carefully because we are seeking to set up a Special Commission with some representation from the House of Lords.

  1809
  We want that representation partly because of the question of the Chairman, for the reasons indicated by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General. We also believe that, because the other place has been partly involved in these events, it is a worthwhile way to proceed. If we are to succeed in setting up a Commission on that basis, we must have the support of the House of Lords as well. Securing the support of the House of Lords is not always easy or automatic.
  The other place will be discussing not this precise motion but a comparable one in a day or two. We hope that, this motion being passed by this House, as I hope and believe it will be, the House of Lords will pass a complementary motion which will enable the proceedings to go ahead.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North asked what would happen if the House of Lords upset the apple cart. I do not want to put any evil ideas in the mind of the Leader of the Opposition—I know that she hardly raises a whisper with their Lordships on any occasion—but, if this motion is passed and seen as the will of the House of Commons, I hope that the other place will take that into account.
  When the other place had its previous debate, there was much less enthusiasm for this inquiry than there was in this House. It did not have such a passionate advocate of an inquiry, on either side, as the right hon. Member for Taunton.
  Perhaps some of those voices will be heard again in the House of Lords. However, I hope that their Lordships will also take into account what I believe will be the decision of this House and that we shall then have the inquiry along the lines suggested in the motion.
  Some of my hon. Friends have suggested that the Prime Minister was in some way threatening the House in what was said by the Attorney-General. That is not a proper construction. As the right hon. and learned Member for Wimbledon said, the Prime Minister made the position clear when he announced the inquiry—there was no concealment. I think that the Prime Minister deserves more congratulation on his candour than criticism for his alleged arrogance. He
  1810
  made it plain how be believed we should proceed.
  Clearly, we had to take into account the novel situation that, if this inquiry were to be effetive at all, it was absolutely essential that Cabinet papers should be made available or it would be a farce. But, that decision having been made, it was then essential in our view to have all the protections that the motion involves. That is not threatening the House but putting before the House a considered judgment on the best way of carrying out the will, not of every hon. Member, but of the overwhelming majority.
  Mr. MacFarquhar: It may not be threatening the Members of the House of Commons, but surely it shows that Members of both Houses who will be on the Commission are not trusted as much as the Chairman of the Commission, who will be a Law Lord. If we concede confidentiality, surely the Government can concede some right of hon. Members to see copies.
  Mr. Foot: There is no suggestion that what we propose involves any reflection on the other members of the Commission. The unprecedented nature of this Commission, its powers and the importance of the questions that it is to examine are all reasons why hon. Members invited to sit upon it will be eager enough to do so. I believe that it will discharge its duties to the honour of the whole House. That is the way to carry on faithfully the requirement of ensuring that, when such accusations have been made, the House shall examine them to the full and shall provide facilities for them to be examined and for conclusions to be reported to the House, as every such body will have to do. This House will then be able to pass its own judgment.
  We shall do a great service, by passing the motion, to the good government of this country, to the honour of the House of Commons and to the way in which the House is prepared to scrutinise these matters.
  Mr. Speaker: I am now required, by the Order of the House, to put forthwith the Question on the motions and the amendments thereto which I have selected.
  Amendment proposed:
  (a) in line 1, leave out from "That" to end and add
  'a Committee of ten members of this House be appointed to consider the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining: (1) the role played by industrialists, civil servants and Ministers, (2) their relationships with each other and foreign governments and (3) whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise and to report:
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records and to obtain such specialist advice or help as they think fit; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time:

  Division No. 62]

  AYES

  [10.00 p.m.

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Bean, R. E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Rooker, J. W.

  Buchan, Norman

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Canavan, Dennis

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stoddart, David

  Carmichael, Neil

  Lee, John

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  English, Michael

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  Flannery, Martin

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Madden, Max

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Bob Cryer and

  Hooley, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Brian Sedgemore.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Kilfedder, James

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Eyre, Reginald

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Speithorne)

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Knox, David

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Bates, Alf

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Beith, A. J.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Ford, Ben

  Loveridge, John

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Luard, Evan

  Biffen, John

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Luce, Richard

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Freud, Clement

  McCartney, Hugh

  Body, Richard

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  George, Bruce

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Bottomley, Peter

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Maclennan, Robert

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Golding, John

  Magee, Bryan

  Brotherton, Michael

  Goodhew, Victor

  Marks, Kenneth

  Buchanan, Richard

  Goodlad, Alastair

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Buck, Antony

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Mather, Carol

  Budgen, Nick

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Gray, Hamish

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Carlisle, Mark

  Grylls, Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Carter, Ray

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Moate, Roger

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Molloy, William

  Clegg, Walter

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Monro, Hector

  Cockcraft, John

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Hastings, Stephen

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Coleman, Donald

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Costain, A. P.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Cowans, Harry

  Healey, Rt Hon Denis

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Crouch, David

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Murrey, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Davidson, Arthur

  Hurd, Douglas

  Neave, Airey

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  Nelson, Anthony

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Newton, Tony

  Deakins, Eric

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Ogden, Eric

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Dormand, J. D.

