Lords Sitting of 17 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at quarter past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop Of Chelmsford.

BARONESS FAITHFULL
Lucy Faithfull, O.B.E., having been created Baroness Faithfull, of Wolvercote in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in her robes, introduced between the Baroness Young and the Lord Seebohm.
LORD BULLOCK
Sir Alan Louis Charles Bullock, Knight, having been created Baron Bullock, of Leafield in the County of Oxfordshire, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Byers and the Lord Blake.

ERUCIC ACID IN FOODSTUFFS
2.43 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why they are giving support to the proposed EEC Directive on a maximum level of erucic acid in foodstuffs when current research by the EEC Scientific Committee on Food has not been completed.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the EEC Scientific Committee for Food, while recommending in November 1974 that further research on erucic acid was necessary, also recommended that, in the present state of knowledge, it would be prudent to give preference in food to rapeseed oils with low levels of this acid. The proposed Directive is intended to give effect to this recommendation.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, in view of the fact that erucic acid—which, I believe, is more commonly known as rapeseed oil—has been a substance in food for 200 years, particularly in Eastern Europe and Scandinavia, that the Department of Health and Social Security see no immediate needs for this, and that the Committee admits that the scientific investigation is only half complete, would the Minister agree that the Committee is reacting rather abruptly in introducing a regulation before it is really necessary?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, the EEC Scientific Committee for Food has recommended that, in the present state of knowledge, it would be prudent, when rapeseed oils are used for human consumption, for preference to be given to oils with low levels of long chain fatty acids such as erucic acid. However, this is very much at the discussion stage. We have kept in close touch with interested organisations and we shall have very much in mind the need to safeguard the interests of both consumers and food manufacturers.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, can the noble Lord tell us what this stuff is? When am I likely to eat it and what is it supposed to do to me?
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord eats baked beans, puts salad cream on his salad and enjoys biscuits and perhaps margarine as well, he will be accepting some intake of this product.

SOVIET FREIGHT RATES
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the freight rates for cargo shipping charged by the Soviet Union are consistent with détente; and, if not, whether Her Majesty's Government have already made representations at ministerial level.
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, as the noble Baroness is aware from previous Answers on this subject, Her

353
Majesty's Government have received representations and are consulting interested parties both at home and abroad. The Russian authorities are aware of our concern, but no Ministerial representations have as yet been made.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that reply, may I presume that he is as interested in, and is as strong a supporter of, détente as I am? Does he agree with me that, from time to time, détente becomes a little shaky and would it now perhaps be a good idea if the noble Lord were to ask his right honourable friend Mr. Michael Foot to go to the Soviet Union to address them in the same terms as he addressed the Spaniards the other day?
Lord WINTERBOTTOM: My Lords, I feel that we are wandering a little far from the kernel of the matter.

PROBATION SERVICE REPORTS
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, in view of the reported decisions by some probation officers not to prepare reports in cases where they consider that the motives of a defendant are of a political character, they will state what are the obligations of the Probation Service in carrying out their responsibilities in these and other cases.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, the duties of probation officers include advising, assisting and befriending offenders placed under their statutory supervision and the making of reports, in accordance with the directions of the courts. It is the duty of probation and after-care committees to satisfy themselves that these duties are efficiently carried out. There can be no question of this duty ceasing to apply because an offender claims that he was politically motivated in committing his offence.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that a report by a probation officer is of vital importance to a
354
defendant and that, even if the probation officer feels that there is a political motive behind the action of the defendant, a report should still be made?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, my Lords; that is the Government's position.

TREATMENT OF OFFENDERS (NORTHERN IRELAND)ORDER 1976
2.49 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge) rose to move, That the draft Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order in Council provides for the introduction in Northern Ireland of a number of new measures related to the treatment of offenders. These were forecast in the Secretary of State's speech in another place on 4th November 1975 and in my own speech to your Lordships on the same day. The order, which will be laid shortly, complements a change in the prison rules, by which prisoners will be released after having served half their sentences in custody. It will substantially enhance the powers of the courts in Northern Ireland in dealing with people who commit further offences after release from prison and will also, among other things, bring the law in Northern Ireland more closely into line with that in England and Wales in respect of community service by offenders and deferment of sentence.
Part II of the order seeks to give effect to what was referred to during a debate in November last as a scheme of "conditional release "for persons serving sentences of imprisonment of more than one year. What was meant by" conditional release" was, in effect, that if a prisoner is released with remission of sentence under prison rules after half his sentence has been served, and offends and is convicted again of an imprisonable offence during the second half of his sentence spent in the community, the court could order his return to prison for any period still outstanding in addition to any penalty it might impose for the

355
offence. Release from prison, therefore, will still be governed by prison rules. The amount of remission which can be granted under prison rules will be increased, so as to enable a person serving a determinate sentence to be released from custody after half his sentence has been completed. This will coincide with the coming into effect of the provisions of Part II of this order on 1st March 1976, if Parliament so approves.
Persons convicted and sentenced to imprisonment will then still be required to spend in custody half the term ordered by the court. If they misbehave in prison they could have their release date deferred by up to six months by the board of visitors for any one infringement of the disciplinary provisions in prison rules. They will, moreover, be subject on release to the provisions of Part II of this order, which I have just described, under which, if they should offend again, they may be required to go back to prison to serve all, or part, of the balance of any previous sentence still remaining when the court deals with the case. I must emphasise that the provisions of this order and the provisions for release, to which I have already referred, will not apply to life sentences, but only to people serving determinate sentences of imprisonment. People sentenced to life imprisonment will continue to have their cases reviewed under existing legislative provisions which require the views of the Lord Chief Justice for Northern Ireland and the trial judge to be taken into consideration.
It will be apparent that what is proposed is a unique scheme which has no directly comparable counterpart in the rest of the United Kingdom. It has to be so to meet the special needs of the situation in Northern Ireland. The parole scheme, as it operates in Great Britain, would not be appropriate for Northern Ireland, for many practical reasons. The essential features of the Great Britain scheme—indeterminate release dates, detailed reporting, decisions by the Executive on the recommendation of an independent board, and in particular, statutory supervision on release—are impractical in current circumstances in Northern Ireland. Thus the Northern Ireland scheme now proposed is fundamentally different from the Great Britain scheme. Under the proposals which we are now considering,
356
there is no uncertainty regarding release date, and release is not a matter of Executive discretion, nor is recall to prison. As to supervision, there is little doubt that the most useful form of supervision is that entered into voluntarily by the client, and this will still be available under the scheme as proposed for Northern Ireland. Should they want it, the Probation and After-Care Service will continue to offer assistance to people discharged from prison, but there will be no compulsory supervision. Finally, the Northern Ireland scheme places the onus on the individual to live within the law and, in keeping with the Government's declared policy, relies on the courts to deal with those who choose to act otherwise.
My Lords, the House will appreciate, however, that the motivation for the introduction of these new release arrangements at the present time is not only to provide an early release scheme for Northern Ireland. The additional relief on prison accommodation which the new release provisions will also afford, together with the construction of new cellular accommodation, will enable a start to be made in phasing out special category status. My right honourable friend was gratified by the favourable response, both here and in another place, to his announcement that offenders convicted of crimes committed after 1st March 1976 would not be granted special category status, but would be treated like any other prisoner. I am convinced that this is a step in the right direction which will be in the best interests of the prisoners concerned, as well as of the community to which they must eventually return. It is in no sense an amnesty. It is a scheme geared to the particular requirements of Northern Ireland.
I have dwelt at length on the policy aspects of Part II of the order, but I think that noble Lords would not have wished it otherwise. In doing so I have covered the substance of Article 3. The remaining provisions of Part II of the order, Articles 4 to 6, are mainly procedural and include a right of appeal against an order of return to prison. As to the other substantive part of the order, Part III, some noble Lords will already be familiar with most of these provisions. They are based on similar provisions which were first introduced in England

357
and Wales in 1972 by the Criminal Justice Act of that year, and subsequently incorporated in the Powers of Criminal Courts Act 1973.
Articles 7 to 13 allow the introduction of community services as a new method of dealing with offenders in Northern Ireland. Courts in Northern Ireland will be able to order an offender aged 17 or over, who is convicted of an offence punishable by imprisonment, to perform between 40 and 240 hours, but no more, of unpaid work. The Northern Ireland Probation and After-Care Service will be closely involved in the implementation and administration of the provisions for community service by offenders in Northern Ireland, and the work which will be undertaken will be to the benefit of individuals in need, or the community generally. This is a concept which has proved its merit in England and Wales as a worthwhile and constructive alternative to the short custodial sentence. While widespread implementation in Northern Ireland may be somewhat restricted by current cirrcumstances, it is considered that community service orders will be a useful and welcome addition to the powers of the courts in Northern Ireland in dealing with offenders.
Articles 14 and 15 are in the nature of refinements to the present practice of the courts in Northern Ireland. Article 14 permits a court to defer passing sentence on an offender for up to six months to enable it to have regard to the offender's conduct and circumstances after conviction, and is designed to assist the court in determining the most appropriate sentence for an offender. Article 15 seeks to ensure that a person is not sentenced to a first custodial sentence without him first having had the opportunity to have his case adequately presented to the court.
Part IV of the order deals with a number of miscellaneous and supplemental provisions. Article 16brings the powers of the Secretary of State more closely into line with those available to probation and after-care committees in England and Wales regarding the provision of facilities in the community, such as bail hostels for persons brought before the courts. In Article 17 the opportunity is taken to abolish the use of corporal punishment in prisons and borstals, which has already fallen into disuse in
358
all but one borstal institution, so no major change is being made. The remaining provisions of the order deal with minor and consequential Amendments and repeals and the making of subordinate legislation under the order.
Transitional provisions are included in Schedule 1 to ensure that the provisions of Article 3 do not apply to persons released from prison on remission of sentence before 1st March 1976, and to ensure that a person's liability under Article 3 is commensurate with the benefit he receives under the new remission arrangements. My Lords, I commend this order to you as an important contribution towards the treatment of offenders in Northern Ireland, and I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Treatment of Offenders (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 20th January, be approved.—(Lord Donaldson of Kings bridge.)
2.58 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, this order which the noble Lord, Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge, has introduced will have significant practical consequences. Part II, which introduces the conditional release scheme, which the noble Lord has explained to the House, ought not to raise any false hopes. But it will reduce the size of the Northern Ireland prison population, and that in turn will enable special category status to be ended. Whatever the reasons for introducing that in the past, I now support the Government's determination to end it. When, in a debate which the House held last November, the noble Lord spoke of the Government's intention to introduce an order of this kind, he pointed out that prison numbers in Northern Ireland remained very high, partly because there was no parole scheme in the Province, and partly because the prison compounds did not allow the necessary assessment of prisoners to be made for a parole scheme to be introduced. But this order will start these release rules designed to work in Northern Ireland. I understand that the noble Lord has personally put in a very great deal of work so that the order can be brought forward, and I give it my support.
However, the speech of the noble Lord leaves one or two questions unanswered and perhaps I could put these to him.

359
First, I wonder whether the Government could give the total number of convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland at the moment, and an estimate of the reduction in that number when the release arrangements become fully operative? On previous occasions the noble Lord has been accustomed to giving to the House the number of those arrested for scheduled offences who are tried and convicted. This success rate, as it has been called, has been most encouraging, and it is a tribute to the record of crime detection of the Royal Ulster Constabulary. In passing, I wonder whether I may give my good wishes to Assistant Chief Constable Newman, whose appointment in succession to Sir Jamie Flanagan was announced only a few days ago in the papers. But the RUC success rate has of course increased the pressure on the Northern Ireland prison population, and the question I am asking is to what extent that pressure is going to be relieved by Part II of this Order.
Secondly, will the cellular accommodation now be sufficient for the Government's purposes? When we debated that on the 4th November last year the noble Lord said that no one accused, remanded and finally imprisoned for a crime committed after the 1st March of this year, would be kept in accommodation other than a cell. Does that still remain the case? Thirdly, I wonder whether the noble Lord could add anything to what he has said about arrangements to help those who are going to be released to find employment? After all, there is going to be no statutory supervision on release written into this scheme for reasons which I can well understand; but the fact of the matter, as the noble Lord knows so much better than I, is that on release many prisoners are going to find themselves returning to their homes where unemployment may be running at any thing up to 20 per cent., or even more. Is Northern Ireland, I wonder, going to be able to claim any of the Chancellor's package of over £200 million announced last week in order, perhaps, to extend the Province's excellent system of industrial training, or possibly to increase direct labour schemes like Enterprise Ulster? For many people such solutions may be the only alternatives to unemployment on release.
360
There is just one reservation which, perhaps, I might be allowed to voice. At a time when lawlessness in Northern Ireland remains cruel and widespread, I must say that I could have wished that these release arrangements would be taking effect after two-thirds, and not after one-half, of a sentence has been served. I realise, of course, that the ordinary remission arrangements for a sentence are after two-thirds of a sentence has been served, and therefore the Government are in a quandary over this. I am aware—the noble Lord has explained it before in the House—that parole in Great Britain can be given after one-third of a sentence has been served, and therefore it is not a simple matter to make a direct comparison between the parole arrangements here and these new release arrangements in Northern Ireland. In case what I am saying seems indeterminate, may I say that the only conclusion I find myself driven to is that I really think that these new release arrangements may be used as a further excuse for prisoners in Great Britain to agitate to be removed to Northern Ireland, and we have recently seen the tragic and serious consequences of that happening, in the case of Frank Stagg. I raise it only to say to the Government that I hope they will be on the alert for this happening yet again.
On the other hand, may I underline my support for the point made by the noble Lord, that this order does not mark an amnesty—indeed, the very opposite, because it is designed to mark the ending of special category status. I trust that the Government will be standing firm on their policy that all offenders convicted of crimes committed after the 1st March 1976 will be treated like ordinary convicted prisoners; and if there is any trouble over the phasing out of special category I hope that any individuals concerned will find that their releases are in fact deferred, as is provided for under the order.
I hope also that the introduction of this order was discussed, at any rate to some extent, with the Royal Ulster Constabulary and with the Prison Officers' Association, or at least was introduced with their agreement. The Security Forces, the prison officers and the Government are going to have to stand firm if yester day's edition of The Times accurately

361
reported the threats which have been uttered by the Provisional Sinn Fein against the intention to end special category.
My Lords, I support the rest of the order. The value of community service orders, I realise, has been continuously assessed since they were introduced in this country, and doubtless they will be introduced on a gradual basis in Northern Ireland in the same way as they have been here. This order, my Lords, marks further practical measures resulting from the Report of the Committee under the chairmanship of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, of a year ago—measures which are necessary and to which I give my support.
3.5 p.m.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, as what might be called the foster-mother of community service orders, I should like to express my pleasure at their being extended to Northern Ireland, and I hope that they will be as successful there as they have been in this part of the United Kingdom.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, my noble friend laid special emphasis upon the fact that this was no amnesty, and he has been supported by the Opposition in that statement. May I ask my noble friend whether this is a means or a beginning of giving to Northern Ireland a legal set-up such as that which operates, as I understand, in Scotland, where they have their own legal system which does not operate on the same basis as that which we have here in England? And what is to happen to the other part of the United Kingdom—that is, Wales? We are supposed to be members of a United Kingdom, and one becomes rather frustrated when things of this nature happen. One begins to ask oneself the question whether one part of the United Kingdom is to be left out while others, by taking certain forms of action, can get better terms of release from the sentences that have been imposed upon them for crimes that they have committed within their own areas.
3.7 p.m.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, perhaps I may deal first with the points raised by my noble friend Lord Slater. The difference between
362
Northern Ireland and Wales is absolute. The conditions in Wales are exactly the same as in England. They have a parole scheme, and the situation is in no way different. The reason we cannot introduce an exactly similar scheme into Northern Ireland is because of the sectarian conditions which exist there. These I need not elaborate on, since we all know about them. In the first place, you cannot insist on probation officers giving compulsory supervision to people if they are liable to be shot if they do so. It is a situation which does not, I am thankful to say, obtain in Wales, or in any other part of the United Kingdom, but it does obtain in Northern Ireland. So we there had a different situation to deal with, and we have put up a different solution.
My Lords, the reason why it is different is not because we want to create something different but because we cannot create the same thing in answer to the problems. We would have much preferred to introduce into Northern Ireland the normal parole scheme which we have over here, and we spent a year trying to do so; finally, since we could not, we produced another solution. But my noble friend must not think that this is part of an attempt to separate the different parts of the United Kingdom. It is exactly the opposite: we would have preferred to keep them in line, but we were unable to do so because of the differences that existed. I am most grateful to my noble friend Lady Wootton, who is the mother of so many things, including community service orders, and we are very pleased to have them beginning in Northern Ireland.
The noble Lord, Lord Belstead, raised a number of points. First of all, he asked me a question about numbers. The number of convicted prisoners in Northern Ireland on the 8th February of this year was 2,201, and the new release arrangements will lead to a reduction, which would not otherwise have happened, of 500. It is quite a substantial change but not a very major one. I should like to associate myself and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State with what the noble Lord said about Mr. Newman. We are delighted to have him. We have all enjoyed and prospered working with his predecessor Sir Jamie Flanagan and we are very sorry to see him go; but there could be nobody better suited to take on

363
the new and arduous job than Mr. Newman. The noble Lord asked about cellular accommodation. The answer is, Yes. I state to the House (and I am subject to be shot down on this) that we shall not fall down on our undertaking to provide cellular accommodation for all those people convicted of crimes after 1st March. There may be some tight moments but I am absolutely confident that we can do it. The noble Lord said that he hoped that we should get a bit of the allocation of my right honourable friend the Chancellor. The answer is that he has already told us that we can have £8 million, which is not too bad. We are pleased with it and we are thinking hard about how to use it.
It only remains for me to say how glad I am that everybody who spoke made it clear this is not an amnesty and that there will not be an amnesty. This is a change in the penal system which was overdue because we were left behind by the parole system in Great Britain. We have introduced something which will ease that situation, but it is not to be eased for political offenders only but for all offenders. From that date on, all offenders will be treated on the same basis which I think is something that everybody in your Lordships' House would wish to see.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, with regard to Wales, would the Minister agree that we could have added that the people of Wales are highly civilised?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I could have added it, but I thought it went without saying.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COUNTER-INFLATION (PRICE CODE) (AMENDMENT) ORDER 1976
3.13 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 22nd January, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. In July last year the Government published a White Paper, The Attack on Inflation. In that Paper
364
they promised that measures would be taken to achieve price restraint on selective products of special importance to family expenditure.
On 27th January 1976, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection announced in another place that representative trade associations had, in the national interest, agreed to recommend to their members to hold price increases to a maximum of 5 per cent. in the six-month period February to July 1976. The prices concerned covered a wide range of goods and services representing 15 per cent. to 20 per cent. of consumer expenditure. On 11th February my right honourable friend announced the items of goods and services which would be within the scheme and the scheme commenced in the shops yesterday.
The scheme may result in a manufacturer selling selected goods at a price which is lower than the price he could charge under the Price Code. Market conditions may permit him to recover some or all of the revenue from the prices of other products. The first objective of this order is to permit this cost subsidisation and to lay down conditions under which it might be applied. The conditions are, first, in Clause 137 where it states that it can apply only where a substantial number of firms in a sector can restrain prices in accordance with the White Paper policy.
In Clause 138(1)(b) it is further provided that no firm can benefit from cost subsidisation unless it is holding a price within the 5 per cent. limit of the price restraint scheme. The order goes on to provide that the Secretary of State will certify to the Price Commission when the conditions approved by Parilament have been complied with and the Price Commission will in that way be authorised to permit the cost subsidisation in the particular cases. When this certification is done, a copy of the certificate will be sent to the trade association concerned and, in addition, full details will be published in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes and the Trade and Industry Journal.
My Lords, the order has a second objective. It is to extend the investment allowance for the period from the end of March to the end of July. During that period, a firm which is subject to the