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Pardoe, John

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Johnson, Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Park, George

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Parker, John

  Druffy, A. E. P.

  Jopling, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Dunnett, Jack

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Penhaligon, David

  Eadie, Alex

  Judd, Frank

  Percival, Ian

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Perry, Ernest

  That the proceedings in so far as they involve the examination of witnesses shall be held in public save in so far as the Committee shall determine that it would be against the interests of national security to do so:
  That all the evidence including relevant Cabinet papers and departmental files shall be published as an Appendix to the Committee's report".—[Mr. Sedgemore.]
  Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 33, Noes 177.

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Stainton, Keith

  Viggers, Peter

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Stallard, A. W.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Ward, Michael

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Stanley, John

  Watkins, David

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Stott, Roger

  Wellbeloved, James

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Whitney, Raymond

  Sever, John

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Tebbit, Norman

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Shersby, Michael

  Thatcher, Rt. Hon Margaret

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Tinn, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Tomlinson, John

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Torney, Tom

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Mr. Robert Rhodes James.

  Snape, Peter

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put,
  That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned

  Division No. 63]

  AYES

  [10.12 p.m.

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Ovenden, John

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Pardoe, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Park, George

  Bates, Alf

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Parker, John

  Bean, R. E.

  Hayhoe, Barney

  Penhaligon, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hooley, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

  Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Buchanan, Richard

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Buck, Antony

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sever, John

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Judd, Frank

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Carmichael, Neil

  Kerr, Russell

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Carter, Ray

  Kilfedder, James

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Knox, David

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lamond, James

  Snape, Peter

  Coleman, Donald

  Lamont, Norman

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cowans, Harry

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Crouch, David

  Lee, John

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Luard, Evan

  Stoddart, David

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Luce, Richard

  Stott, Roger

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Stradling Thomas, J.

  Deakins, Eric

  McCartney, Hugh

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Dormand, J. D.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Tinn, James

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tomlinson, John

  Dunnett, Jack

  Maclennan, Robert

  Torney, Tom

  Eadie, Alex

  Madden, Max

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  English, Michael

  Magee, Bryan

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Ward, Michael

  Flannery, Martin

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Watkins, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Mikardo, Ian

  Wellbeloved, James

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ford, Ben

  Molloy, William

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

  George, Bruce

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Golding, John

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Gould, Bryan

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES.

  Graham, Ted

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Tom Cox and

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. John Evans.

  in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report.
  The House divided:Ayes 146, Noes 67.

  NOES

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Grylls, Michael

  Pattie, Geoffrey

  Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Percival, Ian

  Berry, Hon Anthony

  Hastings, Stephen

  Peyton, Rt Hon John

  Biffen, John

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch

  Body, Richard

  Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Pym, Rt Hon Francis

  Brotherton, Michael

  Hurd, Douglas

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Budgen, Nick

  Hutchison, Michael Clark

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Carlisle, Mark

  Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd&W'df'd)

  Shersby, Michael

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Clegg, Walter

  Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith

  Stainton, Keith

  Cockcroft, John

  King, Tom (Bridgwater)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Costain, A. P.

  Kitson, Sir Timothy

  Stanley, John

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Le Marchant, Spencer

  Tebbit, Norman

  Eyre, Reginald

  Loveridge, John

  Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret

  Fairgrieve, Russell

  Mather, Carol

  Vaughan, Dr Gerard

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Weatherill, Bernard

  Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

  Meyer, Sir Anthony

  Whitelaw, Rt Hon William

  Fookes, Miss Janet

  Moate, Roger

  Whitney, Raymond

  Freud, Clement

  Monro, Hector

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Goodhew, Victor

  Neave, Alrey

  Mr. Ivan Lawrence and

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Robert Rhodes James.

  Gray, Hamish

  Newton, Tony

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That it is desirable that a Joint Committee of both Houses to be known as "the Special Commission on Oil Sanctions" be appointed
  1816
  to consider, following the Report of the Bingham Inquiry, the part played by those concerned in the development and application of the policy of oil sanctions against Rhodesia with a view to determining whether Parliament or Ministers were misled, intentionally or otherwise, and to report:
  Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded, pursuant to the Order this day, to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of proceedings on the remaining motions.
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for York (Mr. Lyon) wish to move amendment (b)?
  Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: No, Mr. Speaker.
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee of five Members be appointed to join with such Committee as the Lords may appoint to consider the said matters and to report accordingly:

  Division No. 64]

  AYES

  10.22 p.m.