365
Price Code will have an option. It may continue during that period to receive its present investment relief or, alternatively, it can prepare a budget of capital expenditure for a second year and claim relief based on the second year rather than the first.
The latest report of the Price Commission shows that during the first 11 months of last year investment relief was claimed on investment totalling £1,806 million. This extension of the investment relief has been well received by industry generally and I put it to the House as a modest incentive. I have pleasure in commending the order to the House.
Moved, That the Counter-Inflation (Price Code) (Amendment) Order 1976, laid before the House on 22nd January, be approved.—(Lord Jacques.)
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for introducing this order to us and for his explanation of it. If I might first deal with the second point, it seems to us that it is a disappointing order for, if its purpose is simply to extend the relief for investment from now until July 31st, this will not give much help to industrialists wishing to invest. One appreciates the difficulty that the Government find themselves in. On the one hand, they do not want to see very large price increases; on the other hand, they want to give some incentive by profit margins to invest. But it seems to me that the first part of this order is effectively continuing the policy which has been in existence and which has been a complete failure in two major respects.
It would appear that the Government have made the important connection between profits, investment and employment and yet Government policies have failed both on investment and employment. According to the Department of Industry estimates, the volume of investment fell in 1975 to about 13 per cent. below the level of 1974 and a further fall of between 5 per cent. and 8 per cent. is expected in 1976. This is hardly the kind of trend which is likely to be reversed as a result of this order.
If one looks at the unemployment figures, one sees that they are equally had. There are, after all, now 1½ million people unemployed and it stands to
366
reason that, if the industrialists and those people producing the various items which are subject to this order cannot make the profits, they cannot invest and will not employ people. So it is hardly going to contribute to that, either. I find it very difficult to escape the conclusion that the Government are trying to create the illusion of prosperity by keeping down a number of prices artificially, while at the same time preventing the creation of real prosperity which can come only by investment. This order is a classic example of a short-term expedient which will not help the long-term future prosperity of the country.
On the second part of the order, covered by paragraphs 137 to 141, cross-subsidisation seems a complicated procedure. If I understood it correctly, a manufacturer will be obliged to hold the prices of a certain list of products to a certain level to be agreed, but will be able to put up prices of other products in order that his profit margin remains as good as it was before. I hope I have that right. I should like to know how the consumer is supposed to know as a result of all this which products are being subsidised, which are the ones the manufacturer may increase in price, and how this will be explained so that we know when we purchase things how it is working.
3.22 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord whether he will agree that while it is right to try to hold prices in the private sector, the average consumer is much more concerned about the holding of prices in the electricity, gas, transport and Post Office services? Does he agree that these have a much greater effect on the expenditure in which ordinary consumers are engaged? Do the Government recognise this and have plans for dealing with it?
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend take note of what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said? Cross-subsidisation is being introduced with a view to trying to keep prices down. Would he press his colleagues in the Government to have a further look at cross-subsidisation which might take place in more basic industries or services? This was the principle which seemed to

367
have been thrown overboard some considerable time ago. When it was in operation in various services, it had a salutory effect in allowing profit on one side to be adjusted against difficulties on the other side, and had some bearing in keeping prices down. We welcome this reintroduction of the idea of cross-subsidisation. We hope the Government will give further consideration to this, bearing in mind the increases in the prices of transport and coal and so on. There are many different aspects involving transport, and if cross-subsidisation had been permitted, as happened in accordance with the 1947 Act, we might have a different story to tell regarding the future of transport and other services. Will my noble friend press our mutual friend to give further consideration to this before White Papers are issued regarding future policy on these important matters for the future?
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, may I ask a question, too? I entirely agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has said regarding costs. Obviously, postal costs and transport costs are things which hit everybody in all circumstances and therefore are hard to bear. As I understand it, this order is intended to help businesses large and small. I am thinking particularly of small businesses, because I am chairman of a small business. The order is intended to help businesses invest more money in improvements, modernisation of plant et cetera. I am of course in favour of that; but corporation tax at 52 per cent. means that before any money can be distributed, 52 per cent. of what you have available goes to the Government. That is something which could also be considered in helping people to invest. My Lords, if 52 per cent. is deducted before you can make any distribution or plan any new equipment, it is a large amount of money and it makes it difficult to invest as much money in reorganisation, re-equipment and captial expenditure as many people would like to do. Can the Minister say whether the Government are considering this point?
3.25 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the discussion which has taken place seems to have illuminated one fact beyond any shadow of
368
Doubt; that is, the utter muddle into which the economic policies of both the Government and Opposition have fallen. I thought the noble Baroness, speaking from the Opposition Benches, was a classic example, for her the word "investment" seems to be something thrice blessed and if this order does not add to investment, it is to be damned for that reason. But investment is only important if you invest in things which, in the long run, are going to add to the economic wealth of the country. For example, investment in the TSR-2 or Concorde is a blazing waste of public money, and if it had gone into other things—I will not spend time on delineating it—it might have made a major contribution in the longer term. For the noble Baroness on the Opposition Benches to criticise the order and to say it does not add anything to investment is as near "barmy" as anything I have ever heard from a sane person. The one thing we do not want to do is increase consumption in this country.
As I understand the Government's policy at the present time, it is to hold consumption down through unemployment and by the £6 a week wage limit. Over-investment in biscuits, HP sauce, or things of that kind can lead to disaster in the long run. That was the crime of the Heath Government. That financial genius the then Chancellor, who is a Member of this House whom we never see, went on pumping out more and more consuming power until it almost over-whelmed us. We had investments, but what in? The Government have not decided what they want to invest in.
The trouble with the coalmining industry is that we neglected investment in our basic and, indeed, our only raw material. Later, when the mines were completely run down, we have had to invest enormous sums of money, much of them wasted. This is the dilemma of our time. As a free society, we want to retain the pricing system. But in the world in which we live, the world of technological advance proceeding ever faster, there has to be some system of economic planning. My Lords, you have to combine a plan on the one hand and the pricing system on the other. It is there that the Opposition fails in its duty because they are completely muddle-headed. The only reason I speak this afternoon is because it is time that this debate was elevated to

369
a level that may be understood by adults and comprehended in a way which can take into account the long-term needs of Britain, not only in 1976, but at least until the end of the century.
I am a profound pessimist; I believe that this country is going downhill apace. I believe that defeat, whether it is economic defeat, diplomatic defeat or military defeat, the final disaster, never comes like a thief in the night, it comes after a long period of national decline, of a refusal—I say to the noble Baroness opposite—basically for class reasons, to realise the truth of the situation in which we find ourselves. To come here and deplore the ill-effect on investments because a price limit is put on the price of biscuits is plain "dotty".
3.30 p.m.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, I have listened carefully to what the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, has said. He has uttered a great deal of wisdom. We have listened for many years to the criticisms that the trade unions have forced up prices, both by strikes and by demanding wages which it was said the community could not afford. In the Bills they have put before this House the Opposition have attempted to control this situation by legislation and have found this impracticable. Consequently, this side of the House has given a great deal of thought to the position and ultimately persuaded the trade unions that high wage increases without accompanying productivity would not be for the good of this country and would result in uncontrollable inflation. As we have listened to criticisms of the trade unions in the past—and there has been no criticism this afternoon; nor could there be—it would seem that there may be some criticism in a year's time because nobody knows whether the trade unions or the Government can hold the present situation of controlling wage increases by agreement and not by legislation.
If there is now the desire for higher prices in order to get higher investment, is there to be no control over prices at all? Is it beyond the wit or the ability of those on the opposite Benches to evolve a scheme such as that which has been evolved between the trade unions and the Government, so that they could see to it that prices did not get out of hand or
370
that we do not get unnecessary increases in the price of biscuits, and we do not have unnecessary investment in luxuries? Would it not be better if the Opposition were to say to the Government: "You have done a great deal in the industrial and trade union world to control inflation and to bring it down from 25 per cent. to something like 15 per cent."? Would it not be better if they were to say that they do not want legislation on prices and because of that they will adopt a voluntary policy just as the trade unions have done, and say to the Government: "Because we have this voluntary policy, and because we can guarantee that the wrong prices will not go up or the wrong investment be made, we want you to abandon this legislation. We will do the same thing by means of a voluntary policy as has been done by the workers in the trade union world "?
I would ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, whether she has any ideas of this character or whether she is just simply going to blame us for not allowing prices to escalate for all sorts of investment, instead of saying that the financing of this country and every kind of investment needs to have some sort of control. I would accept that as a basis, if she could say, "Here is a common-sense plan: let us have a look at it", instead of going back to a "go as you please" situation so that inflation then becomes uncontrollable, as it was when the last Government were in power.
3.33 p.m.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, has done a public service in calling attention to that sector of the economy where the price rises are felt most by the people. The consumption of the goods to which the order refers has kept more or less stable over the years, whereas consumption of coal, transport, postal charges and printing has gone down considerably and resulted in large unemployment in those industries which have priced themselves out of the market. That is the simple thing: the wages in those particular industries have increased at a far higher rate than those of a considerable proportion of the people, particularly those who are retired, or who have to live on fixed incomes. They have had to economise on the things they can best do

371
without, and those are things such as postage, transport, coal and printing. A person with whom I was playing golf recently lives on a small, fixed, company pension plus an old-age pension, and he told me that he had just had to pay £50 a ton for his boiler fuel. Naturally he has had to cut down. He does not like it because he is not as warm as he ought to be; but he is only one of many millions in that kind of position. Many people are not travelling by rail now because they find the fares quite beyond their pockets.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that so far as these heavy industries and services are concerned the price structure has been deliberately kept below the economic level at the request of various Governments in the past? Would he not agree that consequently the astronomical rises that have taken place from time to time are not the fault of the industries concerned but result from Government policies?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, no matter whose fault it is, the result is exactly the same. Many millions of people in this country now cannot afford to buy the services provided by those particular industries. I really do not know what the remedy is. You cannot go to the railwaymen, the miners and so on, and say: "You have priced yourselves out of the market and you have to accept lower wages". We know perfectly well that they would not do it. At the same time, you cannot go to all the pensioners and the old-age pensioners and say: "Your income must be increased by 50 per cent. in order that you may buy these services", because one knows it would break the Government. We have got into a sort of vicious circle and these days only a trade unionist can afford to employ a trade unionist. Somehow we have to break out of that circle, but meanwhile there are some 7 or 8 million old-age pensioners and I should guess that three-quarters of them are much less warm than they would like to be. They are almost static in their homes because their bus fares, where there is a bus, are expensive and they cannot afford to travel by rail. They do not write many letters because the postal charges are so high, and they have cut down on their newspapers and so on because they cannot afford the prices. I
372
do not know whether anybody could enumerate or evaluate the exact amount of unemployment which is due to this factor, but I should say it is about half the whole.
Lord DOUGLASS of CLEVELAND: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I ask him whether he is speaking in favour of the argument which was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who wants prices to go up in spite of all the arguments the noble Lord has put forward?
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, that is a completely different question and I should rather like to have notice of it and to think about it before I attempted to reply.
3.38 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, first, with regard to investment I shall not be dragged into a debate on the priority of investment. That is not the subject of the order. We shall have an opportunity of discussing that question on 3rd March, when there will be a full debate on growth and incentive to growth. This will bring in the whole question of investment and priorities for investment. I should like to make only two points: investment may be important and priority of investment is certainly important. The problem of unemployment is perhaps even more important. Corporation tax is important, but the overwhelming problem we have to tackle is inflation. It takes precedence over all those, because if we do not tackle inflation then the other problems relating to investment, unemployment and corporation tax will be all the greater. If we want to ease these problems, we have to deal with inflation, and that is the subject of this order.
I would point out that, so far as investment is concerned, what this order does is absolutely necessary. At the present time, the law provides that, in the application of the Price Code, there shall be investment relief until 31st March. I should also like to point out that it was this Government who introduced investment relief. There was no investment relief under the previous régime.
In the ordinary course of events, that investment relief would finish on 31st March and there would be a gulf between then and the end of July, after which we might have an entirely new system of control of prices and profits. The purpose

373
of this order is to deal with that interim period, and to deal with it generously. It would be entirely wrong for the investment relief to be cut off for four months until we developed a new system. It is sensible that it should be continued. It is also sensible that it should be continued at the existing rate, or, if a firm has got out a second-year investment programme, on the second year; and that is exactly what the order seeks to do.
I come now to the real purpose of the order; that is, price restraint. First, this is a voluntary system in exactly the same way as the pay policy is a voluntary system. The Government Department concerned has had long discussions with the relevant trade associations, and has made a voluntary arrangement with them in regard to prices. They have come to quite definite agreements, but no one is obliged to keep down prices, as the noble Baroness said, except in so far as some one is morally obliged to do so under the agreement. There is no compulsion in law. The idea is to get stability of prices in at least one area of the market and, so far as possible, in that area of the market in which the housewife is most concerned; that is exactly what the price restraint scheme tries to do. I was asked how consumers would get to know. To a very considerable extent, consumers have already got to know, because there has been very wide publicity of the scheme and of the articles covered by it. But, in addition, there will be substantial expenditure on national advertising and on advertising at the point of sale, so that the consumer is fully aware of the commodities that are covered by the scheme.
I come now to the question of the nationalised industries. In some cases, for several reasons, it was not possible to include the products of the nationalised industries. For example, costs take different times to come through the pipe-lines, and in some industries there are costs in the pipelines which have not yet come through. For example, in the case of electricity there are increased oil prices which have not yet been charged to the consumer, but which have been met by the industry, and there are also increased coal prices. These have to be reflected in the price of electricity, or the taxpayer has to pay; that is the choice. But the
374
nationalised industries have made a due contribution. The total of the goods included in the price restraint scheme is equal to 15 to 20 per cent. of consumer expenditure; the nationalised products that are included in the scheme are equal to 30 per cent. Of consumer expenditure on nationalised products. So I invite the House to examine those figures and to ask whether the nationalised industries are making a due contribution. This is an honest attempt to get a voluntary scheme on the prices and profits front, similar to the successful scheme which we have on the pay front. For that reason, I hope that it will have not the half-hearted support but the whole-hearted support of this House.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMUNITY LAND (EXCEPTED DEVELOPMENT) REGULATIONS 1976
3.44 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk) rose to move, That the draft Community Land (Excepted Development) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 15th January, be approved. The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper. The House will remember that, during the passage of the Community Land Bill, noble Lords were concerned about what types of development would be outside the normal scope of the land scheme. Various methods were suggested as a means of taking development outside the scope. Initially, administrative means were proposed, but there was also some preference for detailed provisions laying down the types of development in question in the Act itself. However, this left no scope for consultation on the types of development chosen. It was finally agreed that for most cases the best method of dealing with the problem was to specify classes of development in regulations. It is these regulations which, following extensive consultations, are now before the House. A draft of these was laid before this House on 15th January, and this Motion is to seek approval for them. The effect of these regulations, therefore, is to take certain classes of development

375
outside the normal scope of the land scheme.
The Act requires authorities to have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership, and of developing it or making it avail able for development by others. "Development land" in this context means land which, in the opinion of the authority, is needed for relevant development. Section 3 of the Act provides that relevant development is any development except, first, development which is "exempt" under Schedule 1 to the Act; secondly, development consisting exclusively of the building of a single dwelling-house, which noble Lords will remember was incorporated in the Act itself; and, thirdly, development of such classes as are prescribed by regulations made under the section, and it is these regulations which I am moving this afternoon.
Land needed for development excepted by the regulations is outside the general duty of authorities to have regard to the desirability of bringing development land into public ownership. While, in due course, all authorities will be under a duty to acquire all land required for relevant development, this duty cannot apply to excepted development. Such development is also outside the scope of procedures in the Act for suspension of planning permission. The excepted development regulations therefore have an important part to play in defining the normal scope of authorities' activities under the land scheme.
Although authorities will never have the duty to acquire land for excepted development, they will still have the power to acquire it. It is in this respect that excepted development differs from "exempt" development under Schedule 1 to the Act. Since excepted development status attaches to the development, but not to the land, I should emphasise that authorities may seek to acquire land if it is suitable for relevant development, even though there may be proposals for excepted development to be carried out on it. However, where authorities are seeking to acquire land by compulsory purchase, whether for relevant or excepted development, the compulsory purchase order will require confirmation by the Secretary of State. I think noble Lords will remember the extended discussions
376
which we had on this point during the passage of the Bill.
I think it may help the House if, at this point, I indicate the principles which the Secretary of State will apply in considering these orders. In relation to excepted development generally, he will not be prepared to confirm compulsory purchase orders unless there are substantial planning advantages and also that these cannot be secured unless public acquisition takes place. Against the background of that general principle, it will be helpful I feel to divide the classes covered by the regulations into four groups.
First, the group comprising Classes 4, 5, 7 and 11. It was never the Government's intention to include all types of development in the main scope of the land scheme. It would be unreasonable, as well as impracticable, to put authorities under a duty to acquire land for all types of development regardless of size or significance. This first group of classes provides clear evidence of this realistic policy. Class 4 covers small industrial buildings or extensions of up to 1,500 square metres in floor space, while Class 5 covers all other types of buildings or extensions of up to 1,000 square metres in floor space.
Class 5 would, for example, include small commercial buildings, housing development of about 10 to 12 houses or up to 20 flats; most recreational buildings and other small buildings such as churches or meeting halls. It would also cover mixed development, such as shops with flats above them. Class 7 covers the rebuilding or enlargement of an existing building within the limit of a 10 per cent. increase in floor space.
Class 11 is very wide in scope. It covers any development which does not include the erection of a building, unless the development is closely connected with the use of a proposed building whose erection would constitute relevant development. Subject to these qualifications. Clause 11 would cover, for example, the winning and working of minerals on any land or the laying out of a car park or a cricket ground—and, indeed, any change of use.
It will be clear from all the examples I have given that this group of classes

377
covers a substantial range of development or redevelopment. I would remind the House of what I said a moment ago: that the Secretary of State will not normally be prepared to entertain compulsory purchase orders in any of these cases. Further, I can assure noble Lords that where local authorities consider that there is a special need for acquisition the Secretary of State will apply very stringent tests.
I will now turn to the second main group which comprises Classes 1 to 3 of the regulations. This group is concerned with Land White Paper Day planning permissions and land ownership. Thus, Class 1 covers development authorised by planning permissions in force on 12th September 1974 and Class 2 covers residential or industrial development on land owned by builders or developers on that date. Class 3 covers industrial development on land owned by industrial undertakers on White Paper Day. These classes have been included in the regulations to ensure that in the early stages of the scheme, while authorities are building up their resources, existing ongoing programmes of residential and industrial development are not subject to delay as a result of public acquisition. Here the criterion essentially will be whether good progress is being made with development. If so, the Secretary of State will not normally entertain compulsory purchase orders. Conversely, if the land is unlikely to be brought into development reasonably quickly, and is urgently needed for early development, then he will be prepared to entertain compulsory purchase orders. However, in applying these policies, the Secretary of State will take fully into account the understandable need for builders and developers to hold reasonable quantities of land over and above their immediate requirements until local authorities are able to meet all land needs. He will also take into account the assurance frequently needed by industrialists that land will be available for development in the relatively long term.
It is the Government's aim that acquisitions by local authorities should, as far as possible, complement the acquisition activities of builders through normal market processes in the transitional period of the scheme. Many builders continued to acquire land or obtain planning per
378
missions while the Community Land Bill was under consideration by Parliament. They were encouraged to do so by the Statement of the Secretary of State in another place on 27th January 1975 relating to the circumstances in which he would not be prepared to entertain compulsory purchase orders for land. In recognition of this, therefore, where per missions were obtained or land was acquired in this way between White Paper Day and the date of Royal Assent, 12th November 1975, the Secretary of State will treat these as though they fell within the scope of Classes 1 to 3 and will apply the same policies if compulsory purchase orders are made.
So far I have dealt with Classes 1 to 5 and Classes 7 and 11. The third group comprises Classes 6, 8, 9 and 10 which deal with various specialised types of development for particular purposes or to be carried out by particular bodies. I will not take up the time of the House by explaining these in detail, but of course I will be ready, I hope, to deal with any questions raised by noble Lords. This leaves Classes 12 and 13 of the regulations. These classes bring development which is covered by most combinations of two or more classes in the Schedule within the scope of excepted development. Thus, for example, changing the use of a field to a football pitch would be covered by Class 11. Building changing rooms of less than 1,000 square metres floor space would be covered by Class 5. Development which combines these two operations would be covered by Class 13. Similarly, building a factory of 1,500 square metres gross floor space, coupled with laying out a car park on adjoining land, would be excepted development. The only qualification to this is that the 10 per cent. increase in floor space allowed by Class 7 cannot in any combination be aggregated with the 1,500 or 1,000 square metres floor space allowed under Class 4 or Class 5.
I said earlier that the Government never intended to include all types of development within the normal scope of the land scheme. And when one takes account of the extensive coverage of the various classes and the fact that these can be combined with one another, it will be clear that a very wide range of development is excepted by the regulations.