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Hooley, Frank

  Rhodes James, R.

  Bean, R. E.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Body, Richard

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kerr, Russell

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Kilfedder, James

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Budgen, Nick

  Lamond, James

  Sever, John

  Canavan, Dennis

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Crouch, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Skinner, Dennis

  Cryer, Bob

  Lee, John

  Spearing, Nigel

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  English, Michael

  Loveridge, John

  Stoddart, David

  Fisher, Sir Nigel

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Tebbit, Norman

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Ward, Michael

  Ford, Ben

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Whitney, Raymond

  Gardiner, George (Reigate)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nelson, Anthonym

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Goodhew, Victor

  Newens, Stanley

  Gould, Bryan

  Newton, Tony

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Ogden, Eric

  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Ivor Clemitsop.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Freud, Clement

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  George, Bruce

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Bates, Alf

  Golding, John

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Beith, A. J.

  Graham, Ted

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Pardoe, John

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Park, George

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Parker, John

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Penhaligon, David

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Carter, Ray

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Coleman, Donald

  Judd, Frack

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Cowans, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Knox, David

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Luard, Evan

  Smith, Rt. Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Snape, Peter

  Deakins, Eric

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Steel, Rt Hon David

  Dormand, J. D.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stott, Roger

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Magee, Bryan

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Dunnett, Jack

  Marks, Kenneth

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Eadie, Alex

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Tinn, James

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Millian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Tomlinson, John

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Molly, William

  Torney, Tom

  Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Motion made, and Question proposed.
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time.—[Attorney-General.]
  Amendment proposed: (e), after 'persons', insert
  '(including Members of the House of Commons)'.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided:—Ayes 67, Noes 89.

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Watkins, David

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mr. John Evens and

  Wellbeloved, James

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Mr Thomas Cox.

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; and to report from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That Two be the Quorum of the Committee.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have leave to hear Counsel to such extent as they shall see fit.

  Division No. 65]

  AYES

  10.32 p.m.]

  Aitken, Jonathan

  Gould, Bryan

  Newens, Stanley

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Newton, Tony

  Bean, R. E.

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Body, Richard

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Rooker, J. W.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Hooley, Frank

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Bray, Dr Jeremy

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kerr, Russell

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Canavan, Dennis

  Kilfedder, James

  Sever, John

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Lamond, James

  Skinner, Dennis

  Crouch, David

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Spearing, Nigel

  Cryer, Bob

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Lestor, Miss Joan Eton & Slough)

  Stoddart, David

  Drayson, Burnaby

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Ward, Michael

  English, Michael

  McKay, Allen (Penistone)

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Flannery, Martin

  Madden, Max

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Moate, Roger

  Ford, Ben

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop and

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar.

  Goodhew, Victor

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Graham, Ted

  Park, George

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Parker, John

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Penhaligon, David

  Beith, A. J.

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Rowlands, Ted

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Buchanan, Richard

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Carter, Ray

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Judd, Frank

  Snape, Peter

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Stallard, A. W.

  Coleman, Donald

  Knox, David

  Stott, Roger

  Cowans, Harry

  Luard, Evan

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  McCartney, Hugh

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolion W)

  Davidson, Arthur

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Tinn, James

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Maclennan, Robert

  Tomlionson, John

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Magee, Bryan

  Torney, Tom

  Deakins, Eric

  Marks, Kenneth

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Dormand, J. D.

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Millian, Rt Hon Bruce

  Watkins, David

  Dunnett, Jack

  Molloy, William

  Wellbeloved, James

  Eadie, Alex

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Freud, Clement

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Mr. Alf Bates and

  George, Bruce

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. Joseph Dean.

  Golding, John

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That Mr. Attorney-General shall give such assistance to the Special Commission as may be appropriate.—[Attorney-General.]
  Amendment proposed: (f), leave out 'appropriate' and insert
  'required by the Special Commission'.—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 57, Noes 84.
  Main Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That Mr. Attorney General shall give such assistance to the Special Commission as may be appropriate:
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to appoint persons to carry out such work relating to the Special Commission's inquiry as the Special Commission may determine:
  Motion made and Question proposed,
  That no person not being a member of the Special Commission shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Special Commission unless required by the Special Commission to be present for the purposes of their inquiry.—[Attorney-General.]
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton) wish to move his amendment? He is not here.

  Division No. 66]

  AYES

  [10.42 p.m.

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Penhaligon, David

  Bean, R. E.

  Kerr, Russell

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Body, Richard

  Kilfedder, James

  Rhodes James, R.

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Clemitson, Ivor

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Cohen, Stanley

  Latham, Arthur (Peddington)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle Of Wight)

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skinner, Dennis

  English, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oonagh

  Spearing, Nigel

  Flannery, Martin

  McKay, Allen (Penstone)

  Stoddart, David

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  Madden, Max

  Torney, Tom

  Freud, Clement

  Mikardo, Ian

  Ward, Michael

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Newens, Stanley

  Wise, Mrs, Mrs Audrey

  Gould, Bryan

  Newton, Tony

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Ogden, Eric

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Hooley, Frank

  Ovenden, John

  Mr. Dennis Canavan and

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Pardoe, John

  Mr. William Hamilton.

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Armstrong, Ernest

  George, Bruce

  Moate, Roger

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Golding, John

  Molloy, Williams

  Bates, Alf

  Goodhew, Victor

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Beith, A. J.

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Bean, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Graham, Ted

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Blaker, Peter

  Hamilton, Archibald (Epsom & Ewell)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Brotherton, Michael

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Buchanan, Richard

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald king

  Budgen, Nick

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Nelson, Anthony

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Carter, Ray

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Part, George

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Parker, John

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Johnson, James (Hull West)

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Cohen, Stanley

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Rowlands, Ted

  Coleman, Donald

  Judd, Frank

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Cowans, Harry

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  St. John-Stevas, Norman

  Cox, Thomas (Tooling)

  Knox, David

  Sever, John

  Davidson, Arthur

  Lamont, Norman

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Shersby, Michael

  Deakins, Eric

  Loveridge, John

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Luard, Evan

  Silkin, Rt Hon John (Depatford)

  Dormand, J. D.

  McCartney, Hugh

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanarkshire)

  Dunnett, Jack

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Snape, Peter

  Eadie, Alex

  Maclennan, Robert

  Stallard, A. W.

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Magee, Bryan

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marks, Kenneth

  Stott, Roger

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

  Tebbit, Norman

  Mr. Dennis Canavan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I move it in his absence?
  Mr. Speaker: Yes.
  Mr. Canavan: I beg to move amendment (h) in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Fife, Central (Mr. Hamilton), to leave out from 'That' to the end of the Question and to add instead thereof:
  'the proceedings of the Special Commission shall be open to the public unless the Commission from time to time decides otherwise.'.—[Mr. Canavan.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes, 47;Noes 105.

  Tinn, James

  Whitney, Raymond

  Tomlinson, John

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

  Mrs. Ann Taylor and

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Mr, Bryan Davies.

  Wellbeloved, James

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Mr. Michael English: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe that, based on page 649 of "Erskine May", if the next motion that you are about to put to the House were to be carried out, the House would be appointing the first secret Committee since 1857—over 122 years. The House of Lords, if "Erskine May" is correct, would be appointing its first secret committee since 1847–132 years.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. That is very interesting. But what is the point of order?
  Mr. English: Would it not be the first Committee since that time forbidden by order of the House to admit any member of the public or even a Member of the House to sit and listen to it?
  Mr. Speake: Order. The House does many things that it did not do 100 years ago.
  Main Question put and agreed to.

  Division No. 67]

  AYES

  [10.52 p.m.

  Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

  Hooson, Emlyn

  Newton, Tony

  Bean, R. E.

  Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

  Ovenden, John

  Blaker, Peter

  Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

  Pardoe, John

  Body, Richard

  Kerr, Russell

  Penhaligon, David

  Bottomley, Peter

  Kilfedder, James

  Price, C. (Lewisham W)

  Brotherton, Michael

  Kilroy-Silk, Robert

  Richardson, Miss Jo

  Canavan, Dennis

  Lamond, James

  Rooker, J. W.

  Carlisle, Mark

  Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

  Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)

  Crouch, David

  Lawrence, Ivan

  Sainsbury, Tim

  Cryer, Bob

  Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Douglas-Mann, Bruce

  Loveridge, John

  Shersby, Michael

  Drayson, Burnaby

  Lyon, Alexander (York)

  Skeet, T. H. H.

  English, Michael

  McDonald, Dr Oanagh

  Skimmer, Dennis

  Flannery, Martin

  MacFarquhar, Roderick

  Spearing, Nigel

  Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

  McKay, Allen(Penistone)

  Stanbrook, Ivor

  Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St)

  Madden, Max

  Stoddart, David

  Freud, Clement

  Mikardo, Ian

  Tebbit, Norman

  Glyn, Dr Alan

  Moate, Roger

  Whitney, Raymond

  Goodhew, Victor

  Monro, Hector

  Winterton, Nicholas

  Gould, Bryan

  Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

  Wise, Mrs Audrey

  Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)

  Morris, Michael (Northampton S)

  Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)

  Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

  Heffer, Eric S.

  Nelson, Anthony

  Mr. Ivor Clemitson and

  Hooley, Frank

  Newens, Stanley

  Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslon.