379
Accordingly, I commend these draft regulations to the House and beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Community Land (Excepted Development) Regulations 1976, laid before the House on 15th January, be approved.—(Baroness Birk.)
3.57 p.m.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, for introducing these regulations to us this afternoon and for her explanation of them. I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for sending me sometime ago a copy of the draft regulations. As will be readily apparent to the House, this is an exceedingly complicated matter and I am very glad to have had the opportunity of a little more time to study the regulations. We welcome any intention of the Government to bring more flexibility into the working of the Community Land Act, and we are very glad to have these regulations set out before us now.
If I have understood the position correctly, the effect of these regulations is to take the prescribed classes outside Sections 17 and 18 of the Community Land Act—that is, the duty of a local authority to acquire property; and Sections 19 and 22, the suspension of planning permission and disposal notification procedures. They are also outside Schedule 4, paragraphs 1 to 3, the modified compulsory purchase order procedures. That said, again if I have under stood the position correctly, the exception does not apply to land but only to development and, as the noble Baroness has said, is what is known as the normal scope of authorities to develop.
It is here that I should like to put in a plea for some much more readily understandable interpretation of "excepted development". It differs from "exempt development" in Schedule 1 which, as I understand it, is completely outside the Act, whereas "excepted development" is not. The lay person reading the regulations will automatically assume that if you fall into one of the excepted classes—the 12 written here—you will be outside the scope of the Act, whereas, put like that, this is not entirely true. If I further understood correctly the explanation of the noble Baroness, she said that Classes 4. 5, 7 and 11 are situations in which local authorities would
380
not normally apply a compulsory purchase order. But it would, in fact, be possible for them to do so and, provided the circumstances warranted it, the Secretary of State would agree to such an order. So what, in effect, is being said is that whereas these particular situations are prescribed by the Act they are not completely outside the terms of the Act and, therefore, are distinct from exempt development. This I believe to be a very important matter to get straight because a great many people, besides lawyers, will want to read these regulations and the Act. They will want to know what they mean, and for the public at large may I suggest to the Government that this is very difficult.
If I may turn to the regulations themselves, there are a number of questions that I hope the noble Baroness will be able to answer. The first question is whether or not she can say anything about development land tax. We were not told earlier whether or not excepted development will be outside the scope of development land tax. If the answer to this question cannot yet be given, perhaps the noble Baroness can give some indication as to when we might expect to hear about development land tax. As I understood the position, it is related to the first appointed day and, although this date has been put back, it was my understanding that when local authorities started to acquire land, they would do so net of development land tax. I am not in any way trying to hasten the implementation of this Act, but of course the two parts—the Act and the development land tax—go together. A number of people will want to know what the position will be, particularly builders, who believe that the development land tax provisions will be linked to the excepted development and that, if this is the case, no one will sell land. Therefore much of the purpose behind the excepted developments will be gone. What many people, and builders in particular, want to know is that the exemption from development land tax will be linked to the exception in Class 5 of developments of 1,000 square metres or less.
I should like to ask a question about the dates in the Bill. Under the Class 2 developments, those wishing to develop under this classification must give notice of their intention to do so to the authority not later than 5th October 1976.

381
This seems to be short notice to give, as we are now nearly into March and it is again a very inflexible date. It is rather like the development of planning permissions on or before 12th September 1974. I hope I have understood correctly that the Class 1 exemption has been extended to include planning permissions given between White Paper day and Royal Assent.
One of the facts that has most concerned builders is that planning applications which had been called in on 12th September 1974 would not otherwise be covered by Class 1 exceptions; therefore, it was very hard on those whose applications were called in rather than those who agreed to the arbitrary date.
The next question I should like to ask is about the position of forestry. This is no longer referred to under Class 6, and yet forestry and agriculture are linked together in Schedule 1 under the Exempt Developments. Does this mean that buildings connected with forestry are no longer to be regarded as excepted development, or is such development entirely covered by the provision in Schedule 1 on exempt development? If this is the case for forestry, I do not understand why it is necessary to draw any distinction for agriculture, because, as I understood it, the two went together in Schedule 1 and in the regulations to follow.
I should also like to know why, under Class 8, land owned by the Scottish Development Agency and the Welsh Development Agency is listed under Class 8 and cornea under excepted development. Why does it not come under Section 4 of the Act? Section 4 of the Act allows all local authorities, including parish and community councils, having an outstanding material interest in the Act, to have special treatment. For this purpose, I do not understand why the Scottish and the Welsh Development Agencies should not be included.
Finally, I should like to ask the noble Baroness to explain Class 12. No doubt she has studied the debate in another place, as I did. As my honourable friend Mr. Rossi did not get a reply to this question, I should like to ask it again. I should like to ask the noble Baroness what Class 12 means. It reads:
" Any development consisting of development in any two or more of classes 1—11 inclusive so low:, as it does not include any development solely in class 4 or class 5. "
382
If the development is solely in Class 4 or Class 5 it seems to me that it cannot be in more than two classes of Classes 1 to 11. Therefore, I do not really under stand what this means. I am not a lawyer. It may he crystal clear to everybody else; but, as I believe a great many people will read these regulations, I should like to have an explanation of it.
I should like to conclude on a very important matter for house builders. I am sure we are all agreed that land must be available for house building. This has been common ground throughout our innumerable discussions on this Act. But there seems to be a great concern among builders that there will not be enough land available for building if the area of excepted development is only 1,000 square metres. Under Class 5 where this exemption appears, as the noble Baroness said, this is enough land for approximately eight to 10 houses. Yet builders will need at least three times that amount of land in order to secure an adequate supply of land for their ongoing building arrangements and contracts. They have particularly asked whether the Government will consider amending this exception and making it 1,500 square metres—a somewhat larger plot—because I think the real danger is that the supply of land will begin to dry up. Indeed, there is already some evidence of this. At the end of the day the only people to suffer from all this will be those wanting to move into new houses.
I am afraid I have asked a number of long and complicated questions. I have done so for two reasons: one is that it is always helpful to have a full answer on the record for people to study. The second reason is that I believe these regulations will be studied by a great many people other than lawyers and, therefore, they must be intelligible to members of the public. I shall, of course, understand if the noble Baroness cannot give me all the answers today, but I should be grateful if she would write to me on any points that she cannot cover this afternoon.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, may I also presume to congratulate the noble Baroness on the clear way in which she has explained these very difficult regulations. May I also echo

383
the words of the noble Baroness, Lady Young, and say that we also welcome any provisions which provide greater flexibility to the provisions of the Community Land Act. I should also like to ask one question. It may be entirely my fault that I do not know the answer and if it is a complicated question, I apologise and I realise that perhaps I shall not get the answer today. Is the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, in a position to say how far these regulations will specifically affect land owned by charitable institutions?
4.8 p.m.
Lord CORNWALLIS: My Lords, may an ordinary Layman who is not really versed in politics and who is not always able to be present here, because he does other things in this world, ask a question? On the last Motion before the House we were discussing how we could cut down prices, defeat inflation and deal with the appalling money troubles with which we have to deal almost every day. Now we have come to this Motion, which in my own county will, I believe, cause the main local authority to ask for 200 more staff. They have no room for them, so they will have to take further premises. How can we go on having put before us one thing which stipulates that we must cut down this and cut down that and, then in the next matter, which is nothing more nor less than land utilisation through the back door, we are told to take on 200 more staff, to acquire more premises, and to do this, that and the other?
If you live out in the country now, you will know that everybody has stopped building even a cottage. Everybody has stopped trying to develop land because they know quite well that if they do it will be taken away from them. I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, is this the best way of trying to beat inflation? Further than that, we hear about these difficult matters every single day. I am told that the gap between what can be provided by an already completely over-taxed country and what has been borrowed to meet the expenses at this moment has now widened to a figure of £9,000 million and, according to the papers this morning, that figure is likely to go higher. Yet here we are, pouring extra expenses on to local authorities, local organisations, and goodness knows what else, simply because of this Com
384
munity Land Bill and what is going to happen under it.
My Lords, I think it is so sad that folk who have owned their land, whose fathers and grandfathers have been farmers on that land, and who have now arrived at the third and fourth generation—probably the best cultivators in the whole country—do not know what to do because they do not know whether they will ever inherit the land, or what will happen. That is a result of this Bill. I came to the House as often as I could while the Bill was being discussed, and for two days I sat here from 2.30 in the afternoon to 10.30 at night. For most of that time there were only four people on all the Government Benches opposite. Today, I noticed that the moment the subject of this Bill was called on again, there was an exodus from the Government Benches. They do not want to listen. They do not understand any thing about it, yet the moment the Division bell rings, 60 or 70 of them come back into the Chamber.
This is an undigested Bill. As my noble friend Lady Young has said, no one knows its implications. I cannot help thinking it will land us in trouble. I really should like to know how any local authority will be able to cut down expenses, as they are being asked to do, when they have to take on 200 more staff and a number of new offices.
4.11 p.m.
Lord WAKEFIELD of KENDAL: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Young from the Front Bench asked a number of questions, and pointed out that the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, might not be able today to answer all the questions raised. My noble friend went on to ask whether she could have a letter from the noble Baroness explaining some of the points which might not be answered in public this afternoon. I should like to ask the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, whether, as well as writing privately, she could take all steps open to her to make as public as possible whatever information she may not be able to give today when answering the questions that have been asked. It really is very important indeed that the maximum amount of information should be made as public as possible, to as many people as possible and as soon as possible on this very difficult and complicated matter.

385
My Lords, I fully understand that the noble Baroness may not be able to give as full an answer as is desirable this afternoon, but I would ask her please to give the fullest possible publicity to the answers to questions raised on these various matters today.
4.13 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, in answer first to the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, I do not know whether my answers will be desirable. I think it best to answer as many as I can this afternoon, but I do not know whether the noble Lord will find what I have to say as desirable as he would wish. I must say I feel rather like someone I once interviewed, who said to me, "But you are asking me all the wrong questions". My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Young, for the meticulous way in which she dealt with these matters, and for the clear way, as is her habit, in which she set out her questions. I will do my best to reply to them. On her first general question, which I think is a very important one which goes to the heart of the matter, she made a number of points in dealing with exception from duty but not from power. The noble Baroness then referred to Classes 4, 5, 7 and 11. I think her words were that they are not outside the terms of the Act. If I understood her rightly, her complaint was that these were not exempt but excepted, and I think she felt the whole thing did not go as far along the line as she would wish.
May I make it quite clear that the intention of the Act was to meet both reasonable demands—on the one hand to make it possible for the individual not to be completely hamstrung when one is referring to small areas of land for development, whether for domestic, residential or industrial development, and, on the other hand, not to clutter up local authorities with small pieces of land all over the place, which would make it difficult for them. The idea of the excepted regulations is not to drive a horse and cart through the Act. While the noble Baroness and noble Lords on the other side feel that excepted developments should be enlarged, and should grow and and grow in order to defeat the object of the Act with which they do not agree, on this side of the House we believe that since the Act is for the benefit of the com
386
munity, to extend the regulations beyond the point where they are absolutely necessary would be quite wrong. So there is a reason for this.
It is quite true that the excepted development is different from exemption, because while the word "excepted", as I explained when moving the regulations, means that there is no duty imposed on the local authority, there is still a power but this power is very severely hedged in, as I tried to explain as clearly as I could, by stringent restrictions. In other words, there would have to be a very heavy case made out before the Secretary of State sanctioned the compulsory purchase orders.
So far as the development land tax is concerned, this is a matter for my right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. There really is nothing further that I can say, nor, indeed, is there anything further that I know about this which I am concealing from the House. At the moment the two things work separately, with the first appointed day about to take place. The local authorities are going ahead with their preparations. No doubt we shall hear reasonably soon the details asked for by the noble Baroness, Lady Young, on the development land tax.
On the general point of publicity and clarity, raised by the noble Baroness and by the noble Lord, Lord Wakefield of Kendal, it is intended to publish a book let which will contain the explanation of regulations. Regulations of this sort are highly technical—it was agreed by both sides of the House, and in fact there was a great deal of pressure that there should be regulations rather than that this should be done by administration; although this is not a point of criticism from the other side of the House—and I admit quite readily that in many ways I personally find it more difficult to deal with this than with even the Act itself because they are so highly technical.
When the noble Baroness opposite was referring to Class 2 of the Regulations, the date period, she pointed out that it was a very short time, but representatives of the house builders did not object to this. This is the whole point of the time that it has taken to lay the regulations. There has been the maximum amount of consultation. If the builder failed to notify inadvertently, the Secretary of State can

387
take this into account in deciding whether or not to confirm a compulsory purchase order, so we are trying to keep as much flexibility there as possible.
The noble Baroness also raised a point about forestry in the agricultural class. Schedule I exempts building carried out on land which is used for the purpose of agriculture or forestry, building or other operations required for that use. Incidentally, agriculture includes horticulture, and that is not by virtue of this Act but by virtue of Section 290 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, which is now subsumed in this. Forestry comes within agriculture for this purpose. But it was felt that the erection of buildings to be used for the intensive rearing of livestock might in some circumstances be held to fall outside the scope of the Schedule. The effect of Class 6 is to ensure that in such circumstances the development would be excepted. There is no similar problem in the case of forestry and there is thus no need to make a similar provision. In Class 6, if I might give an example, would be, for instance, a building for battery hens. I hope that clears up the question as far as forestry is concerned.
On the point about the Scottish and Welsh Development Agencies, they are not, as I understood the noble Baroness to imply, local authorities; therefore, they are not authorities for the purposes of this Act. They will, however, be treated as within the public sector, as specified bodies in the outstanding material interest order, for land they own and develop themselves, and in Class 8 of these regulations; so that land they lease to industrial developers may be disposed of with the right to develop without the local authority being under a duty to acquire; that is, where the Agency has retained the freehold of the land. So although it is easy to confuse it, particularly in Wales where there is a Land Authority, this is in fact quite separate.
Another point the noble Baroness made was on Class 12, buildings up to 1,000 square metres. A building of up to 1,000 square metres may be in Class 1, because it had planning permission on White Paper day, as well as being in Class 5, where it would be excepted because of its size. In this case it can be combined with Class 7, but it may not
388
be combined with Class 7 if it gets its excepted status solely from Class 5. This is very complicated. I must say that yesterday afternoon I understood very clearly what "solely" meant here. Now I seem to have lost it. It is one of those things that, either you have it or you have it not; yesterday I had it but today it has gone. It may be that tomorrow it will have come back again. Perhaps I can write to the noble Baroness on this point. It is a simple point, but it is very complex to explain unless one starts from the beginning and works all the way through.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords may I say, if I may interrupt the noble Baroness, that I shall be delighted if she will write to me on this point; she has my deepest sympathy. Could I ask her to return to the point about agriculture. Schedule 1, paragraph 2, refers to:
" The carrying out, on land which is used for the purposes of agriculture or forestry, of any building or other operations required for the purposes of that use, other than operations for the erection of dwelling-houses ".
I wondered whether there is a list of agricultural buildings which now fall outside the exempted class and come into the excepted class, which is a rather different question from the one I asked. Again, perhaps she would like to write to me on this point. I think it is of some concern to farmers.
Baroness BIRK: Yes, my Lords; I will certainly write to the noble Baroness. As I understand it, the difference is that where it is so closely connected as to be an integral part of the agriculture that is one thing, but where it may be some thing which is imposed on it—I gave the example of the battery hens—this could be treated separately. I think I had better write to the noble Baroness about this, because again it is one of those simple things which seem to be very complicated to explain.
I hope I have made clear the general purpose of the excepted regulations as a whole. I will certainly go through the Official Report to see whether there are any points which I have omitted to explain. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, is concerned, I think he was opening up the debate on the whole subject matter of the Act; he was really making a Second Reading or Third Reading speech, or both, on what he felt about

389
the Act itself. There is only one point I would take up. He referred to our heritage. I feel as strongly and passionately about our heritage as I think he does, but I believe that this Act will benefit our heritage; it will conserve it and, in many aspects, preserve it far better than the free-for-all market we have had until now. He will be interested to know, and may be surprised or indeed even disappointed, that the response of a great many of the Conservative authorities in putting forward their plans under this Act has been extremely good; they have come forward with their plans very much on time. There are a great many people who felt very strongly against the Bill during its passage but who are now—not only because we are living in a democracy—trying to co-operate; they are quite genuinely looking at it in a quite different way, as are many property developers with whom I have discussed it. They feel that, with the partnership which is offered under this Act, there is a real possibility of a productive and constructive ordering of the development of land in this country.
Lord CORN WALLIS: My Lords, may I put this to the noble Baroness: is it really not possible for some explanation of the whole thing to be given to those who are affected? I may have talked rubbish this afternoon; I do not know. But no one understands what on earth will happen to them or their property, or anything of that kind. That is the trouble with the whole thing. I am perfectly certain the county councils and people like that do not really understand what their duties are, what their powers are, or where they are to get the money from. That is the great difficulty. If only some plain, lucid explanation could be given by the Government.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, could I ask the noble Baroness whether the question that I presumed to ask could also be dealt with in writing. She made no mention at all of my intervention. I did start off by congratulating her on the way in which she had presented this case, but my congratulations must cease there, because I have not had a reply to the point I raised.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I must ask the noble Lord to forgive me. I noted what he said on charitable institu
390
tions and I had also made a note to reply to him about it. I also thank him for his very kind remarks. As I understand it, it does not have any particular effect, and it will be treated in exactly the same way as it comes under the Act. I remember that this was raised in the debate on the regulations in another place and, so far as I remember, I do not think that the Minister there went further, but if there is anything I can add I shall write to the noble Lord.
So far as the noble Lord, Lord Cornwallis, is concerned, I must say with respect that he is really over-estimating the ignorance of a great many of the county councils to whom he is evidently referring. Our information is not that there is this tremendous lack of under standing—in fact, quite the reverse. As I pointed out, we are publishing a booklet which will contain an explanation of the regulations. The consultations over this, and the discussions about it, have been going on not only through the passage of the Bill but even before. It was not when the Act was passed that everybody started from scratch wondering what it was about. I can assure the noble Lord that there is a far greater understanding and acknowledgement and appreciation of it than he evidently thinks.
So far as every piece of land is concerned, one of the positive aspects of these regulations is that now it is clear, it is written into regulations. What would be excepted in terms of industrial and residential undertakings was all explained and discussed at great length in this House as well as in another place during the passage of the Bill. This is why it is so important for developers and for individuals to let local authorities know what land they hold, and to inform industrialists and people who have planning permissions, because possibly (and I am grateful to the noble Lord for enabling me to make this point) people may be reticent about declaring the land they are holding because of the consequences. But in fact it is to their benefit as well as the benefit of the local authorities for them to make this information known, because it makes it far easier for everybody to know exactly where they are. I assure the noble Lord that the amount of consultation that is going on, the amount of explanation given, the number of questions answered, are in a constant flow all