  NOES

  Archer, Rt Hon Peter

  Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)

  Davidson, Arthur

  Armstrong, Ernest

  Carter, Ray

  Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)

  Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

  Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)

  Beith, A. J.

  Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

  Deakins, Eric

  Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood

  Cohen, Stanley

  Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

  Bishop, Rt Hon Edward

  Coleman, Donald

  Dormand, J. D.

  Booth, Rt Hon Albert

  Cowans, Harry

  Duffy, A. E. P.

  Buchanan, Richard

  Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

  Dunnett, Jack

  Ordered,
  That no person not being a member of the Special Commission shall be present during any of the proceedings of the Special Commission unless required by the Special Commission to be present for the purposes of their inquiry.
  Motion made, and Question proposed,
  That it be an Instruction that all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the members of the Special Commission for the purposes of the inquiry and which of the said papers and records should be shown to parties interested or their Counsel or agents, or to witnesses, and which of such papers and records may be retained by members of the Special Commission or such parties, Counsel, agents or witnesses, and which of such papers and records shall be included in or referred to in any report.—[Attorney-General.]
  Amendment proposed: (k), leave out 'if necessary'—[Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop.]
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 68, Noes 78.

  Eadle, Alex

  Magee, Bryan

  Smith, Rt Hon John (N Lanashire)

  Ennals, Rt Hon David

  Marks, Kenneth

  Snape, Peter

  Evans, John (Newton)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stallard, A. W.

  Foot, Rt Hon Michael

  Millan, Rt Hon Bruce

  Stott, Roger

  Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald

  Molloy, William

  Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

  George, Bruce

  Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)

  Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

  Golding, John

  Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)

  Tinn, James

  Grant, John (Islington C)

  Moyle, Rt Hon Roland

  Tomlinson, John

  Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

  Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick

  Torney, Tom

  Hart, Rt Hon Judith

  Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King

  Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

  Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

  Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

  Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

  Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

  Park, George

  Ward, Michael

  Johnston, Russell (Inverness)

  Parker, John

  Wellbeloved, James

  Judd, Frank

  Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Rowlands, Ted

  Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)

  Knox, David

  Sever, John

  Luard, Evan

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

  McCartney, Hugh

  Shore, Rt Hon Peter

  Mr. Ted Graham and

  MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

  Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)

  Mr. Alf Bates.

  Maclennan, Robert

  Question accordingly negatived.
  Main Question put:—
  The House proceeded to a Division—
  Mr. GRAHAM and Mr. THOMAS Cox were appointed Tellers for the Ayes but no Member being willing to act as Teller for the Noes, Mr. SPEAKER declared that the Ayes had it.
  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That it be an Instruction that all papers submitted to the Special Commission shall first be examined by their Chairman who shall determine, if necessary after consultation with other members of the Special Commission, which of the papers should be seen by the members of the Special Commission for the purposes of the inquiry and which of the said papers and records should be shown to parties interested or their Counsel or agents, or to witnesses, and which of such papers and records may be retained by members of the Special Commission or such parties, Counsel, agents or witnesses, and which of such papers and records shall be included in or referred to in any report.
  Message to the Lords to acquaint them therewith.

  STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)

  DANGEROUS DRUGS
  That the draft Misuse of Drugs Act 1971 (Modification) Order 1978, which was laid before this House on 14th December, be approved.—[Mr. John Evans.]
  Question agreed to.

  LABORATORIES (HEALTH AND SAFETY)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. John Evans.]
  11.3 p.m.
  Mr. Doug Hoyle: This is a very important debate that I am opening tonight, because it concerns not only the health of people working in laboratories but the risks that emanate from laboratories to all the working people in this country. This arises from the recent smallpox outbreak, which is only the tip of the iceberg—there have been at least three outbreaks associated with smallpox since 1966. Not only that; as research into the health of laboratory staff shows, they suffer from infections and parasitic diseases as a result of their work. Indeed, this is one of the major causes of their absence due to sickness. In addition, they run a very high risk of contracting tuberculosis and hepatitis. The risks are five or six times higher than for the rest of the general population.
  Taking into account the high risk level which occurs for medical laboratories and other areas in the National Health Service, it is an absolute disgrace that the NHS—which was, after all, established to prevent sickness in the general population—should fail so lamentably to protect the health of its own staff.
  The failure to protect or provide an occupational health service for the people who work in the National Health Service is an absolute disgrace. It was recommended by Tonbridge in 1966 and Harrington in 1975 that an occupational health service be set up. It was rejected on the ground of cost, although health