391
the time. Fortunately, there really is not this degree of ignorance.
Viscount GAGE: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, may I ask her whether, if she is going to write to the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran, about charitable land, and if anything is going to be done (which I must confess I doubt) that reply could be made public and not merely confined to a letter to the noble Lord?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I think that one must contest the final words of the noble Baroness when she suggests that the building industry and the local councils understand what this matter is all about, that they are reason ably pleased with it now and that some of the objections that they held in the beginning have faded away. That is not the experience of any noble Lord who takes an interest outside this House. The councils are puzzled to the point of being bewildered about what it is they are expected to administer. So far as the building industry is concerned, every time another explanation is put out they are put in a greater dilemma as to how they should run their businesses. I do not think that one could possibly have it on the record that the Department of the noble Baroness has cleared away all the points which were in conflict, and which are so damaging to the possible development of this country.
The noble Baroness explained her own problems, and I have a great deal of sympathy with her for having to deal with such a difficult matter. She would be the first to admit that she has answered almost none of the questions put to her by my noble friend or by the noble Lord, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran. She has not answered them because I do not think that there is an answer. She said that she understood the Bill before it got to the—
The Lord PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): My Lords, may I intervene? The procedure in your Lordships' House is that when we have a debate the Minister, by leave of the House, is allowed to speak twice. I think that the noble Viscount opposite, in saying, "before the noble Baroness sits down", and putting a question, was perfectly in order, but I feel that the noble Lord, Lord
392
Harmar-Nicholls, is stretching our conventions a little further. He is now indulging in a speech and continuing the debate. I hope he will appreciate that while there is nothing in our Rules that prevents him from doing it, my noble friend is put in a difficult situation be cause, although she is allowed to speak twice, I do not think anything in the Rules of the House allows her to speak a third time.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I understand the problem of the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who, I think, leads this House with great ability. However, this is a problem, as I had to say the other day, which goes much deeper than the normal courtesies that fall into the traditional pattern. Here we have something that is going to upset the whole basis of this country's land and its future development. I do not expect the noble Baroness to reply to some of my points. I was merely proceeding on the basis that she herself had adopted in the final words of her last reply. She said that she understood the Bill, or thought she did, when she was looking at it through what I would call Second Reading eyes. But now it has reached the stage of regulations she finds great difficulty in understanding how explanations can be given. I think that that difficulty is bound to be felt outside. She said also that the reason we have got regulations is because nothing—
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, I would ask the noble Lord to accept the conventions of the House. I have no more power than any other noble Lord in this House to prevent the noble Lord continuing, but our conventions are such that I think we need to hold to them. If we do not, we should have to adopt the more rigorous procedures of another place, with a Speaker and very much tighter rules of procedure. My own view is that this would not benefit this House. I know that to do so places some limitations upon noble Lords, but I would ask the noble Lord to accept the convention. There are other ways in which he can express his views. He could use the method of an Unstarred Question if he wished to develop this point, but I hope he would feel that we ought to conduct our debates within our normal procedures, and so leave the matter there.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I shall bow to the convention.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
4.38 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD CHAMPION in the Chair]
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Power of Society to deal with client accounts of solicitor incapacitated]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 29, after (" incapacity ") insert (" and absence of other acceptable arrangements ").
The noble Earl said: At first glance it might appear to the Committee to be a rather formidable body of Amendments on the Marshalled List, but I can assure the Committee that there is no essential change in meaning in any of them. They all fall within the category of drafting, technical or clarification. I hope, therefore, that the Committee will not think it a liberty if I do not dwell unduly in the explanations which I propose to make to these Amendments. However, I should not like this opportunity to pass without expressing my gratitude to the Lord Advocate's Department for the assistance they gave in getting the terms of these Amendments correct. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, would convey my thanks to the Lord Advocate's Department and, not least, for explaining to me some of the technical points which inevitably arise in the course of a Bill of this character.
The first Amendment deals with the case in Clause 2 of a solicitor who is incapacitated and thereby unable to deal with his client's accounts. In these
394
circumstances the Law Society has authority to operate them. However, this authority is limited by the words, "the absence of other acceptable arrangements" and I believe that this is sensible. In certain cases solicitors work in close co-operation with other solicitors and the situation may arise where the intervention of the Law Society would not be necessary. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3 [Society entitled to recover expenses incurred]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 41, after (" have ") insert (" thereby ").
The noble Earl said: This is little more than a drafting Amendment. It simply makes it clear that, in regard to recovering expenses, the Society can recover expenses incurred only in the course of its work connected with the estate. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Extension of power of Council to make rules regarding certain accounts]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 3:
Leave out Clause 5 and insert the following new Clause:
Extension of power of Council to makes rules regarding certain accounts
"5.—(1) The duties to make rules imposed on the Council of the Society by section 20(1)(a) of the Act of 1949 (Council of Society to make rules with respect to bank accounts etc.) shall be duties to make rules requiring solicitors to open and keep accounts only with the Bank of England, a Trustee Savings Bank within the meaning of section 95 of the Trustee Savings Bank Act 1969, the National Savings Bank and any company as to which the Secretary of State is satisfied that it ought to be treated as a banking company or as a discount company for the purposes of the Protection of Depositors Act 1963 as amended by the Companies Act 1967; and the rules may specify the location of the banks' or companies' branches at which the accounts are to be kept.
(2) In section 20(1) of the Act of 1949 (Council of Society to make rules with respect to bank accounts etc.)—

(a) after paragraph (a) there shall be inserted the following paragraph—

" (aa) as to the opening and keeping by solicitors of—

(i) a deposit or share account with a Building Society designated under section 1 of the House Purchase and Housing Act 1959, or

(ii) an account showing sums on loans to a local authority.

being in either case for a client whose mime is specified in the title of the account ",

(b) at the end there shall be inserted the following—

" In this subsection" "local authority" means a local authority within the meaning of the Local Government Act 1972 or the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 ".
(3) Section 3(2) of the Act of 1965 shall have effect as if there were included in the meaning of client account a reference to the accounts mentioned in section 20 of the Act of 1949 as amended by subsections (1) and (2) above."
The noble Earl said: This clause is redrafted, the purpose being three-fold. One is to get the definition of "a bank" correct (curiously enough, it is a combination of the Protection of Depositors Act and the Companies Act 1967), the second is to get correct the manner in which investments can be made in building societies or, thirdly, loans can be let out on a temporary or permanent basis to local authorities. I beg to move.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): Perhaps I should say at this point that so far as this Amendment is concerned, and indeed the preceding and succeeding Amendments, the Government view is one of benevolent neutrality. I undertake to convey to my right honourable and learned friend the Lord Advocate the very kind words spoken a few moments ago by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6 [Power of Council in investigating complaints]:
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, which is a drafting Amendment to make it quite
396
clear that this clause deals only with the delays of solicitors.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out (" matter ") and insert (" delay ")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK: This is not much more than a drafting Amendment. It strengthens the Society's hands slightly in making its demands a requisition, a requirement, and not simply an invitation. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 38, leave out (" invite ") and insert (" require ")—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, which is a drafting Amendment consequent upon Amendment No. 4.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 39, leave out (" in respect of the matter ") and insert ("of the delay")— (T he Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7 [Investigation by lay observer of Society's treatment of complaints]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 4, line 36, after (" staff ") insert (" the number of his staff ")
The noble Earl said: This clause deals with the appointment by the Secretary of State of a lay observer. The Secretary of State pays for the lay observer, as he is entitled to do under subsection (8). This Amendment makes it clear that he not only settles the terms of employment and remuneration of the staff but also decides the number of staff; as he pays the staff, it seems reasonable that he should be able to lay down the number of staff. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 [Arrangements for professional indemnity]:
The Earl of SELKIRK: This Amendment, No. 8, is designed to give the

397
correct definition of "insurable company."
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 15, leave out from (" person ") to end of line 17 and insert (" permitted under the Insurance Companies Act 1974 to carry on liability insurance business or pecuniary loss insurance business;").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, which is consequential upon the last Amendment where the reference appears later in the same clause.
Amendment moved—
Page 5, line 19, leave out from (" person ") to end of line 21 and insert ("permitted under the insurance Companies Act 1974 to carry on liability insurance business or pecuniary loss insurance business; ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK: This Amendment, No. 10, is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 16, leave out (" Solicitors (Scotland) Act ") and insert (" Act of ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 8, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 9 to 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [Solicitors acting as consultants to hold Practising Certificates]:
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, which is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, line 16, leave out (" or not ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Discipline Tribunal to include lay members]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 9, line 10, leave out (" Committee ") and insert (" Tribunal ").
The noble Earl said: In the previous clause we amended the 1933 Act and called the Discipline Committee the
398
Discipline Tribunal. Accordingly, it is correct, when referring to that in the next clause, to call it not the Discipline Committee but the Discipline Tribunal. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, which is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 16, after (" or ") insert (", as the case may be,"),—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 [Power of Society to deal with client account of solicitor struck off roll or suspended]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 9, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
" (1) Where a solicitor who is practising as a solicitor under his own name or as a sole solicitor under a firm name has been struck off the roll of solicitors or has been suspended from practice, there shall, notwithstanding any enactment or any rule of law to the contrary, vest thereupon in the Society to the exclusion of any other person the right to operate on or otherwise deal with any client account in name of the solicitor or his firm."
The noble Earl said: I regret that the reference was not fully made out in this clause; it should be page 9, line 33. This is a re-draft of Clause 16(1) which I think is clearer and shorter. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 16, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17 [Power of Discipline Tribunal to order decision to take effect on intimation, and to impose conditions on Practising Certificates]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 10, line 13, leave out from (" effect ") to end of line 14 and insert ("notwithstanding that any matter before the Court under the said section 7 has not been finally determined.")
The noble Earl said: This is little more than drafting and is intended simply to make it clear that when a solicitor is suspended or struck off, if he appeals to the court the suspension or striking off is still operative if and until the court comes to the opposite conclusion; that

399
is, pending the period when it is before the courts, the suspension or striking off holds good. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Clause 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 18 to 24 agreed to.
Clause 25 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 16. This is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 18, leave out (" Legal Aid and ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, which again is a drafting Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 26, after (" amended ") insert (" extended or applied ").—(The Earl of Selkirk.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 25, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clause agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

MEASUREMENT OF CEREALS REGULATIONS
4.52 p.m.
Lord PEDDIE Lord PEDDIE rose to move, That this House, having regard to the Twenty-fourth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (H.L. 262, 1974–75) and the Thirty-third Report of the European Communities Committee (H.L. 326, 1974–75), is of the opinion that the Measurement of Cereals for Import and Export Purposes Regulations 1975 (S.I. 1975, No. 655), should be withdrawn. The noble Lord said: My Lords, The wording of the Motion appears somewhat technical and that, I am afraid, is likely to obscure the real issues involved in the Motion. I can assure my noble friends that, in spite of my membership of the Agricultural Committee of the Council of Europe, I have not developed a passionate interest in the measurement of grain. I raise this matter because it
400
is something which is of vital public importance.
The Motion raises an important point of principle concerning the extent to which EEC Directives can become law in this country without the approval of the British Parliament. The regulations referred to are intended to give the force of law in this country to the contents of EEC Directive No. 71/347, which is concerned with standardisation, for the purposes of trade in grain between Member-States, of the method of measuring the specific gravity of grain. We are concerned with a Directive and I am sure that some Members will be aware that, under Article 189 of the EEC Treaty, a Directive is binding upon each Member-State as to the result to be achieved, but that it leaves to the national authorities, Parliaments and so on, the choice of the form and methods for achieving the result.
It will be common ground that a Directive such as that with which we are concerned does not, on its adoption by the Council of the Community, have any direct legal effect in this or any other Member State; but each Member State is under an obligation to give legal effect to it in its own territory and by its own legislative methods. In order to provide a convenient way of giving effect to Community Directives, Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 was enacted. That subsection provides that, subject to certain conditions set out in a Schedule, any designated Minister may, by regulations, make provision for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation. The regulations so made, if the draft has not been approved by each House of Parliament, are subject to annulment by resolution of either House. So, when the United Kingdom is under an obligation to give effect to a Community Directive, this can be done by regulations made under Section 2(2).
The Cereals regulations with which my Motion deals are made under Section 2(2) and give effect to Directive No. 71/347. To that extent, they are perfectly legal and valid. The objection which I take to them—and it is more than an important objection; it is a vital one—is that they purport to go on to give effect to any Community Instrument.
"replacing, supplementing or further amending that Directive ".

401
I am sure that many noble Lords will already have read the Statutory Instrument in question. Giving an indication of its purpose and after dealing with the question of the storage of grain, paragraph 2 goes on,
"and to deal with any instrument replacing, supplementing or further amending that Directive."
In passing, it occurs to me that if one reads the Statutory Instrument one sees that the explanatory note includes no reference to the point which I am now making as to the way in which I believe this particular aspect of the Statutory Instrument is ultra vires. In other words, the Ministers, by their regulations, have tried to give effect not only to Directive No. 71/347 but also to other Directives which are not at the moment in existence but which may possibly come into existence at some time in the future. However, Section 2(2) of the Act only confers power to implement Community obligations in the United Kingdom, and plainly no obligation has yet arisen about these hypothetical future Directives. Therefore, it is not within the power of the Ministers to try to implement them. The proper course would have been for the Ministers to leave out of account the possibility of future Directives on this topic. Should any be made, they can be implemented by further regulations which would he subject to the normal methods of Parliamentary surveillance.
There is a further objection to the present regulations. In my opinion, there is an attempt to create a situation in which, if a Directive on this topic is adopted by the Council in the future, the Directive will automatically have effect in this country. Without these regulations this is something which the EEC Council could not achieve. Therefore, the Ministers are, in effect, trying to confer legislative powers on the EEC Council. But the scheduled conditions imposed on Section 2(2) powers show that it was the intention of Parliament that the designated Ministers should not delegate any of those powers to anyone else. Para graph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 2 of the 1972 Act provides that the Section 2(2) powers shall not include power
" to confer any power to legislate by means of orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument … "
The words used are apt to cover the various forms in which subordinate
402
legislation is made by authorities in the United Kingdom, but they are wide enough, and show an intention, to prohibit the delegation of legislative powers to some outside body such as the Council.
There is no need for me at this stage to go in detail into the provisions of Directive No. 71/347 itself. It prescribes how the "EEC standard mass per storage volume", (that is the specific gravity) of grain is to be measured. It goes on to provide that in trade in grain between Member-States, wherever the standard mass per storage volume is mentioned, this must be described as the EEC standard. It makes it a criminal offence to use the term "EEC standard mass per storage volume" if the standard mass had not been measured in accordance with the Community requirements.
On behalf of the Ministers it has been argued that there is much convenience in avoiding a multiplicity of United Kingdom regulations; that it is far better to attempt a comprehensive regulation; and that any amendments of the Directive No. 71/347 are likely to be only technical in character. The Select Committee Report to which I refer in my Motion, condemns this Statutory Instrument; also makes quite clear that it appreciates the convenience of the draftsmen. It also points out that it is quite true that the grain trade is highly organised and is probably quite capable of keeping a vigilant watch on any journal of the Community so as to be aware of any changes. But what if the precedent is established and the statutory instruments can relate to trade areas where they are not so highly organised, where they are not likely to be able to keep tabs on whatever changes take place in EEC regulations? They can run the risk of a criminal offence without even knowing what that offence was; and certainly our own Parliament would have no control at all over the nature of the regulation that is imposed upon those people. I know that it is possible for the grain trade in this particular case to advise itself of what an amending Directive may say, but it is not good enough. So I need not pursue that particular point.
All these considerations which are put forward carry no weight if, as is submitted, the use that has been attempted of the powers granted under the 1972 Act is,

403
in principle, wrong. This is wrong under the 1972 Act. Whatever administrative benefit may flow from dealing with it in this manner is beside the point, and any arguments that this particular trade is so well organised as to be able to deal with it is also beside the point. Let us deal with the possibilities where they will not be so highly organised and we shall be forgoing our right as Parliament to have control over the regulations that affect the conduct of our commercial and economic life.
The regulations are effective for the time being to enforce the present Directive No. 71/347. But it is not accepted that this justifies leaving them in force so that they can be employed to enforce Directives which have not yet been made. In my submission, they were wrongly made, and they should be withdrawn and replaced by a suitable provision. I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, cannot be with us today because he has been in hospital recently. I know that he had the intention of giving me some support, as a member of the Select Committee on the European Communities (whose Report I have quoted) and chairman of its law sub-committee. I regret the loss of a formidable advocate who would have presented to this House the legal niceties of the points I am making. But I have approached this matter not from the question of the legal niceties, but from the basic principle that is involved; one that is vital to the Community.
I sincerely hope that the noble and learned Lord will accept the points that I have made, and recognise that probably somewhere along the line a mistake has been made. But fortunately it is a mistake which can be corrected, and I am sure that in its correction there will be a clear indication of the recognition of the rights and responsibilities of our own Parliament. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That this House, having regard to the Twenty-fourth Report of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments (H.L. 262, 1974–75) and the Thirty-third Report of the European Communities Committee (H.L. 326, 1974–75), is of the opinion that the Measurement of Cereals for Import and Export Purposes Regulations 1975 (S.I. 1975, No. 655), should be withdrawn.—(Lord Peddie.)
5.7 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to my noble friend for drawing to our attention what I agree with him is an important matter of principle. No doubt we are all grateful to him for treading so skilfully over the minefield of technicality which confronts us in the discussion of this matter. I hope that he will forgive me for endeavouring to deal at any rate with some of the legal niceties that occur. I agree with him that it is very unfortunate that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, is not with us, but I am happy to inform the House that he is making very good progress and I hope that we shall see him among us soon, for his assistance in this field is invaluable to Parliament.
Criticisms which have been voiced by my noble friend, and by the Select Committee on the European Communities in its 33rd Report for the Session 1974–75, and by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments in its 24th Report, are serious criticisms and call for careful consideration by the House and, of course, by the Government. In considering the measurement of cereals regulations it may be helpful to bear in mind the general background of the powers under which the regulations were made. Happily, in doing so, I do not think that it will be necessary for me to try to explain the mysteries of the definition of the "standard mass for storage volume" of grain with which the statutory instrument is concerned. Under the Treaties relating to the European Economic Community, we, as a Member, have a duty to give effect to certain obligations imposed on us by the Community. If existing legislation is insufficient to achieve this, fresh legislation can be passed by Parliament. But this method is expensive and makes heavy demands on Parliamentary time. In view of the number of instruments involved and the speed needed on some occasions, it would be quite impracticable to achieve what would be required by legislation. Accordingly, machinery is provided by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972 to which my noble friend referred, which, among other things, enables the obligations I have mentioned to be implemented by Orders in Council or by regulations, subject to the usual

405
Affirmative or Negative Resolution procedure.
These powers were used to make the measurement of cereals regulations with which we are concerned. They give effect, as has been explained, to a Community Directive establishing a common method of measuring the specific gravity of cereals. The Directive—Council Directive 71/347—defines a standard mass per storage volume, which is to be expressed in kilogrammes per hectolitre and is to be ascertained by measurement with a standard instrument, with the exact description of which I need not trouble the House. Indeed, it takes up six pages of the Directive.
For reasons of economy and the limited specialised interest of the subject matter, this definition has not been reproduced in the regulations, which merely refer to:
‖ "the EEC standard mass per storage volume as defined in the Community provisions".
The regulations require this EEC standard to be used for the purposes of the import and export trades in cereals between the United Kingdom and other Member-States, and declare that the expression of the characteristic in other terms is to have no effect. They also prohibit—and, as my noble friend has pointed out, this is an important matter—improper use of the EEC standard, and make that subject to a penalty of £20. I should add at this stage that there are transitional provisions in the Treaty of Accession for preserving for the time being the unit of measurement in pounds per bushel, which has been traditionally used in the United Kingdom and in Ireland.
As my noble friend has made so clear, the objections to the regulations arise from the form of words used in paragraph 2 of the regulations to define the words, "the Community provisions". The paragraph says that "the Community provisions" means:
" Council Directive No. 71/347/EEC.… as amended, and any instrument replacing, supplementing or further amending that directive ",
and it is those last 10 words, of course, that are objected to. If any future Directive were to change the standard, they mean that the new standard would take effect automatically in the United Kingdom without requiring any further change
406
in our domestic law, and if that came about the United Kingdom citizen would be bound to use it and would be subject to penalties if he used it improperly. The Select Committee and my noble friend therefore claim that references to future Community Instruments are in that way ultra sires in the context in which we see the reference in the Instrument.
My Lords, there is no doubt that the reference to amendments by future Community Instruments in relation to the definition of standard mass per storage volume would have the advantage of avoiding the need for new domestic regulations if and when the standard is altered by the Community. Administratively, as my noble friend has said, that would be convenient. In practice, such regulations would have little content save to introduce a technical reference to the amending Community Directive and perhaps fix a date for the operations of the revised standard. But whatever the administrative convenience may be. I quite agree we have to watch carefully the point of principle and what is permitted by the legislation.
Three objections have been advanced in the Committee reports to what is contained in the regulation. First, the Select Committee says that the power conferred by Section 2(2) of the European Communities Act 1972, to make provisions by regulations:
"… for the purpose of implementing any Community obligation of the United Kingdom",
is confined to obligations which are in-cumbent on the United Kingdom under the treaties at the time when the power is exercised. It is suggested that the attempt to provide for the incorporation, by reference, of definitions which may be substituted for the existing definition by some instrument which has not yet been made is ultra vires.
The second objection raised by both Committees is that paragraph 1(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the 1972 Act forbids Ministers, in exercising their powers under Section 2(2) of the Act:
"… to confer any power to legislate by means of orders, rules, regulations or their subordinate instruments, other than rules of procedure for any court or tribunal ".
The Committee suggests that this makes manifest the intention of Parliament that a Minister, designated to exercise sub-ordinate legislative powers under Section

407
2(2), was not to delegate any part of those powers to anyone else. By providing that amendments made by a future Community Directive are to be given the force of law in this country, the regulations, it is said, are attempting to confer on the Council of the Communities legislative powers in the United Kingdom which may not be delegated in view of the paragraph which I have just quoted. Thirdly, the Committee say that, while recognising the convenience of drafting in the manner which has been adopted, they criticise the method that is used as imposing on individuals an onerous duty to watch the Official Journal of the Communities to see whether, as a result of a change in the Directive, they are committing an offence.
My Lords, I do not find that all these criticisms are altogether conclusive, or that each is conclusive, and I would suggest that at any rate the last two criticisms carry far less weight than the first; and it is really upon the first that my noble friend has rightly, if I may say so, directed his fire. Can it really be said, in relation to the second objection, that by leaving a matter to be determined by a future Community Instrument one is conferring:
"power to legislate by means of orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument",
which the Schedule to the 1972 Act does not permit? Surely the subordinate instrument contemplated there is some legislative Instrument issued within the framework of our own legal and legislative system, and not one emanating from an entirely different legal order.
An EEC Directive is not in any normal sense a subordinate instrument in the law of the United Kingdom; and, indeed, in Section 2(2) of the Act, to which the Schedule is related, identical words are used in a context where they could not possibly mean Community Instruments. Reference to Section 2(2), and in particular to that part of it which follows paragraph (b), makes it clear that the words "subordinate instrument" are there used in the context of the exercise of a "statutory power or duty" conferred or imposed on a person by United Kingdom statute to legislate by means of orders, rules, regulations or other subordinate instrument. "Subordinate instrument ",
408
therefore, in that context, is not apt to include Instruments of the EEC.
Paragraph (1)(c) of Schedule 2 should, I submit, be similarly construed in its reference to the statutory powers conferred by Section 2(2) of the 1972 Act. Whatever itse precise scope, paragraph 1 (1)(c) cannot be construed as referring to an EEC Instrument, and accordingly does not impose such a fetter as is suggested on the power under Section 2 to legislate by order or regulations. The view which I have formed on this matter is fortified by the best legal advice which is available to the Government on this subject.
Again, in dealing with the presentational matter, while presentational convenience for lawyers and members of the public must always be an important consideration, obviously that consideration should not decide the propriety, least of all the vires, of using the method of legislation now under challenge. That leaves the first criticism that I mentioned, which is the most important one and the most significant; namely, that a power to "make provision for the purpose of implementing any Community obligations of the United Kingdom or enabling any such obligation to be implemented" cannot be exercised to give effect to an obligation which is not yet in force. I believe there is a great deal of cogency in this criticism and in this argument. However, there is room for a different interpretation. The words "enabling any such obligation to be implemented "could be said to be looking to the future—to authorise the preparation of action for implementation when at a future date an obligation comes into effect; and in a section which is designed to bring about implementation of Treaty obligations, it is perhaps permissible to assume that the intention of Parliament must have been to confirm the most effective delegated powers rather than powers which would still fall short of their objective.
However, having said this, I can assure the House that the Government and I are very ready to accede to the general sense of what has been expressed in the reports of the Committees and in the speech of my noble friend; and that, in the circumstances, we are prepared to amend these regulations by deleting what I might describe as the offending last ten words of the Instrument. I hope that my

409
noble friend Lord Peddie will not press me to withdraw the regulations now and at once; since, as the Report of the Select Committee itself concedes, they are not open to objection in their operation at present. But I can give him and the House the firm assurance that they will be amended before any further Directive issues from Brussels which could bring the offending words in the regulations into operation.
Accordingly, I hope that my noble friend will be content to accept that assurance from me. It hails as important and significant his raising the matter in the House today and it is, I think, a valuable illustration of the role of the Committees which are set up in maintaining the oversight, the control, of Parliament over this aspect of Directives emanating from Brussels. If, accordingly, my noble friend will in due course be prepared to withdraw his Motion I can assure him that I will give effect to the undertaking that I have given the House.
5.23 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, we all owe a great debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, for drawing the attention of the House to a matter which, on the fact of it on the Order Paper looked a very simple matter relating to cereals and the CAP; but as your Lordship will have heard there is a major principle involved in the drafting of this Statutory Instrument. We have heard a clear explanation of the principle both from the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and matters of detail from the noble and learned Lord who sits on the Woolsack. I should say at this stage that I was prepared to speak after the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, and was not aware of what the noble and learned Lord was going to say. Certainly, with regard to the legal aspect that he has dealt with very closely, I should like to be able to look at what he said when it is published in the Official Report because this is not a matter on which, I think, anybody with or without legal training could take a decision lightly. It is clear that there are very serious matters of principle involved not only as to the drafting of the Statutory Instrument but also as to the implementation as described by the noble and learned Lord. I must confess that the advice that I have had was not entirely on all fours with the statement made by the noble and learned
410
Lord; and therefore I think that it would be wrong for me to say that I accept in totality what he has said without studying it myself and without having further legal advice on the matter. There are legal experts and legal experts; and even though it comes from the mouth of the noble and learned Lord, I know that he will accept that opinions can differ on this matter. Perhaps I should say at this point how much I regret the absence of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, who would undoubtedly have made a valuable contribution to the findings on this very difficult legal point.
My Lords, there are two other points that I should like to raise, apart from legal ones which I will leave aside for the time being. These are the consequences of this Statutory Instrument. Even if no further Directive has been issued replacing, supplementing or amending the existing Directive, it is surely undesirable that the definition of "Community provision "as now contained in the Statutory Instrument should remain; not only for the consequences it might have in the future—although I accept that the noble and learned Lord has given an under taking that this will be altered before any future Directive on this subject matter is issued—but it surely would create a very bad precedent for the future drafting of such Statutory Instruments which are meant to bring European Community legislation into United Kingdom legislation. I wonder whether the noble and learned Lord would look at this particular point not only in relation to the Directive directly related to the subject in hand, but also that it might remain as a precedent for the future drafting of such Instruments. This surely would be undesirable.
The political implications of the definition as it stands are clear. Over and over again, both during debates in both Houses and in speeches throughout the country, the legislative powers remaining to the national Parliaments, as I understood it, were very clearly defined in the European Communities Bill as it was before it became an Act. If the definition contained in the Instrument were to be allowed to stand, it would be in total disregard of the intentions of the Act as well as against the letter of the Act by giving powers to the Council of

411
Ministers in Brussels to which they are not entitled.
It is also the administrative implications which are of some concern and to which I feel the attention of your Lordships should be drawn. The 24th Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, ordered to be printed on 1st July 1975, drew the special attention of both Houses of Parliament to the fact that the regulations go beyond the powers conferred in the present Act. Nobody appears to have taken any action on this and it was only by the publication of the 33rd Report from the Select Committee of this House on the European Communities, in which the arguments were again set out, that attention was drawn to the fact that the definition "Communiy provision"is not in accordance with the European Communities Act 1972 and in their opinion is ultra vires. Therefore, we must ask what notice is taken of these Reports. Do the Government not have any responsibility for acting on the findings of the Joint Committee or do they, if I may say so, keep quiet until some other Committee comes up with a following Report and until somebody with the determination and vigilance of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, is able to bring it to the notice of this House?
My Lords, we all know that there are grey areas in Community legislation and great difficulties in defining the effect of Directives and the effect of regulations and in our legislation there are areas where the European Court has not yet expressed opinions on some of these matters; but I would suggest that in the case of two Committees of this House with Members of the highest distinction and legal knowledge as well as experience, attention should be paid seriously to the content of their Report; and that where a document, or parts of it, are said to be ultra vires, surely the Government of the day should be responsible at least for making a statement as to whether the findings of these Committees are correct or whether they would be prepared to withdraw the Instrument and to make the necessary amendments The intention of including the definition was no doubt one of convenience based on analogies in Statutory Instruments relating to ministerial orders under the United Kingdom Acts of Parliament. There is a clear
412
distinction between Statutory Instruments implementing United Kingdom legislation and those implementing Community Instruments, and the distinction must remain clear. I submit that convenience is no excuse for the possible abuse of powers by Ministers.
Having said this, we must express gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for his undertaking that this Statutory Instrument will be amended. I ask him to look and see whether any other Statutory Instruments have been drafted with the definition of Community provisions as it stands in this particular Statutory Instrument. We ask that an amendment should be applied to past Statutory Instruments with this definition as well as to future Statutory Instruments. Therefore, I should like to express our deep gratitude once again to the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, for having drawn our attention to this serious matter of principle regarding the relationship between the Community legislation and United Kingdom legislation. He has shown the value of eternal vigilance in this field.
5.31 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I came to the House this afternoon not to speak but to vote. I am still prepared to vote and I shall follow the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Peddie, in this matter whether he accepts the assurance given by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or cares to carry the matter to a Division. There is no more important question of principle coming before this House in this Session than the matter which my noble friend Lord Peddie has brought to your Lordships' attention this afternoon. I should like to congratulate him on the vigilance he has shown, and the skill with which he outlined a difficult case.
The facts are that of course we are a subject people; we have to do what our masters tell us, and our masters are not now either in another place or in this House; they are in Brussels, and that is what the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor this afternoon has confessed. Early on in his speech he outlined the requirements of the Treaty and the legislation related to the Treaty. He used a very interesting word. He said Parliament can implement the requirements of Brussels. I am the last

413
person to challenge the integrity of the Lord Chancellor in what, after all, might be a slip of the tongue. My Lords, it is not a question of "can"; it is a question of "must". The Treaty of Rome and the Acts which this House and another place passed require that the Government should do certain things. The fulfilment of that requirement is not now a subject for your Lordships' House or for those in the House of Commons; it is a question of a decision by some nameless, faceless bureaucrat in Brussels who passes the word along the line, and then we do what we are told. That is what has happened here. But what about the safeguards? That is what worries me.
I raise my voice and pay tribute to the work of the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee of this House on the European Communities. Those longstops have worked. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: the Government are open to criticism. Why did not they do something about it? The longstops are put in in order to safeguard the rights of this House and another place; but, above all, to safeguard the liberty of the subject. We constantly mate about the freedom, we talk about the freedom, but when it comes to practice we are all in a cage put there by the Government. Would the Lord Chancellor or the Government have given the assurance to this House which has been given this afternoon, had not my noble friend Lord Peddie raised it? I do not believe that for a moment. If they were going to do it, why did not they do it before? That is the point.
My Lords, I am not going to delay the House any more; my voice is where my mouth is. I feel very strongly about this. Once again, I pay tribute to my noble friend Lord Peddie for the action he has taken; and if he cares to divide the House and wants somebody to go in the Lobby as a Teller with him, I volunteer for the job.
5.35 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, if I may be permitted to speak again on this matter before my noble friend replies, I hope that he will resist the blandishments of my noble friend Lord Wigg because it would be a some
414
what futile exercise in the circumstances. It is conceded by the Committees that have reported that the Statutory instrument which we are considering is not open to objection in its operation at the present time. I have undertaken to see that it will not operate to give effect to any future Directive without special provision being made by a fresh Statutory Instrument to be introduced. Lest there should be any confusion about the matter, instead of waiting for a future change possibly to be introduced by the EEC, I will see that a remedial Statutory Instrument will come in in the meantime, so the position is safeguarded from that point of view.
I confess that I have heard the noble eloquence of my noble friend Lord Wigg before. Anyone who least looks or talks like a prisoner when he speaks on this theme I know not. I have not met such a person. It is the case that Parliament —I was going to use the phrase "in its wisdom"—decided that in respect of regulations emanating from the Council of Ministers, they operated automatically. But as to Directives, they require domestic legislative steps to be taken, either by an Act of Parliament or, more generally, by Statutory Instruments of the kind that we are considering tonight. I should have thought with great respect to my noble friend Lord Wigg that the exercise upon which we are engaged tonight indicates that the residue that is left to Parliamentary control is not a trivial one, not an unimportant one, but a significant one. I can only say by way of mitigation of the failure of the Government up to now to have done anything about this particular Instrument, that up to now, at any rate, there is nothing wrong about it in its operation.
I express grave doubts upon the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, that we should look at this definition in looking back at any Instruments which have already appeared, or forward to future Instruments which may be made, to see whether the definition of Community provisions is acceptable. But I will certainly undertake to see that is done. I am not entirely surprised that she did not agree with my rejection—or, at any rate, criticism—of two of the three objections which were raised by the Committees regarding this particular Instrument. I

415
do not think I need retraverse that ground. I do not deny the possibility that there is another view about them. That is one of the privileges of engaging in the much-maligned legal profession—that, like doctors, we occasionally differ. Giving the best judgment I can to the matter, I agree that the point of substance that was made by my noble friend Lord Peddie is an effective one to which I and the Government will pay due heed, and on the basis of which I have made the undertakings that I have given.
5.39 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord one question? I do not wish to detain the House; I want to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has to say on another important topic. If there is to be a corrective, an amendment, to furnish a valid interpretation so that the principle of British sovereignty can be established, in the context of this discussion, am I to understand that Brussels will require to be consulted before anything is done?
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the answer to that is an undoubted negative. This is a decision that Parliament must make in regard to the way it controls the implementation of Directives emanating from the Council. That implementation is entirely a matter for Parliament, and until Parliament implements them, they have no binding effect upon this country.
Lord PEDDIE: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and my noble friend Lord Wigg for their support on this important Motion. I am particularly interested—I hope that the House will be also—in the reinforcement of the point concerning the criticisms as expressed by the Committee on Statutory Instruments and the Select Committee. Both Committees indicated to your Lordships' House and to another place their objections to this Statutory Instrument, and made it crystal clear that it was ultra vires.
As the noble Baroness pointed out, the Report of the Committee on Statutory Instrument was published on 1st July and that of the Select Committee was pub
416
lished on 22nd October. The objections raised in the Reports raised a very important point of principle, but nothing at all happened. It was not until comparatively recently—a matter of days—that I became conscious of the fact that nothing at all would happen, and that realisation necessitated raising the matter in this House. I think that a tribute should be paid to this House for providing the facilities whereby a Back-Bencher can draw attention to matters of this description and at the same time focus the attention of the House on them. Today, we suffer, if I may put it like this, under a welter of paper—showers of Statutory Instruments and papers of all kinds—and if we are not careful we can be blinded by this and lose sight of our democratic objectives.
I must also express deep appreciation of the comments made by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. He has been able to give the legislative and legal background to the problem. More than anything else, I applaud him for the clear, frank and very decisive way in which he dealt with my objections. I shall certainly not cross swords with him with regard to two of the objections raised by the Select Committee. I am concerned only with the third one, which affects this vital principle. The noble and learned Lord has agreed quite clearly that the offending form of words would cause us to lose many of our democratic rights and to some extent offend our Parliamentary powers. He agrees that the Government will amend the Statutory Instrument.
I also appreciate the comments which were made by my noble friend Lord Wigg, because his blandishments helped to reinforce the point of view expressed by my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. There is always an implied threat in all the blandishments which my noble friend expresses at any time. However, I do not rise to blandishments, but I do appreciate the threat that lay behind them. Therefore, I should like to say to my noble and learned friend that I accept entirely the assurance he has given and the points he has made. I believe that a signal service has been rendered, and I applaud the Government for the frank way in which they have dealt with this. They have not tried to hedge on the matter. There has been a clear recognition that something was wrong,

417
and I think that a great deal of good has been done in raising the matter. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

ANGOLA: FOREIGN TROOPS
5.46 p.m.
Lord HOME of the HIRSEL Lord HOME of the HIRSEL rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what action they have taken or propose to take to request the Security Council of the United Nations to bring about the early withdrawal of all foreign troops which have intervened in the civil war in Angola, including those sponsored by the Soviet Union and Cuba. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I have placed the Unstarred Question on the Order Paper for a number of reasons. The first is to enable the Government to acquaint Parliament with any proposals they may have for positive action in relation to the critical situation in Southern Africa which has resulted from the intervention in Angola's civil war by outside forces and outside Powers.
I think the reason is valid, because until now I believe there has been too little guidance on this very important issue given by the Government to Parliament. Until now, too, I believe that the policies of the United States, the Nine—which include Her Majesty's Government—and other democracies can be described only as "policies of drift". In this situation we have drifted from bad to worse and all can see quite easily that it could become worse still. In fact, it will do so until the drift is halted.
My second reason is this: whatever were the considerations or inhibitions which prevented Her Majesty's Government and the other democracies, at the start of the Russian/Cuban intervention, from calling together the Security Council to order the withdrawal of all foreign troops from Angola, the time is now ripe. The fighting is virtually over. Therefore, there is an opportunity to organise the withdrawal of troops who have come in from outside.
My third reason is to suggest to Her Majesty's Government and to the Allies and democracies, and indeed to all those who attended Helsinki, that there should be a formal approach to Mr. Brezhnev
418
to secure from him the Russian interpretation of "non-intervention in the internal affairs of other countries" in the context of détente. If the Angolan intervention by Russia and Cuba is held by Mr. Brezhnev to be consistent with the Helsinki communiqué, then détente for the democracies is a trap.
The facts are not in dispute. There are some 12,000 or more Cuban troops in Angola. There is a body of Russian military advisers and a weight of Russian arms, tanks, armoured vehicles, guns, air-craft and rockets. There are South African units in Angola, and there is a fringe of mercenaries. South Africans claim that their military presence is necessary inside Angola to protect water and electricity supplies essential to Namibia; but that objective, following the withdrawal of outside troops, could be secured by other means—either by treaty with the new Government of Angola, who by then would have been recognised, or by a United Nations presence until the future constitution of Namibia is settled.
Russian and Cuban action in Angola is different in kind. They had no status whatever to intervene in the affairs of Angola, and they certainly have no status to stay on now that fighting is coming to an end. When the Soviet leaders occupied Czechoslovakia, they sought to justify their action by reference to Russia's physical security. That excuse was always threadbare in relation to Czechoslovakia, but it is quite impossible to advance it in relation to their intervention in the Continent of Africa. There is no excuse at all. But it would be prudent for the free countries of the world to remember Czechoslovakia now, because the Russians are still there. In Southern Africa, they and the Cubans are astride the communications of Zaire and Zambia; they will, in a matter of days, be on the border of Namibia, and they are parading their intention openly to liberate, as they say, the Africans in Rhodesia and the Africans in South Africa.
By any measurement of the usual language used in the Security Council, that represents a potential threat to peace. It can, therefore, properly be taken to that organisation, and I believe it should be taken, and a mandatory resolution

419
tabled requiring the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from the territory of Angola. Why not, my Lords? Noble Lords will not have to stretch their imaginations very far to think what a bombardment of mandatory resolutions there would have been in the Security Council if any other country had intervened in Angola, or in any other place, in this way. If the United Nations is to retain any credibility at all, it cannot be allowed to adopt one rule for the Soviet Union and its Communist friends and another rule for the rest.
I noticed that last Friday—I think in a speech at Cardiff—the Foreign Secretary laid all the emphasis in this matter on Cuban intervention and Cuban withdrawal. All right, my Lords. The Cubans have the largest number of troops in Angola and they should go. But the Cubans were hired by the Soviet Union, they were transported to the area by the Soviet Union, they were armed by the Soviet Union and this military operation bears all over it the stamp of a Russian strategic plan for Communist expansion. It could never have started, would never have started, but for the Russians organising the intervention. I say this plainly, because nothing could be more dangerous to the peace of the world than if the leaders of the Soviet Union come to believe that they can commit any enormity, because so great is the desire for détente among the rest of the countries in the world that no one will dare to place the blame where it really belongs. They will construe that as soft, and it is almost an invitation to proceed from excess to excess.
I remember very well, as will your Lordships, the incidents concerning the spies a few years ago. I think it worth reminding your Lordships' House of the sequence of events. I saw Mr. Gromyko privately—this is all public property, so there is no harm in my saying so—and told him the situation. There was no action for six months, so I wrote to him telling him on paper exactly what I said to him in private, because I wanted to be able to deal with the situation privately. There was no reply for six months. I saw him again and there was still no reply; so I wrote again. In all, I gave him almost a year and half in order to deal with the matter quietly in
420
the context of détente which we all desired. The only thing that happened was that the number of spies was added to during that time. My attitude was interpreted as soft. As a matter of fact, in the event, it was not. But I think that will illustrate to your Lordships how the Russians react if nobody dares to tell them that he knows they are doing wrong. I repeat that there is nothing more dangerous than the Russians knowing that you know that they are in the wrong, but that you dare not say so.
So they went into Southern Africa, because there is infinite political mischief to be done there, and in order to extend the range of Soviet Russian and Communist authority; and they will stay. They have stayed in Czechoslovakia. They will stay, unless ordered by world public opinion to go. I hope we shall not delude ourselves into thinking that this is Russia's Vietnam. These parallels are extremely dangerous, and it is really nothing of the sort. It is true that their intervention does not always succeed, as we saw in Egypt. But if, in time, the MPLA decide that they want to be rid of the Russians, as they may well do, they will need the help of world opinion.
I hope that, in relation to the Security Council operation, the Government will not use the argument that it is unlikely to succeed. I am by no means so sure. The world does not like force used by an unscrupulous super-Power. Every small country in the world has an interest in the rule of non-intervention—the strongest self-interest. Of course, as a realist, one must recognise that the resolution might be lost or vetoed. That is quite a possibility. But if it failed, and if it were vetoed by the Soviet Union, would it not be safer that the Free World should know where it stands and, there fore, what it has to do? There is something to be said for clearing, the air here, particularly in the context of defence.
That brings me to my final proposal. For years, the nations of the world have agreed that unless the rule of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries is observed there will be no peace anywhere. It was inherent in the Charter of the United Nations and, indeed, it is obviously true. Your Lordships will remember that last August Mr. Brezhnev gave a lecture on this theme of non-intervention to many leaders of many