  1827
  and safety should be a priority in the NHS.
  The Secretary of State recently outlined the steps in relation to the category A pathogens. In addition, the emergency inspections carried out in Birmingham, the closure of part of the Colindale laboratory, and the requirement of Lister laboratory in Elstree to improve its precautions in this direction give rise to concern among the people working there and the public.
  Nine category A pathogens are officially listed and defined as organisms, viruses and materials. They are extremely hazardous to laboratory workers and may cause epidemic diseases to spread. Clearly this is a risk to those working in those laboratories and therefore to the community at large.
  We are aware of this alarming situation. In view of the public disquiet that has been aroused by the events in Birmingham and the fact that what happened in Birmingham may be happening in other laboratories, there is a need—I stress this—for a full-scale, in-depth public inquiry into the storage, handling, transport, research into and use of dangerous pathogens. Nothing less will satisfy the public in relation to laboratory conditions.
  A central register of all medical laboratories handling pathogens should be established. At present we do not know where we are. We have a right to know where dangerous pathogens are located and handled.
  There is also a need for new rules to tighten up on the transportation of pathogens coming into and leaving this country. Some of the stories that we read are horrifying. Pathogens have been transported in ordinary civil airliners. We do not know how the pathogens were passed from Paddington to Birmingham. I should like to know how pathogens are transported. We must tighten up the regulations on this matter.
  There is another need. The World Health Organisation is involved in this. We should ensure that the work conducted in liaison with the WHO is subject to monitoring and review. We should take a greater interest in what is being done by that body. This matter should be investigated. The public have a right to know about it.
  1828
  Inadequate safety standards are part and parcel of the problem. It affects not only laboratories handling dangerous pathogens but all medical laboratories. There is a lack of procedure and implementation. We must ensure that there is monitoring and enforcement of adequate safety standards. Lack of Government finance has held back safety measures and prevented them from being the first priority. That has caused much disquiet.
  Crown immunity must go in all Government Departments, especially in the Department of Health and Social Security. The Health and Safety Executive was set up as an independent organisation, with powers to issue provisional enforcement notices. The premises at Birmingham happened to belong to the university. If the premises had belonged to the National Health Service, the Health and Safety Executive could not have issued an enforcement order and could not have begun a prosecution. That is a reason for abolishing Crown immunity. Safety cannot be left with employers.
  That is not merely my argument. The TUC and the Health and Safety Executive have recommended that the Health and Safety at Work, etc Act 1974 should apply to Crown premises. The introduction of such a provision is long overdue. However, there is still resistance by the Government, especially the DHSS.
  When my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made a statement on the Shooter report, he said that the provisions of the 1974 Act were accepted. If that is so, why do the Government not scrap Crown immunity? By so doing there could be enforcement notices and prosecutions. Until that happens we must continue to wonder why the Government want authority to remain in their hands.
  Generally within the DHSS, committees composed of experts examine these matters. They determine what safety precautions should apply and how and when they should be implemented. There is a conspicuous lack of consultation with staff, representatives of trade unions and members of the public. That cannot continue.
  The most recent set of microbiological safety standards was drawn up by Sir James Howie in 1977. What did the working party report? It stated that arising from the recommendations would

  1829
  be a requirement for substantial expenditure on premises to make them safe, on equipment and on additional training. It reported that there would be the need for more safety officers. It made no excuse for reporting in those terms. Its view was that Sir James had made essential recommendations.
  It was found that safety arrangements were inadequate but badly designed, and antiquated laboratories are still in use. There has been the type of cover-up that we are led to believe takes place in the DHSS. A working party composed of DHSS officials was set up to advise on implementation. Apparently it regards the Howie recommendations not as essential but as objectives to be reached over three years. That is not good enough. That will not do.
  It is also disturbing that no extra money is being made available and that money for safety precautions will have to come from elsewhere. That is not good enough. I would have thought that safety precautions would be considered an absolute priority within the National Health Service, and that they would have set the standards for the rest of the country. But that is not the case.
  I have referred to dangerous pathogens, but there are other areas where codes of practice need to be updated or introduced. These include post mortem rooms, medical physics and radiography to counter the risk from chemical, mechanical or electrical hazard in pathology laboratories, as distinct from the disease hazards. The DHSS seems to find itself incapable of dealing with safety matters. I hope that the Minister will consider these matters. I have discussed them with him in the past. I have taken deputations to see him. It is no longer tenable to try to defend Crown immunity. The responsibility for drawing up safety standards should be given to the Health and Safety Executive.
  A common code of practice should be drawn up by the Health and Safety Executive that would apply not only to microbiological hazards in the National Health Service but equally to all medical laboratories handling dangerous pathogens. A sound base should be established for enforcing more stringent regulations in relation to all classes to pathogens.
  If this work were passed to the Health
  1830
  and Safety Executive, a new advisory committee might be established to handle dangerous microbiological hazards. I can envisage under that advisory committee three sub-committees to deal with dangerous pathogens category A, dangerous pathogens category B and another dealing with genetic manipulation. New draft regulations should be prepared to cover all three.
  I think that the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group has done a wonderful job in relation to genetic manipulation. It has advanced into a new area based on the principle that scientific developments should be publicly controlled and scrutinised in the interests of health and safety and public accountability. GMAG consists of people other than scientific experts. The role of trade union representatives in relation to GMAG has meant that the public interest has been foremost.
  I have shown that there is a greater risk to laboratory staff than to the rest of the public. They have a right, a major interest and a lot of knowledge to impart in relation to the promotion of safety standards in laboratories. There can be no substitute for trade union representatives. We should utilise their knowledge.
  I hope that my hon. Friend will take many of these points on board, because it is now, in the light of recent events, that we must make these laboratories as safe as we possibly can. If we are to do that, we cannot leave it to the ordinary scientists. I am not criticising them. I understand that they want to break scientific harriers and see the advancement of scientific research, but that also incurs dangers, not only to the people who work in the laboratories but also to the general public. That has been seen in what has happened in Birmingham and elsewhere.
  Indeed, if we do not begin to control what is happening in laboratories, there could be a very serious outbreak which could affect many people in this country. Rather than risk that, let us make sure that safety standards are excellent. That is what we must aim for. I do not think that anything less than that will satisfy the public.
  To do that we must involve those who work in the laboratories, and also the trade unions that represent them. We