421
countries, including our Prime Minister, when the Conference was held at Helsinki. When he left the Conference, Mr. Wilson said this in a programme called "The World this Weekend". He was asked this question by a Mr. Cooke:
"If, for instance, another Czechoslovakia situation arose, could not the Russians find a reason and an excuse to go there? After all, in Czechoslovakia they said that the Government invited them."
Mr. Wilson replied:
" You can always find a reason, but it was widely interpreted by some of the most suspicious of the Soviet Union over these years as meaning that you would have to think several times before you were to break the whole spirit of Helsinki, with everything that stems from it for both sides. Many of them there said that if Mr. Brezhnev had made the speech he made the other morning in 1968, it would have been impossible for him to invoke the so-called Brezhnev doctrine ".
It was not very long before Mr. Brezhnev did break that doctrine; and, among other things, Mr. Wilson said in Parliament on 5th August last [Official Report, Commons, 5/8/75; col. 234.]:
" The actual undertakings must be the subject of continuous monitoring and, finally, the test of Belgrade ",
when the next conference comes along.
I am suggesting that monitoring should begin at once and that Mr. Brezhnev's actions should be checked against his words, because democracies can no longer afford to allow Mr. Brezhnev's interpretation of non-intervention in the context of détente to be fluffed. It is really too dangerous. If, as I believe is certain, the eyes of the world are more open now, and Mr. Brezhnev would be seeming to say (and this time it would be understood) that in Russia's view intervention by force in Angola is compatible with his idea of détente, well, that would undoubtedly be grim. But it would be healthier and the air would be clearer if Communist Russia were then told by the rest of the world that no business could be done on that basis until Russia changed her ways on intervention in the affairs of other countries.
My Lords, I shall probably be labelled "provocative". I am going to plead guilty in the sense that there will be no peace until the Russian leaders are provoked by united world opinion to stop the export of Communism by force. That is really the essence of the matter. Although I am conscious that probably
422
one will be accused of being provocative, "softly, softly" simply will not do. Two years ago when I returned to this House and made, I remember, a second maiden speech, I put down on the Order Paper a Motion calling attention to a matter which I deemed to be the most dangerous in international affairs. It was that the foreign policies of all the Western democracies and of the Free World were in a posture, and I will quote what I said:
… of defensive reaction against the strong expansionist trend in the policy of Soviet Russia."
That is still so. I submit that if ever there was a case for a common foreign policy among the Nine it is here; that if ever there was a case for co-operation with America, it is here; that if ever there was a case for mobilising opinion in the free commonwealth of nations it is here.
Today, therefore, I return to the theme, with the plea that the free rally themselves while there is time. I think that there is time, although it is fast running out. What I am asking Her Majesty's Government to do today, whatever faltering there may be in the United States and whatever hesitations there may be among the Nine, is to take a lead and use the international machinery whereby the withdrawal of foreign troops from Angola may take place, the Communist doctrine of intervention in the affairs of other countries be exposed and the Russians asked to change their ways.
6.3 p.m.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be deeply grateful to my noble friend for having put down this Question for debate. I cannot help feeling, with much humility, that it is very difficult to follow such a masterly speech which presents with such clarity of mind, wisdom and integrity, from the standpoint of my noble friend's international reputation, the case as it is. One of the advantages of this House is that one can raise a matter at fairly short notice, whereas it takes a long time in another place, unless there is co-operation on all sides.
By putting down this Question on the Order Paper it seems that my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has at least stimulated the Government into

423
taking some action. The Question was put down on Thursday evening and by Friday the Foreign Secretary had made a speech in Cardiff in which he condemned the Cuban invasion. However, as my noble friend has said, there was no reference to the sponsoring or the carrying of these Cuban invaders by the USSR, and that is where the blame lies. I would ask your Lordships what is the common factor between 1956 and 1976. In 1956 there was the Russian invasion of Hungary and the Suezincident when the Russians backed Egypt. The factor common to both of these incidents was that it was a Presidential Election year. I think that the Free World has to be very careful in Presidential Election years. They show a green light to wrongdoers that they may have an opportunity of undertaking military adventures and invasions by proxy without retribution and without the Free World reacting as it should.
Of course, since the experience of the Communist success in Vietnam it is even less likely that the United States of America will take early action. With all the dangers now building up, Her Majesty's Government seem to me—and I speak with humility from the Back Benches—to be more intent upon setting up a smokescreen than upon initiating action. My noble friend has said that with such a threat to the peace of the African Continent one would have expected the Security Council to be in permanent session. One would expect NATO to be convened. One would expect meetings of the Western European Union to find out whether we could co-ordinate our action. However, Her Majesty's Government seem to be more intent upon encouraging the hounding and the harassing of a few mercenaries than upon initiating action among the Free World to face the dangers which beset us.
I cannot help reflecting upon this strange campaign about the mercenaries. It started in the first week of February. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who is to reply to this debate—he is a very reasonable man and very moderate in all his opinions—used these words at column 1413 during Question Time on 5th February, which was long before any
424
question of murder in Angola. For the noble Lord, these were strong words:
"We deplore, and we would seek to do everything in our power to stop, mercenary incursion from this country or any other country into Angola."
From then on, every day, every news paper, every radio news broadcast, every television news broadcast, every headline that we read seemed to go haring after this question of mercenaries, and most of the comment was highly derogatory. I believe that the noble Viscount, Lord Monckton of Brenchley, who is to speak in this debate, will refer from personal experience to some of these mercenaries because he went to see them. However, I cannot help suspecting that this output and reaction in the media reflected the Government's attitude, if not positive guidance. When a group of volunteers arrived at Fenchurch Street station they were all taken—some of them carried in police cars—for an immediate search to the police station. I wonder why? The excuse was that some newspaper—I wonder which?—had been tipped off that they might be carrying arms. They were searched and, of course, none was carrying arms. There may have been some with no military experience, and these are the ones we hear of; but there were a lot with a great deal of military experience and there were a lot who were motivated not by the money they were offered but by anxiety to do something for the Free World against this massive invasion. Yet the noble Lord said he would do—and I use his words—" everything in our power "—that is, in the Government's power—to stop them. We even had talk of withdrawing passports. All this was before there was any question of a massacre. When the 44 mercenaries returned to Heathrow they were taken by the Special Branch to police stations, kept there for three days and interrogated. No charge was brought against them and I understand that there is to be no charge.
On 10th February, in the House of Commons, there was another incident, in almost hysterical words, and these were repeated in this House. The Prime Minister was speaking about the recruiters—small-time crooks with records—at column 239 of Hansard of 10th February. The Prime Minister

425
spoke about these volunteers being recruited in conditions which were
" utterly abhorrent to our system and standards in this country "
and described a few hundred as a "vast private army". In even stronger terms, the Prime Minister went on to say that they were a real threat to democracy in our country. I should have thought that there were greater threats to our democracy than a few hundred United Kingdom mercenaries. I cannot help feeling that the Government, reflected by these terms, have lost their sense of priorities.
The Lord Privy Seal himself repeated much of this. In his answer to Questions he said that no British airline had been used and representations had been made to Belgian airlines to cease transporting them. What right have we to start coercing foreign airlines as to whom they should or should not take? Many of us of my age remember that it is not without honour that people have served in foreign or civil wars, starting in Spain, as I said at Question Time last week, and where, incidentally, Jack Jones served. Many Regular Army volunteers went to Finland with the co-operation of the Government in 1939 when the USSR invaded that small country. We had many volunteers for Israel and for Korea—I know one noble Lord who jumped a ship in order to go and serve there. We had Biafra volunteers. We have Ghurkas today—they are paid, they are mercenaries serving in our Forces and guarding our Queen. We have Regular soldiers serving in Muscat and Oman today, with honour, to help the stability of that part of the world.
Therefore, why is this such an astonishing campaign? I ask: was it to please the Marxist wing of the Labour Party? —because, of course, they have always supported the MPLA, against which mercenaries have been fighting. I resent this hysteria and this smokescreen only because if men are stupid enough—or heroic enough—to volunteer for other people's wars, it is their affair. Those, my Lords, are not my words, but a quotation from a Government Back-Bencher in another place, and the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, used similar words when he intervened from the Government side at Question Time last week.
426
I cannot help feeling that the Prime Minister, and perhaps the Government with him, have become pathological about these so-called private armies. He hopes to make this affair an excuse for legislation, but if we are to have legislation it must cover not just this instance but all such threats to democracy. As the Economist wisely said this week: "Free men are free to court death." I resent this astonishing sense of priorities, because Her Majesty's Government, in chasing this hare, have neglected to condemn Russian arms, Russian tanks, Russian 'planes and Cuban troops ferried and supplied in large numbers to Angola, from which of course they can threaten South-West Africa, Zaire and Zambia. At the same time, we have a massive supply of Communist arms, sometimes from China and sometimes from Russia, in East Africa. So on the East Coast of Central Africa and also on the West Coast of Central Africa we have a large Communist armed force which could be a threat to the whole Southern part of that Continent. If war spreads to Rhodesia and South Africa, I am sure that the volunteers from this country, mindful of what those nations did to help us when we were in difficulties—and I fought alongside them—would not be numbered in their tens or in their hundreds but in their thousands, and many good men will be with them.
Noble Lords may ask, "What action would you take?" My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel has already sketched some action, but perhaps I may sketch some others. The United Kingdom has a long and historic association with Central and Southern Africa. We have many friends there; we do much business there; we have many contacts there and many of us have relations there. Surely, therefore, we could—and we would be the best people to do it—take the initiative with the Security Council. And if the Marxist MPLA is to be recognised, why do we not coerce and persuade and lead the EEC countries or the NATO countries to agree to recognise it as a de facto Government when the Cuban troops under Russian tutelage are withdrawn? We have power as a bloc in Western Europe: let us use that power, let us take action.
One of our NATO members is the powerful and friendly USA. They have

427
contracted to supply 6 million tons of wheat to the USSR, the delivery of which does not start until October 1976. Could it not be said to them that when they honour their Helsinki undertaking in the letter and in the spirit, then of course we will honour that contract, but in the interest of peace in the world we will suspend those shipments until such time as they withdraw the Cuban troops from Angola. The United Kingdom, during the last visit by the present Prime Minister to Moscow—the last of many visits —offered enormous loans. I must say that I find it quaint, since we are borrowing money from most countries in the world, that we should offer hundreds of millions of pounds in loans to the USSR at rather special rates. Perhaps that should be looked at again. It is true that they have not yet taken up much of it, but why should we leave it open-ended while they are carrying out this military venture? With all my sincerity, I say that if nothing is done by the Free World it will be a signal to hard men in the Kremlin to try other adventures. That is why we want early and co-ordinated leadership from our Government.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down—trying to keep to the key of this speech and recognising the seriousness of the constructive points that have already been made from the Front Bench and elsewhere—does he not see that for the diplomat there is here a terrific problem? Whatever one may say about the Marxists and the Communists in South-East Asia —which I am trying to study and under stand over the years—we may have the problem of the black versus the white world in Africa if this thing goes wrong. Consequently, we should tread like Agag in dealing with these points, constructively if we can, and trying to get the diplomats to come to some agreement. I apologise for interrupting, but I am seriously perturbed by the problem of black and white rather than the Communists and the capitalists.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, of course one is worried about that, but I do not think flabby lack of leadership will solve this problem. I would remind the noble Lord that some thousand mercenaries have gone from the USA and the vast majority of those are black. So
428
there is a chance that there, in pursuit of freedom, we are mixing black and white together, fighting for peace in that part of the world.
6.18 p.m.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, like other speakers, I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for using his great authority in raising this Question at this time. After he has spoken, what need of further witnesses? So I shall stick to one main issue—the Russians and their Cuban proxies. It is a well-established practice to examine the evidence before considering action. Intelligence should come before operations, or in Service jargon, I before O.Like the noble Lord, Lord Home, I doubt whether there is much argument here about the evidence. Three factions in Angola have been variously supported from outside, some with men and arms sent by neighbours, some by elements from far further afield. Why are they there? Again there is little doubt that they are there because those who sent them, or those who enticed them, reckoned that it was to their interest that one faction rather than another should prevail. For neighbours in Africa this attitude is not hard to grasp: their immediate and vital interests were bound to be affected in one way or another. Whether the means chosen were wise, or in the short or long run likely to be effective, is another matter.
But what of the Russians? Their intervention is not because any immediate vital interest was at stake. They did not even have the pretext—and like the noble Lord, Lord Home, I would say the word is "pretext"— which they put forward over Czechoslovakia in 1968, or over the Berlin Wall in 1960, or over Hungary in 1956. And insult has been added to those affronts to human dignity and all the eloquent phrases in the United Nations' Charter about national integrity. The insult is the use of Cuban military formations to handle Russian equipment by proxy. Is this the price that poor Castro now has to pay for being unable to refund his outstanding debts to the USSR?
However this may be, why have the Russians acted in this way so soon after Helsinki? We may well ask ourselves this question. But I wonder whether it occurred quite in this form to the

429
Soviet leaders before their decision in this case, any more than it occurred to them after the war when they turned their backs on their wartime allies and revert to the struggle against what they called imperialism. After all, have they ever renounced what, from Lenin on, had been the steady goal of Soviet policy? Indeed, have they not specifically warned us, even after Helsinki, that the ideological struggle was to continue? Have they been any less frank than Hitler about their ultimate aims and current practices?
True, they have so far been less hasty than Hitler, who wanted to do it all in his own lifetime. But have they been any less clear? There may be other complicated explanations and excuses for Soviet actions, and there are a number of well-intentioned people in this country and elsewhere who will make those excuses for them. In your Lordships' House it is hardly necessary to remind your Lordships of the virtue of William of Occam's so-called razor. He said it is not necessary to complicate an issue when there is a simple explanation.
We all remember the excuses made for Hitler, the cherished belief that he could not really mean what he had written. We remember the well-intentioned effort to neutralise the voice of Churchill, as if that could be done; and in my own Department, to muzzle Vansittart, that is, until is was almost too late. With that so recent lesson, there can be no rhyme or reason for us not to accept the plain evidence of our senses in Angola; a Russian high seas fleet second to none, support points already available in the Mediterranean and Indian ocean, and a steady goal, never renounced—all this, and more, at the cost of the standard of living and liberties of their own citizens.
Even so, it is asked, what are we going to do about it? Is not détente the only policy? The honest answer is that if Angola spells détente to the Russians, it is intervention in plain English—intervention in face of the undertakings of Helsinki. In fact, the Russians are in the process, I regret to say, of making "détente" a dirty word, like "appeasement" which earlier had an entirely honourable connotation in foreign affairs.
So much for intelligence. Now for operations. This is surely a matter, in
430
the first case, for Her Majesty's Government to initiate. The noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, has put forward a proposal and, with his usual wisdom, has called for the withdrawal of all—and I repeat, all—foreign troops. It may be argued that the Security Council would not, with its present composition, pass any such resolution, and that we might draw down upon ourselves a Soviet veto. But like the noble Lord, Lord Home, I must ask the question: is this the Government's view? Even so, is that necessarily the end of the argument? Ought not your Lordships and the public to know what the United Nations has come to if it cannot be used at least for throwing a light on things as they are?
If not that, what else? I must regret the unilateral action announced today by the French Government, because in a matter of this kind—and I only say this in the hope and expectation that the Minister who is to reply will confirm it—our efforts, as the noble Lord, Lord Home, has said already, should be to get together the greatest weight of opinion behind us in any action we can take—our friends to begin with, our friends in the European Economic Community, and in the United States. When the French Government decided today to recognise Angola on their own and ahead of the rest of the action to be taken, I suppose, at some point by the other members of the European Economic Community, I can only say that personally I am sorry that this did not come—ifit were to come —as a concerted move, so as to show the world that we are in fact acting together, and the Russians that they cannot pick us off one by one, one doing one thing and others another, so there is confusion from which they can profit.
For the pressure of world opinion and other influences in the past has made the Russians withdraw, for instance from Persia and Finland after the war, and from Austria in 1956. Of course they had no business to stay on in any of these countries as long as they did, any more than they have the right to be in Angola now, but in all these cases, stoutness of heart on the spot—and as an ex-High Commissioner in Austria at that time I can testify to that stoutness of heart in Austria—supported by world opinion and other influences did work in the end, and in the case of Austria in the long end.

431
My Lords, what do I mean by the words "outside opinion" and "other influences?" Not necessarily a lot of public statements, but a deal of frank talk in private when the Russians judged that we and our friends—and I have cited some of them—mean what we say. Suffice it as a gloss to add that this cannot mean unilateral disarmament. Therefore, I greatly hope that the Minister who is to reply will show that Her Majesty's Government are doing their utmost with all the allies they can get together, their friends and associates, to see that the Russians cannot get away with this blatant intervention. Of course, I do not ask the Minister to use in public any less diplomatic language than we have been accustomed in your Lordships' House to hear and respect. That is not his way; nor necessarily is it the way for responsible Ministers to carry conviction. But in his own way, I sincerely trust that he will respond to the anxieties which all should share, and show that the Government are determined to see this matter through, no matter what the weaknesses and tergiversations of others may be, and no matter what the difficulties with which we are ourselves beset.
6.28 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, it is some time since I took part in a debate in your Lordships' House on the situation in Africa. The reason for this has simply been that I did not feel I could offer any views which were not either a repetition of those I have advanced on numerous occasions in the past or simply a catalogue of dire forebodings little likely to help towards a constructive solution of the problems of that part of the world. I do not pretend that I foresaw the precise train of events which has brought us to the present situation. But there were certain developments which for a long time have been inevitable. The first is the collapse of Portuguese authority which was certain because of the insupportable drain imposed by a long war on the moral and material resources of a small impoverished country. The second was the attitude of mind of the Rhodesian Front leaders in Rhodesia, which would preclude any hope of a settlement with any group of African politicians which would be viable in terms of the realities of political
432
power and aspiration in present-day Africa; and thirdly, that the neo-Imperialist era would open under one or both of the Marxist super-Powers.
When this happened, the first victims were likely to be the successor Governments of black Africa South of the Sahara. Only then would white African Governments be brought face to face with the military peril which confronts them. I believed that a modern Fashoda incident would take place somewhere along the line of the Tanzam railway, with the Russians coming down from the North and the Chinese coming in from the East, via Tanzania. I thought that this might produce a temporary balance of power which would give the Rhodesians and the South Africans sufficient respite to enable them to adjust their policies to avoid a situation which would be too ghastly to contemplate.
As your Lordships will recognise, this scenario—to use a modern term—is wrong in detail, though perhaps not so far as at first sight seems likely. My miscalculations were these: Chinese imperialism is less concerned with the African theatre than I supposed, probably because of its preoccupation with South-East Asia and the inner tensions of metropolitan China itself. Secondly, the Russians, realising their previous failures to penetrate into Africa, have left the dirty work to the Spanish-speaking mercenaries, in the shape of the Cubans, and are now content to supply the military hardware and back-up. Thirdly, the South African Government have shown far greater realism far sooner than I believed possible. I was, however, right in believing that the Rhodesians would sit tight and engage in a series of abortive negotiations with anyone prepared to partner them in a constitutional danse macabre.
As it turns out, the Russians have out-flanked the Chinese. Marxist influence of the Soviet variety lies along the frontiers of Swaziland and, as my noble friend Lord Home has said, has its hand on the economic throats of Zambia and Malawi and Rhodesia by its control of the railway systems of Angola and Mozambique. No wonder that in Zambia Mr. Arthur Wina advised President Kaunda a few days ago to open the Rhodesian Border. And the paradox of

433
the present situation is that Zambia's concern to see a black Government in Rhodesia has now less to do with the freedom of the Zimbabwians from white Rhodesian Front rule than to open up alternative lines of communication to the congested and inefficient port of Dar-es-Salaam and through South Africa to Durban and Cape Town.
My Lords, the successor Governments of Africa South of the Sahara have, naturally—perhaps inevitably—fallen for the temptation of all small weak States faced with the problem of resisting the expansionist policy of super-Powers. They have tried to play one off against the other. Thus, President Nyerere in Tanzania, heading a country deeply penetrated by the Chinese, has contemplated with equanimity the growth of Russian sea power in the Indian Ocean and has been an influential advocate of the Russian-backed MPLA in Angola. I can assure you that, in that I am not indulging guesswork. As has so often happened in the past, this expedient of statesmanship has failed because one or other of the great Powers has not come up to scratch. In this case it is the Chinese. But the same has happened on the other side of Africa. The third super-Power, the United States of America, have, perhaps temporarily, decided to enjoy a period of preoccupation with their own affairs and the problems of their own public life, rather than carry out what I am afraid must be regarded by all of the super-Powers in the Free World as their responsibilities for paying for their position in effort and treasure, and, perhaps, blood as well.
The consequences of all this can be assessed in two dimensions: first, that of white Southern Africa, which must now —let us be quite frank—face the prospect of fighting for its existence; and the second is black Africa, South of the Sahara, where the existing nationalist or military or social democratic or one-Party successor regimes may soon find themselves destroyed by Marxist minorities aided by the military and ideological support of Soviet Russia working through its satellites in Cuba and elsewhere.
What I am trying to say is that the issue, so far as white South Africa is concerned, is quite clear. The prospects are, to me, absolutely clear, tragic and unacceptable in every way. But let us
434
not fail to realise that it is not only their problems that are the issue, not only their future that is the issue; there is the future of all those successor States who, on the whole, are westward-looking, whether or not they backed the MPLA during the OAU conference and who are the successor States of what they believed would be the free Africa of the future. The real issue is not the future of Namibia or Rhodesia or the Transkei, or the fate of South Africa, as I have said; it is whether the régimes which achieved independence of the colonial powers in the last 100 years in Africa can fend off the era of Russian neo-imperialism which may now engulf them. The régimes at stake are the successor Governments throughout the whole of Southern Africa, or the whole of Africa South of the Sahara, except possibly for one of the existing satellites, which is Somalia, which is essentially a non-African country, in one sense of the word.
The problem—this is the problem for them and it is the problem for the Free World as well—is how can they brace themselves to meet the challenge facing them. Is it right that at this juncture the appeal should, as my noble friend Lord Home has said, be to the United Nations. I am sure he is absolutely right in saying that, whatever might be the outcome of a reference to the Security Council, it is something we should try, but I am also sure that this is a problem for the peoples of Africa to tackle. I fear that in the United Nations the issue will soon become confused and blurred by the parallel problems existing in the Middle East and the Far East and the relations between America and the Soviet Union. The danger is that, not for the first time in history, Africa—vulnerable, exposed, underdeveloped, divided Africa—will surrender its identity and its newly won freedom to a new era of exploitation, so that, in an effort to solve the problem of white minority government South of the Zambesi, the independent Governments of black Africa North of the Zambesi, will, almost unwittingly, allow them selves to become the victims of a Marxist political philosophy and its consequences in terms of human life. This is, let us not forget, a direct antithesis of everything for which the age-old traditions and aspirations of the peoples of Africa stand.

435
As my noble friend Lord Home has said, by all means let us see if the United Nations can help. But, in addition, let this country and this Government, in concert with the other European Governments—which, after all have played a major part in the historic development of Africa, for better and for worse, and this includes every member of the European Community except Luxembourg—consider whether there is something which they could do, by their concerted efforts at the United Nations, or through their EEC institutions, or by some combined initiative outside, which could prevent a situation arising in Africa, which, irrespective of the disaster which may overtake the white minorities, will enchain the black masses of Africa in a new period of political slavery and ideological exploitation. I join with my noble friend Lord Caccia in saying that I greatly regret that the French have not held their hand in recognising the new Government in Angola, and have failed to do it in concert with the other Members of the EEC.
Once the United States have got over their present preoccupations and have been able to shake themselves clear of the paralysis which has resulted from Vietnam, it may well be that they will be there to take part, too, in trying to find a solution to this dangerous and tragic problem. But I still say that it is Europe—Europe of the West, free Europe —which has an opportunity and a challenge now to show that it is not a smalltime, introverted, rich man's club but a concert of powerful nations capable of united action outside the limits of its political frontiers and unfettered by simple economic self-interest.
My Lords, if there can be such united action by Europe it would, I believe, be of value to Europe itself. We hear a great deal about the development of political institutions in the EEC. It is the expereince of all of us that political institutions are not created, or seldom created satisfactorily, from the drawing board and the constitutional lawyers; they are evolved as a result of the habit of co-operation between countries. If we could get that co-operation in this instance between the nations of the EEC on a political matter with which we are so desperately closely connected—and if
436
it goes wrong we will all be the sufferers, as well as Africa—we may be not only doing Africa a good turn but perhaps be doing some good for ourselves as well.
6.42 p.m.
Lord ST. JUST: My Lords, when we had a debate initiated by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, on security problems of the Free World, I do not think that many of us, looking ahead, had any idea quite how fast things might move on the African Continent. I must honestly allow, and I certainly will allow, that I have not had the experience of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and other speakers who have spoken before me connected with Africa, but I know South Africa and up into Rhodesia well. I was convinced that when the threat was to come it would come from the Tanzania direction, and that this would be the Maoist threat of the Chinese, but how wrong one proved to be. Obviously one saw Angola's potential danger. The last time I went through the country and landed even just for a few hours, trouble and shooting were already going on, but one still had a feeling that there was a possibility that the situation would be brought under control. Little did one see, or realise, how quickly the Russians, with Cuban support, would move into the area.
If I may also agree wholeheartedly with what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said on this matter, I think that with the experience EEC countries have had with Africa, and especially with Southern Africa, there is a part that can be played here still in advising on what can, as we know, potentially be the most terrifying holocaust—there is no other word for it. I am quite certain that one of the dangers that must, and in fact does, exist in African nations just North of the Zambezi which, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, was saying, were for a period of time governed by our colonial Empire—I am not saying that they have not now extremely good minds and extremely good Africans working in these countries, and have efficient Governments—but a rising may easily come in under the guise of the East or the West from Angola or the Tanzania area, which the African leaders will not be able to hold themselves. Then where does Rhodesia stand? South Africa also would be put in the position of having to fight for its very existence.

437
May I mention one personal note as I was, after the war, stationed in Berlin attached to the Military Government. I had to attend every meeting of the Kommandatura where the Russians were present—and this is the point the noble Lord, Lord Home, mentioned, and it is very important—and I found that if you go on pounding at the Russians to convince them, in the end they sometimes believe that they may be wrong. We used to find this in the meetings that went on at the Kommandatura. I held only a very junior position there, but my senior officers day in and day out found themselves sitting at the table going on and on at the Russian leaders who were helping them to administer Berlin from the shattered mess that Berlin was in. It got to the most extraordinary position. There was an extremely likeable general, General Kotakov, who was in fact the Russian commander of the military sector of Berlin at the time. In the end he became so friendly with General Hind that he started to agree with the various things on which, up until then, there appeared to be no hope of getting any agreement. At a meeting one Monday we no longer found General Kotakov at the table. We asked, "Where has General Kotakov got to? Is he ill? Is he detained, or anything else?" They said, "He does not exist". From that moment onwards there was no news, and so far as we could ever discover that was the last that was ever heard of General Kotakov. I am quite convinced that in the end pounding does have an effect on the Russian mind.
6.48 p.m.
Viscount MONCKTON of BRENCHLEY: My Lords, my intervention was to have been short. It will be even shorter because my noble friends Lord Home and Lord Caccia have said all that needs to be said on the main problem. My intervention is solely on one small side of the question of mercenaries who, I think your Lordships will agree, have in the past had great honour in history. We could not have won most of the major wars we fought without the Hanoverian legions. At present, there are the Ghurkas, the French Foreign Legion, and the Wild Geese from Ireland who officered and commanded most of the armies of Europe at one time or another. The real mercenaries in this problem are the Cubans who are armed, fed, trans
438
ported and governed by the Russians. That to me is a pure definition of mercenary. They have that weapon that has probably won more territory for the MPLA than any other, the Katushka rocket launcher, which fires banks of rockets which are terrifying to see. We saw them in Korea from the safety of the inside of a tank, but for people badly armed and not all that well led and in retreat, it is a most terrifying experience—and that is what the mercenaries are doing.
May I turn for a moment to the British mercenaries, or volunteers, whatever you like to call them. They are like some of your Lordships 40 years ago. Some of them—to be exact, two—were on the run. Perhaps I had better withdraw what I said about being like your Lordships, because there may not have been two of you on the run 40 years ago. Two of them were on the run and they took this way out, going to fight in a foreign war. Few believed in the cause they were going to fight. I suppose that that is justified also, like those who went to both sides in the Spanish war. I had a most wonderful tank gunner at the beginning of the war who had been a sergeant in the Carlist Cavalry and who when the battle started put me straight quicker than anybody else. The majority were ex-Servicemen and they were going for one reason only: they were sent by the British Government because they were un-employed. Now the cuts are taking effect and more soldiers are leaving the Forces today unable to get jobs. One young officer who went and came back, but is going again, was in a cavalry regiment under me. He is going because he cannot find a job. We are told that we are to have more defence cuts, and even cuts in the number of civil servants in the Ministry of Defence. I can only wonder how many more merceneries there will be when those defence cuts come.
6.51 p.m.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, the victory of Marxist forces in Angola is certainly not one to give satisfaction, much less when it has been achieved by alien intruders patronised, financed, armed and transported by one of the super-Powers. It all reminds me of Gladstone's invasion of Egypt 94 years ago, more like a bit of Victorian imperialism than anything else. What surprises me is that it

439
should be regarded as such an outrageous offence against the agreement of détente; it is an outrageous act whether there was any détente or none. It is the kind of thing which has been denounced by every important State except the Soviet Union, which is the solitary imperialist on the map of the world.
A great deal of time has been spent by noble Lords on the Benches on my right in trying to persuade the Government—I do not know whether they need persuading—that our real enemy is the Soviet Union. I have the impression that the Government recognise that fact, and my advice to them in this very important emergency is to play it cool and, as they obviously will try to do, to act in collaboration with our partners in the EEC. Victory, total and sweeping victory, having been achieved by the enemy in Angola, certain things have to be done or not done. In the inter-war era we might have considered restoring the situation by armed force; we might have considered restoring it by means of sanctions—as we did, or tried to do, in the case of Mussolini's invasion of Abyssinia—or we might have encouraged the intrusion of freedom fighters, as they were called, during the course of the last war, in the Balkans.
I am greatly relieved to learn that nobody has suggested any of those three courses today. None is possible to achieve by ourselves, none would achieve agreement in Africa or the United Nations and, in addition, they would be politically undesirable, even if we could carry them out. Nothing that I have seen has been so damaging to the post-war peace as the division of the countries of Europe by means of fostering irregulars, guerrilla fighters, partisans and freedom fighters; that has left every nation in Europe which was occupied by the enemy cloven in two. All are suffering from the consequences of that action.
What, then, are we to do? I presume that we will recognise the de facto total control of the MPLA. Whether France does so a day ahead of us is a relatively trivial matter; we are all going to do it and I can see no other course. Having once done it, I presume that we shall renounce all patronage of guerrilla movements in Angola—that no matter what the feelings of those we have previously supported may be, we will encourage them
440
to lay down their arms and we will supply them with no further arms to act against the Power, the authority, we recognise. That is surely one of the things we must do. Having done that, my hope is that we will see the red light and make sure that the resources, in a military sense, of Southern Africa are adequate to hold the fort against Soviet intrusion, with or without the help of the Cubans, by any means whatever, whether by direct invasion, by subversion or anything else. In other words, we turn full circle, abandon an attitude of sanctions towards the South, of distant distaste for any military association with Simonstown and allow Southern Africa to stand up for itself and not be overrun.
As for the Cuban occupation, if there is ever the prospect of a military enterprise in the rest of Southern Africa they will stay, otherwise they will be idle men far from home, getting bored and demoralised and they will want to return home. The prospects of them withdrawing are much better, I think, than that of the Russians losing interest. With respect to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, concerning Austria, I am not at all certain that the Russians left Austria after ten years of pressure, because we pressed them to do so. After all, by that time they had all the oil they wanted out of the Esterdorf wells and they had made the drastic mistake of having the only free elections they had ever allowed, when the Communist vote was only 10 per cent. It was, therefore, a bad experiment for them, and for that reason they left; and I question whether the Foreign Office or any other Foreign Office had anything to do with it.
Lord CACCIA: My Lords, with respect to the noble Earl, Lord Lytton, until the Soviet archives are eventually open, if they ever are, to public inspection, who can say? Nevertheless, we and our friends—the Americans, President Eisenhower, Sir Winston Churchill in particular—all said to the Russians, "What we want from you is not words but specific performance somewhere before we will talk to you and agree to a summit, and by specific performance we mean, for instance, Austria." Whether or not that had an effect, it is a fact, first, that they did agree to the Austrian State Treaty and, secondly, that they did go before we

441
had committed ourselves to meeting them at the summit.
The Earl of LYTTON: I know what the noble Lord says, my Lords, and I do not want to carry the argument further with him on that point. I was interested in the experience of the noble Lord, Lord St. Just. I had a similar experience with the Quadripartite Government of Vienna; and it is my impression of the Russians that their endurance outlasts that of any Western diplomat one can think of, and in my view they depart only when they think it is in their interest to do so. If the question is one of negotiations, such as those in Helsinki, my fear is that that was the sort of compact one should never make with the Russians. If one tells them that one will exchange so much oil for so much wheat, it is probable that they will carry that out; but if one uses an expression like "détente"—which means behave more decently and be more diplomatic, conciliatory and polite and let us cross the frontiers and embrace you, while you do the same with us—they will interpret that in their own way. It is a useless form of agreement with the Russians. They are pragmatic, and one can deal with them and make compacts with them only in practical matters, matters that can be measured, such as the number of secretaries in an embassy. These things they understand, and, if one is able to check them, one finds that they carry them out. If one can see what they have done, they will do it. A word like "détente"is a gift on a plate for a policy which is dedicated to the manipulation of falsehood in the interests of Marxism. I feel sure that the Government know these things as well as anybody else and I have nothing more to add on the subject, except to say that one should treat the Russians according to what one knows them to be.
7.1 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, Admiral Gortchakoff made possible Russian aggression in Angola. Russian ships have been reported—and perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will confirm or deny this—landing tanks and marines (both Cuban, but Russian armed) in Angola and also giving covering fire. The Russian action can only be described as aggression. Russian paid, transported and equipped Cuban bayonets have imposed on two-thirds of the
442
Angolans something which they clearly did not want. Nor did any of Angola's neighbours want it. It can only be described as the most irresponsible action of a great Power since Hitler. It is a direct threat to the peace of the world and a direct encouragement to war. This has been said already but, in my view, it is so important that one extra voice will do no harm in emphasising it again.
Two facets of the matter have struck me. One is a simple comment on the hypocrisy of the Western World in particular. Contrast empty Trafalgar Square with the anti-Vietnam "demos" of a few years past. There have been no sanctimonious utterances from the Prime Minister of Sweden, no rioting on the campuses of the United States of America and no resolution from the National Executive Committee of the Labour Party. Admittedly, one Minister has made a speech recently on the need for working-class solidarity with the oppressed brethren overseas. Those brethren were white and under a Government which is at least attempting some form of liberalisation. I suppose that one must also give Mr. Callaghan due credit for mentioning the Cubans. What possible interest has Russia in Angola except to stir up trouble? Russia is not a maritime Power. She does not live by world trade. Russia has never known the meaning of the word "liberty" or "freedom". Ivan the Terrible's spiritual successors still rule in the Kremlin.
My second point is the effect on Rhodesia. This has been mentioned and glossed over by several previous speakers, but I should like to refer to it again. In the past, Mr. Smith has been blind, stubborn, stupid and ill-advised not to come to some sort of settlement. He now has before him the example of the collapse of Portuguese rule in Africa. He must now yearn for the terms which he was offered on the "Tiger" or the "Fearless". He must wish he had been slightly more generous at the time of the Devlin Commission. I have always disapproved of Mr. Smith—not that that would worry him, I am sure—but I have approved of the material progress brought by the Europeans to Rhodesia. Mr. Smith has totally failed to recognise the force of African nationalism. Mr. Vorster has not. That is why he leant upon Mr. Smith at Kariba a few months ago and why he has tried, admittedly in small ways, to

443
make his peace with black Africa. It has been reported that President Kaunda, M. Houphouët Boigny and General Mobuto recognised this when they asked —or so an authoritative newspaper in South Africa has stated—that the South African troops should go to the aid of the UNITA faction in the South of Angola.
How will the Cubans ever be got out of Africa? The noble Earl, Lord Lytton, mentioned Mr. Gladstone. Mr. Gladstone, when we occupied Egypt in 1882, said it was a distinctly temporary measure. He wanted to extract himself and he found it impossible to do so. The Russians have not Mr. Gladstone's love of liberty or his dislike of imperialism.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Earl, I should like to say that the Egyptians have, more recently, managed to get rid of the Russians.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, it took them 20 years and they were offered an alternative source of supplies and money. Also, Egypt was not physically occupied by a Russian garrison. If UNITA and the FNLA keep up a guerrilla war the excuse for the Cubans and their Russian mentors to stay will be overwhelming. This guerrilla war will spill over into Rhodesia, and possibly into Zambia, South-West Africa, Namibia and Zaire. Right-wing reaction in South Africa will make it practically impossible for Mr. Vorster to apply any pressure to Mr. Smith as a result of the Communist take-over in Angola.
However, if, by a miracle, Mr. Smith had a change of heart and showed some statesmanship by reaching some form of agreement with Mr. Nkomo and if Bishop Muzorewa could be brought back into the peace councils in that part of the world, it is just possible that something might be salvaged. If not, the result will be a horrible cocktail of black and white blood with the olive being the destruction of industry and commerce and of the material progress made in Rhodesia over the last 50 years. But Mr. Smith's actions so far make this so unlikely that, though I am a youngish man who has always tried to see hope and optimism whenever I have spoken in your Lordships' House —and that even applies to Ireland—my heart is today full of the blackest of
444
black despair because I see no hope. All I can do is to pray that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he comes to reply, will prove me wrong.
7.8 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, it was a Chinese diplomat, I believe, who, before the war, commented that the heavens were black with chickens coming home to roost. They are still coming in. For me, the memories which come in now spread from the earliest years of this century when I attended political meetings with my dad, who is now long dead. One precept which he rammed into me on every occasion was, Whenever you're in doubt as to what action you should take politically, just see what the Tories are doing and do the opposite! "He put it much more roughly than that but it is a very good principle. Look at tonight. All the forces of reaction and ignorance, with one or two honourable exceptions, have had their say.
I turn to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. He is a man whom I respect, but I remember that he was Parliamentary Private Secretary to Neville Chamberlain. He carried Chamberlain's umbrella. His support of appeasement and of the policy that took this country to the very edge of the abyss and of being overwhelmed politically and militarily was not love of Hitler. It would be a scandalous libel to suggest anything of that kind. The noble Lord, Lord Home, is absolutely consistent. He hates the Soviet Union and all it stands for. He always has and he still does. What is so tragic about that is that it blinds him to the truth. The first simple truth is that the Foreign Office—and the reasons for this are very deep seated—has a long record of always being wrong. It has always been wrong, from the earlier days of this century when it took us blindly into the Entente Cordiale, which once again took us to the very edge of military defeat. It took us from a pre-eminent position in the world. It cost us a million dead. It undertook to put six divisions, which we had not got, in on the French left, because it knew better than the Government's military advisers. There is a long and detailed story.
Again, look at our record in the Middle East. I was immensely interested tonight when one Conservative noble Lord spoke

445
about Egypt, and then suddenly he realised that he was on dangerous ground; so did the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. He said, of course the Russians were there; but the Russians were not there. I am thinking about what happened in Egypt in 1956. There was a miscalculation which ended any claim which this country had to be a military Power. I will not go too far back. I will not go back beyond 1956. Let us go on from there. What happened in 1956? The Tory Party was is disarray. From behind the little intrigues there emerged that great figure of English political history, Mr. Harold Macmillan. There is the villain of the piece. It was not a Labour politician who abandoned conscription, yet we hear from these Benches tonight about unilateral disarmament. Unilateral disarmament indeed! It was a Conservative Administration who abandoned conscription. I am not going to argue that point, because it is a dead duck. But once conscription was abandoned, any possibility of this country having a viable military force, which would enable it to sustain its power in any part of the world, was a dead duck.
Who was it who made the "winds of change" speech without consulting his colleagues? A Labour Minister, or Mr. Harold Macmillan? Mr. Harold Macmillan! And the country, the world, nature, abhors a void. So if there was a wind of change, and we were giving notice to every nationalist group or groups striving, if you like, for freedom, that we, the British raj, were going home as fast as we could, irrespective of the consequences, what was to happen? What did happen? Let us take probably one of the very potent reasons which caused the Soviet Union to act not so very long ago—the Congo. One of our European partners, when they left the Congo—I remember Jawaharlal Nehru writing this —took even the pencils away. They took the ribbons out of the typewriters. They left absolutely nothing. It was to the credit of the democracies of the West that we put together a force, under a British Commander, under General Alexander, which went there to hold the peace. But there was chaos. That area, one of the most prosperous and richest areas in Africa, was reduced to cannibalism by the action of one of our European partners. That is the Congo.
446
Then we have Mr. Smith. The opposition to Mr. Smith's action was not exactly vociferous on the Tory Benches either in the other place or here. There were many Conservatives, honourable men, who still had the vision to see the disaster that followed from that action. They knew that it could not succeed, any more than they know very well, if they think, that the action of apartheid can succeed. I have every sympathy with the South Africans in an insupportable dilemma, because they have no home to go to. The whites in Rhodesia can probably find a home. But there is no home for Mr. Vorster and his friends, and they are now up against the sheer facts of life. But what precipitated this action? A group of Marxists? The possibilities of détente? Who approached détente? What is it all about? Détente is a tie-up between the Russians on the one hand, and the Americans on the other, because neither can face the bill, and both have the knowledge to know the appalling dangers that face both of them, because the first strike capability is now not the start of it if they carry on with the nuclear race.
The only way to stop it, it has been found so far, was détente—détente as between the United States and the Soviet Union. But who broke it? Who widened out détente into the possibilities which have presented themselves to the Soviet Union? Why, the United States. They thought that under the umbrella of détente there was carte blanche for the CIA to go in to Angola, as they had gone into the Congo. But the Russians read the signs right. They got it right. They saw what had happened in the wake of Vietnam; all that America wanted to see was the hack of the Statue of Liberty. No more adventures for the American people, particularly in election year.
So, when President Ford and Dr. Kissenger want to pour American money and American arms into Angola, them are forces in America which say: "Not on your nellie. Not another dime. Not another piece of equipment." It is more than likely that perhaps the Russians have been trained by those many dissidents from the Foreign Office; they may have trained them. The "I" comes before "O". Perhaps their intelligence was not good enough to say "Ah; well, this is what is going to happen. We