  1831
  must base any reform of the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group on GMAG and we must also have a public inquiry into the handling of dangerous pathogens.
  11.21 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): My hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Hoyle) has rightly focused attention on an issue which has aroused considerable public interest and concern of late—the health and safety of laboratory activities. He has spoken graphically and knowledgeably of the risks inherent in much of the work undertaken in hospital clinical laboratories, in laboratories engaged in experimental work in genetic engineering and in work with dangerous pathogens and other dangerous materials. He has highlighted what he sees as serious shortcomings in our existing control arrangements.
  Let me say at the outset that there is much common ground between us. The Government and the Health and Safety Commission share many of his concerns. We are jointly seeking to develop an appropriate framework of statutory controls within which laboratory activities can be carried on in a way that will have full regard for the health and safety of both workers and the public, but which will nevertheless afford our research scientists and technicians that degree of freedom so essential if we are to continue to advance our knowledge and understanding of the many problems that confront us today. My hon. Friend recognised that in his remarks.
  We must never forget that the scientific breakthrough in the laboratory today may be the forerunner of a development that will bring untold benefits to many workers and the public in the future, and we must be careful not to impose unnecessarily stringent restrictions that might damage our prospects of making these beneficial advances.
  I welcome this opportunity to explain what the Government and the Health and Safety Commission are doing to secure improvements in our standards of laboratory health and safety, and I want to show that we are fully alive to many of the problems my hon. Friend has mentioned and are devoting considerable attention and resources to them.
  1832
  He will not expect me to deal with all his points on the spot, but I ought perhaps to point out that many of the points that he has raised bear very much on the responsibilities of my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science and, more particularly, Social Services.
  First, I should remind the House that with the coming into operation of the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act in April 1975, all laboratory workers—scientists, technicians and ancillary staff—were brought within the protection of health and safety legislation. All laboratories, whether in industry, Government, hospitals, universities or research institutes, are now subject to the Act. It gives protection by placing specific responsibilities and duties on all those concerned in the work situation—management, employees, the self-employed and the suppliers of plant, materials and equipment—in fact, everyone with a vital part to play in the elimination or reduction of risks. The Act also placed on the Health and Safety Commission and Executive the overall responsibility for the development and implementation of policies to promote health and safety in all work activities, including laboratory activities.
  The range of these activities is very wide—from genetic manipulation to the development of defence weapons—and embraces work concerned with routine testing and analysis, the development of new equipment and new production methods and processes and long-term fundamental research aimed at advancing the frontiers of our scientific knowledge. There is a commensurately wide and varied range of hazards posed by these activities, but we have in the Act the necessary framework for the development of control systems appropriate to the degree of risk involved. No matter how effective our legal systems of control and our arrangements for enforcement, however, it must be recognised that health and safety in the laboratory depend ultimately not on regulations and inspections but on the wholehearted co-operation, commitment and continual vigilance of all those directly involved in the day-to-day activities of the workplace.
  One of the principal aims of the Health and Safety Commission and

  1833
  Executive, therefore, is to foster and encourage, through the provision of relevant information and advice, a thorough appreciation of the nature of the risks involved in particular processes and operations or in the handling of dangerous materials and a fundamental understanding of the essential requirements for a safe and healthy working environment.
  My hon. Friend expressed particular misgivings about health and safety standards in hospital clinical laboratories and laboratories engaged in genetic manipulation and work with dangerous pathogens and has called for improvements in the arrangements for providing employees with information about risks associated with this work, for more involvement, and for the training of the staff who work with particularly dangerous materials. I can assure him that the Commission and Executive share many of his concerns and are playing a very active and positive role in current developments in this sphere.
  There is, for example, already a very close relationship between the Executive and the Genetic Manipulation Advisory Group which was set up by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Science to advise laboratories on the standard of precautions to be observed in carrying out experiments in genetic manipulation. The Executive's inspectors are now carrying out a programme of inspections of the laboratories concerned. The Commission and GMAG are also keeping under close review the need for further regulatory measures to back up those which are already in force. In such a rapidly developing field, however, the need for such measures must be capable of very clear definition, otherwise controls introduced prematurely might defeat their objective by becoming speedily outdated.
  As my hon. Friend will know from the statement on the Shooter report made by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services in the House on 24 January, the Government have accepted the substance of that report. They have agreed that the present voluntary arrangements for the control of work with dangerous pathogens must be substantially strengthened and given legal force to provide the fullest safeguards both for those working in the laboratories and for the public at large. The Health and Safety Commission has agreed to
  1834
  prepare, in consultation with all interests concerned, proposals for regulations under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act which will require all laboratories working with, or intending to work with category A pathogens to notify details of their proposed work to the Executive and such other bodies and Government Departments as may be appropriate.
  The Commission is also discussing with my right hon. Friend and other Ministers concerned the question of its relationship with the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group and the composition of that group and the further action that needs to be taken arising from the recommendations in the Shooter report.
  Inspectors of the Executive are already engaged on a programme of inspections of all laboratories handling category A pathogens. As a result of one such recent inspection carried out by the Executive's inspectors, in collaboration with the Dangerous Pathogens Advisory Group and officials of Government Departments concerned, the Central Public Health laboratory, Colindale, has undertaken to comply with the terms of Crown prohibition and improvement notices issued by the Executive and has accordingly agreed not to undertake further work with category A pathogens in its existing laboratory without the prior agreement of the Executive and the implementation of further safeguards.
  Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend intend to deal with Crown immunity?
  Mr. Grant: I shall come to that matter very shortly.
  As part of its planned programme of inspections of hospitals and universities, the Executive will be paying particular attention to laboratory hazards and seeking to foster the development of systems of work that accord with the best health and safety practices and ensure that all laboratory activities are carried out with due regard to worker and public safety.
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Social Services will shortly be issuing the Howie code of practice—my hon. Friend mentioned this point—relating to clinical laboratories and postmortem rooms to the National Health Service with guidance on the timetable for its implementation, and the inspectors will then be looking for improvements

  1835
  in standards in line with the code's recommendations.
  I now come to the matter of Crown immunity. My hon. Friend referred to the fact that most of the laboratory activities which present the highest risks to workers and the public are carried on in NHS and other Crown laboratories and has expressed the view that the Executive is powerless to secure essential improvements in safety precautions in these laboratories because of the Crown's immunity from enforcement and prosecution under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act. As I have emphasised on numerous occasions in the House, however, the specific exclusion of the Crown from the enforcement provisions of the Act does not enable Crown bodies to escape their obligations. The Act is binding on the Crown, and the Crown as employer is subject to the same duties as any other employer.
  As my hon. Friend also knows, the Government are currently considering a paper presented by the Health and Safety Commission which has suggested that amending legislation should be introduced to remove the Crown's immunity under the Act. I can assure him that my ministerial colleagues and I are as concerned as the Commission to secure compliance in Crown establishments. How this is best achieved, however, and whether it necessitates a change in the law are matters to which we are still giving thought. In the meantime, the Commission has introduced a special form of Crown notice which the Executive's inspectors are serving on Crown bodies in circumstances where a statutory improvement
  1836
  or prohibition notice would have been served on an employer in the private sector. As I have said already, the Government are committed to taking whatever action is necessary to secure compliance with the Act. There is no reason, therefore, to assume that notices and recommendations issued by the Executive will not be honoured and observed by all Crown bodies, just as they have been recently by the Central Public Health laboratory at Colindale. Indeed, if my hon. Friend or anyone else has any situation in mind where this does not take place, I shall be only too pleased to look into the matter if he lets me know about it.
  I hope that it will be clear from all I have said that the Health and Safety Commission and Executive is fully mindful of the various hazards to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention and is taking positive action, in consultation as necessary with my ministerial colleagues concerned, to ensure that workers and the public are fully safeguarded from the risks involved in laboratory activities and that there is the fullest co-operation between all the various bodies and advisory groups with responsibilities in this sphere. No one involved in this area of activity—and here I echo my hon. Friend—can afford to relax his guard for a moment, and both the Health and Safety Commission and Executive and the Government will do everything possible to underline this necessity.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-nine minutes to Twelve o'clock.