447
must prepare for it, because independence is going to come." So the chances are that the Americans are going to pour it in, and at some point it will stop, and there you will be given your chance.
Now, I do not happen to believe that Angola—to use the jargon of the day, the jargon of the Daily Telegraph, and the jargon that has been used tonight—is necessarily Marxist, unless Marxism means that you read form right and occasionally back the winner, in which case I wish that the Foreign Office was Marxist, which it is certainly not, because it never gets it right. But the Russians have got it right to this extent, and the point was touched on by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. One of the struggles inside Africa, which I deplore more than anything else, is the possibility of a struggle between China on the one hand, and the Russians on the other, because there is no doubt whatever that there has been enormous commitment by China in Tanzania, where they have built a railway. It rather looks—and I agree here with the noble Lord, Lord Alport—that at some point China, for reasons of her own, curtailed her investment, and that again may have encouraged the Russians here to think that they can go in.
But that they are Marxists, and that they intend to stay there, in the sense that quite clearly worries the last noble Lord who spoke, and others, I just do not believe. After all, let us look for a moment at North Vietnam. It is not widely reported. This is the kind of news that never hits the front pages of the Daily Telegraph, and the Right-Wing reactionary papers—but North Vietnam has become a non-aligned country. They want neither China, nor Russia. This is a nationalist movement and they want a unified Vietnam. They want to run their own show in their own way. But the Russians, of course, having backed them up to the extent they have, will want, as it were, some money back. I think that is more than likely. In my judgment, exactly the same thing will happen in Angola. In Angola we shall get the emergence of a very definite nationalist movement which wants Angola. That is what the struggle has been all about. Had it not been for influences—some of them from this country; certainly much of them from the
448
United States—it is more than likely that the struggle would have never taken on the form that it has. After all, my Lords, there must be even a limit to Conservative hypocrisy. There must be a limit somewhere. But if noble Lords will go back only a few weeks and read the Daily Telegraph, to see the exultation from its special correspondent in Lusaka about the possibility of a victory—or, let me put it this way, of the defeat of the MPLA. It was only when the tide began to turn, when in fact Russian help and the Cuban mercenaries (as somebody wants it) began to have an effect, that the tune began to change —and change it has.
My Lords, I hold the view—and I have not changed it—that the great disaster which has overtaken this country is that we have hidden under the blankets; we have put our heads in the sand. We have, of our own volition, abandoned conscription. We have an enormous defence bill. Since the end of the war we have spent £40,000 million on defence. Yet, what have we got to show for it? We are incapable of exerting any pressure, of defending the things we stand for, of protecting our citizens as we ought to protect them. We have withdrawn from the Gulf, we have withdrawn from East of Suez. Let me say that before I became a Minister, when I was a Minister and since I have ceased to be a Minister I have deplored that policy. I am sufficiently chauvinistic to believe in the values of my fellow countrymen. I spent many years of my life, in a very humble capacity, serving in a practical form the things in which I believe, and today I still deplore the fact that we do not count for that—and today another chicken has come home to roost.
" Let us get together with our EEC partners ", we are told. Even before Lord Home finished speaking, even before the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, had spoken, they had to admit defeat. Our gallant French allies, as always—there at night, gone in the morning—serve the interests of France exclusively. I do not blame M. Giscard d'Estaing for that. What I deplore is when Lord Home, with all his authority, can get sotied down in his hatred of communism as to forget his fundamental duty, which is to the interests of this country. The interests of this country are to cut away from nonsense like "the East", because it will not work

449
in the long run. Today has given us another proof that it does not work. My analysis is that when a Russian soldier shook hands with an American soldier in the heart of Germany in April 1945, the hegemony of Europe and the hegemony of Germany was broken for ever. The great struggle for power in the world has passed from Europe. It has gone South and East, and if we do not follow it we deny all the traditions which, over the centuries, our fellow countrymen have built up.
The Earl of LYTTON: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I challenge him on one point which I must say outraged me—his overture about the umbrella that Neville Chamberlain brought back, and the connection with it of Lord Home. I am sorry Lord Home is leaving the Chamber, because I am intending to defend him. The noble Lord who has just spoken sometimes speaks as though he is an enormous military expert. I should like to say, from a very humble position in the War Office at the time of Munich in 1938, that when the umbrella came back we said, "Thank God!—perhaps we have another year ".
Lord BOOTHBY: Not all of us.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, if I may be permitted to answer that, I certainly do not speak as a military expert. Indeed, my authority to speak on military matters at all is that I happen to possess one decoration that no other Member of this House or the other House has got, and that is a Long Service and Good Conduct Medal. But if I have to express my view on the occupants of the War Office at that time and since, let me tell the noble Lord that it is a pretty low one.
7.25 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I should like to apologise to the House for the fact that my name does not appear on the original list of speakers owing to some administrative misadventure, but I hope that I may be permitted to detain the House briefly before we hear the reply to the debate from the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I am sure that we in this House are all agreed that we owe a debt of gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for bringing us face to face this evening with the very serious situation which has arisen in Southern Africa. The Coalition
450
Government in Angola, which the settlement with Portugal required and which at least half the members of the Organisation for African Unity wanted a month ago, has not been achieved. The Marxist-led MPLA have swept the country. They have done so supported by some 10,000 to 12,000 Cuban soldiers and substantial supplies of Russian arms. Those sympathetic to the West have been defeated. Two African countries, Zaire and Zambia, have been discomforted; and a possible confrontation between Rhodesia and South Africa, on the one hand, and Russian-armed Cuban forces, on the other, has been presented. A fear of Russian domination in Southern Africa has been created;the global balance of power between the East and the West has been disturbed. That is a formidable list of unhappy events.
There are two ways in which it is often suggested to us that we should react to these events. One of these ways I would describe as a rose-tinted devotion to détente. As I hope to indicate in a second, I favour détente, but I think there are some who are so devoted to the concept that they will not face up to the harsh realities, the harsh facts of the struggle for power in the world. On the other hand, there are those who want to see a fierce resistance at every point to the Russians and their allies, and who are prepared to back any nation, whatever its record may be, which happens at a particular moment to be standing against them—people who would have liked to see the United States of America pouring forces into Angola to counter the Cuban forces and the Russian arms. I believe that the first of these arguments is based on a false, even foolish, optimism; and I believe that the second is based on an exaggerated pessimism.
I believe that there is a third policy which we should follow, and I think that the elements of that policy are these. First, I agree with those speakers who have said that there should be a solidarity among the members of the European Community, and I join with those who regret the fact that France should have decided to recognise the MPLA in advance of her partners. But I do not regard that as an indication of the total and utter failure of the Community. We

451
are in the very early days of the Community; but it stresses the need for us to develop this concept of a common foreign policy in the Community, of concerted action. I believe that we shall see a joint recognition of the MPLA, not because we approve of the way in which it came to power, nor because we approve of its philosophy, outlook and ideology; but because it is the Government in power, because it will give us more influence with that Government and because there is the possibility—and that quite a strong one—that that country, under the MPLA, may nevertheless have an association with the EEC similar to that which already exists with other African countries.
I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, that we should seek the withdrawal of all foreign forces from Southern Africa. If we can achieve this through an approach to the United Nations, then so much to the good. I think a lot will depend on the support which we can obtain from the Organisation of African Unity in making any kind of approach to the United Nations. But certainly one wants to see the influence of the EEC put behind the concept of the withdrawal of foreign forces from Southern Africa. There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that the Cuban forces and the Russian arms came into Angola as a reaction against South African involvement. If that is so, then it is clear that South African involvement was, in fact, the kiss of death for UNITA in Angola. But certainly let us see what can be done through the United Nations to press for the withdrawal of all foreign forces.
I believe that another element in this policy is to stress the fact that we do not abandon détente, that we do not regard détente through rose-tinted spectacles; that we are aware of all the difficulties which exist, all the problems and all the conflicts; nevertheless we want to continue with this idea of achieving détente. But we have to make it clear that, as we see it, the introduction of Cuban forces and the introduction of Russian arms into Angola in the way in which we have witnessed in recent weeks is inconsistent with our interpreta
452
tion of détente. We must make that very clear.
I believe that we should also make it clear that we intend to maintain our links with China whatever we may feel about the policies pursued by that country and about the ideologies of that country and the régime that exists in it. I believe that we should make it quite clear that we have no intention of allowing those links to wither. I am sure that if we were to pursue a policy based on these principles and if we pursue it with coolness, steadiness and firmness, then the worst of the possible consequences of the recent unhappy events may be avoided.
7.31 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise but I shall not keep the House for more than five minutes. I should like to point out what I consider in tonight's debate to be of vital importance and which I think—I say this with humility—has been forgotten. The House will be grateful to the noble Lord who raised this subject It was raised with all the diplomatic ability that the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, possesses; but I should like quietly to put points of view which must be understood. I take as an example that from my experience on the negotiations with Smith on "Fearless" We talked for a long time there. I remember when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. went out, and before he went I said that we had had better agreements, in rough form, with Smith on "Fearless" than we had later when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, tried his best. We were facing a man who had forgotten altogether that he was in the middle (and beyond the middle) of the 20th century so far as dealing with the black Africans was concerned.
I was concerned tonight with the blanket words we use. Marxism, for example, has become an ugly blanket word. It triggers off emotional antipathy. One cannot discuss Marxism in a philosophical sense without someone yelling, "Yah!, Commie!" or something equally stupid. Whatever Marx may have done, he did something for man kind. Like the noble Lord who discovered the theory of fluctions—and he was a noble Lord—and calculus, he taught mankind in mathematics how to measure stresses and strains in movement. Thus we are now able to sink the

453
oil rigs in the sea and get oil out without the steel of the rigs breaking.
What Marx and other philosophers tried to do was to look at the movement of history. We always look at it as something static; not only the Foreign Office here but in France too. Whatever we say, when we are talking about the Nine we use another blanket word "Europe ". But the Common Market is not Europe. It is only part of it. It is not only a dichotomy, it is a trichotomy, and a tetrachotomy. It is split up. The Italians are worried about selling their wine; and so are the French. We have our differences. Consequently, when we are talking about getting an understanding with the Common Market, what are we asking for?—to make it a warrior State! We cannot manage Northern Ireland. The only thing that is left to us in the last analysis is the Churchillian formula: Jaw, jaw rather than war, war.
In the last analysis, the two mightiest nations on earth now realise this. If we go to war nobody wins. Civilisation can be destroyed. When we are talking about Egypt—I was there—we must remember that Aswan was our mistake. We should have subsidised the Aswan Dam; but Foster Dulles and others were absolutely opposed to helping there. So we lost a foothold of economic importance in Egypt at the time.
Vietnam I visited many times, but like others I never succeeded in seeing Ho Chi Minh and Giap. One should see it! There were six times more bombs on Vietnam in 30 years than in the European war. What can the yellow man—I do not like using that term but it is colourful —think of Western militarism? What answer do we expect? There is none. Contrary to the popular Press (and with other members of this House I was in Vietnam a month or two before the collapse), many people thought that if the North Vietnam troops got down there there would be murder and terrible distress. Instead, they began to act sensibly, and, as the noble Lord said, they are trying to get some sort of non-alignment.
Can we get this in Angola? The trouble with Angola did not begin with Marx but with Portugal, with a type of government that was exploited. What I am worried about is that this will lead not to differences of capitalism and Socialism or Marxism and Communism; but
454
that if we make a mistake in Africa it will lead to black versus white. Reason will go out of the window. In countries like America and Europe where many good coloured citizens are now living, they will find a cause and we can have a situation bigger than the Irish problem unless it is handled with diplomacy. In my own way, I pay tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel. I did so to my noble friend in front of me and the noble Lord who spoke there. I interspersed to point out that no matter how much we talk, we have not the military power today and, in the last analysis, we must learn the art of diplomacy—as the British can if they use the profound common sense that they have shown many times in their history. This is the chance to show our leadership.
7.38 p.m.
Lord GARNER: My Lords, I apologise for making a brief intervention at this late stage, particularly as I have nothing constructive to suggest. I am deeply distressed by two sets of facts which are irreconcilable and to which I find no easy solution. On the one hand, we face a nightmare that yawns ahead. There has been aggression by foreign forces aided by Communist instigation. Our own partners are in disarray. United States action is paralysed. The policy of the Union of South Africa which was building up for détente seems to lie in ruins, and forces which will claim the victory, even if they do not earn it, lie poised for further action. We think here particularly of Rhodesia, which has been mentioned on several occasions. Successive British Governments have been saying to Europeans in Rhodesia over the last ten years or so that there is no hope for the future if the whites and the blacks cannot learn to live together. This lesson has not been learned so far, and it seems to me that the day of reckoning may be soon at hand.
I sympathise deeply with the feelings of concern and anxiety—perhaps of exasperation—that have been expressed this evening. We must face the facts of the situation and be sure that any action we take will produce the result we want and will not land us in a worse position than we were in before. That is what makes me nervous of the proposal to take this matter to the United Nations. I see no evidence that African nations as a

455
whole want a reference to the United Nations. I see no evidence that if we were to have a resolution in front of the Security Council it would necessarily command the support required, let alone a Russian veto. Therefore, I urge that we should think carefully before we worsen our position and reveal ourselves to the world as in a more weakened position than we were at the beginning.
As I said, I have no solution. I hope when the Minister replies he will have some crumbs of comfort for us. The essential objective of all of us in this debate must be to try to secure the removal of the foreign forces which have been operating in Southern Africa. I am not going to outline in detail how we secure that. But we have to do two things. First, we must recognise the reality in Angola and come to terms with the new regime. In this connection, I agree with previous speakers who deplored the premature action of the French Government. Nevertheless, that does not affect the broad scene there. Secondly, we have to redouble our efforts and bring all our influence to bear to try to secure that a sensible solution is arrived at in Rhodesia itself.
7.42 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, I am sure the whole House will be most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, for giving us an opportunity of discussing this extremely important matter, and for the manner in which he introduced the debate. Angola today not only illustrates the horrors of civil war and human suffering, it also presents the most dangerous implications for the peace and stability of Southern and Central Africa, and possibly in wider fields than that. Her Majesty's Government have made absolutely clear from the beginning their policy and counsel; that is, that it is wrong for any country to interfere in the internal affairs of another, particularly in newly-independent States moving towards self-determination. We have repeatedly said that the Angolan people should be left alone to determine their own future free of any kind of outside interference, whether by privateers or by Governments.
456
The House will recall a similar anxiety about the prospects for peace and freedom arising from the situation in Portugal. The policy and counsel of Her Majesty's Government on that occasion was exactly what I have said it is in regard to Angola. This was persisted in at this Box, in the Foreign Office, at the Box in another place and not without some success. When today we take a somewhat sombre audit of what is happening in Angola, it is just as well to recall that this principle of non-intervention has so far shown more than qualified success in a vital part of Europe and the world, Portugal. But other countries have intervened. It is clear that the conflict among the liberation movements which had been going on for most of 1975 could not have escalated into civil war, as it has done, if there had not been large-scale intervention by other countries.
The Soviet Union have supplied the MPLA in Angola with enormous quantities of weapons and military material. Up to 12,500 Cuban troops now operate in a far off African country outside any sphere of interest which Cuba could reasonably claim. We have made strong representations about foreign intervention to the Soviet Union, the Cuban Government and the South African Government. I was asked why, in his Cardiff speech—in a few paragraphs of an entire speech—my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary had not specified the Soviet Union in his condemnation of all kinds of intervention: in fact he referred to every kind of intervention from whatever quarter it came. That included the USSR as well as the SAR and the Cubans. He had earlier summoned the Soviet Ambassador, on the same day as representations were made to the South African and Cuban Governments, urging them strongly that they should stop their intervention in Angola, and this was made public.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, before the noble Lord leaves that point—I have the speech in my hand—could he say whether the Foreign Secretary, when he made representations to the Cuban and South African Governments, made any representations simultaneously to the USSR?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this is exactly what I am saying.

457
Practically at the same time, on the same day as representations were made to the South African and Cuban Governments he summoned the Soviet Ambassador, urging strongly that they should stop their intervention in Angola.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, may I apologise sincerely. That was not in the hand-out which was issued from Transport House. I am afraid I took that as my text and I apologise.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is absolutely no need for the noble Lord ever to apologise to me. I know him too well to think that he would in any way deliberately mislead me or the House. I referred to the fact that reference was made to a few paragraphs in a larger speech covering a much wider field of public questions. If there was no specific reference to the Soviet Union in those paragraphs, nevertheless, at the same time as he made representations to South Africa and Cuba, he made these strong representations to the Soviet Union. We have also deplored, publicly as well as privately—diplomatically—that Soviet arms supplies have been made available in Angola, and the presence of about 500 Soviet military advisers. So the charge that my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary has not dealt at least even-handedly with all those, including the mercenaries, who have intervened in Angola, does not lie effectively.
At this point, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Orr-Ewing, may care to receive from me my view on what he said about the Prime Minister's reference to the mercenary incursion. I deplored every incursion, including mercenaries, when I replied from this Box. I ask the House to consider that at that time British policy and British counsel was achieving increasing credibility in Africa among the countries whom we were seeking to convince we were in earnest about non-intervention. It was at that time that this kind of sordid, bloody adventure was concocted in this country. This is what set off the fully justified condemnation of that adventure by my right honourable friend the Prime Minister. Quite apart from the sordidness of this adventure, the total irresponsibility in its effect upon the credibility of what this country was trying to get over to black Africa—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: Hear! Hear! That was the danger.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My right honourable friend the Prime Minister was right to see that and to speak up about it. I am glad he did. We have in fact been playing a very active role in seeking a political settlement and an early end to all this bloodshed and destruction. The Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been engaged in a series of meetings with a number of African leaders. We have also been engaged in a great deal of activity and diplomacy. Whatever happens militarily on the ground, it seems to us essential for the long-term political stability of Angola and of Central and Southern Africa that the future Government of Angola should be as broadly based as possible. I wish the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, were here, because he made a very important point in his speech—
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: He is here!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is now for me to apologise.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Please do not apologise!
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: So long as we apologise about the right things! Lord Onslow made a very important point when he referred to Mr. Smith. I hope he will forgive me if I paraphrase him. He referred to the fact that if Mr. Smith at long last was to do the statesmanlike thing and not act out of obduracy and blindness—I repeat his blindness, his lemming-like blindness —to what is staring his country and himself in the face, and made even a small gesture, this could transform not only the prospects for Rhodesia but the prospects of the entire length and breadth of Africa.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt my noble friend, but this is vitally important. The time for small gestures is long since past. The first part of what he said about Mr. Smith is right, but it is misleading Rhodesian and world opinion to imply for one moment that the situation in Africa, which is now coming up to boil, can be transformed by empty gestures. It is actions that matter.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, a small gesture need not be an empty one: it can be a very real one. However, I take my noble friend's point. It must be a real gesture if it is done at this point when moderate—perhaps the term "moderate" is a dangerous one to use—or constructive black African leadership has been ready to co-operate. This is the golden chance: perhaps literally the last chance. That is why I thought the noble Earl, in putting the point he did, rendered a service to the debate and to the House.
I turn rapidly now to one of the central points which was made by the noble Lord, Lord Home. He pressed hard for action in the Security Council to call for the withdrawal of forces from Angola. I want to be very frank about this. Like him, I am a United Nations man; that is to say, I am desperately anxious to see the emergence of a real world authority to which all sovereign States can really defer in matters of peace and co-operation. But I would ask the House to pay particular attention to the caveat mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Garner. Perhaps I should put this in my own words. In our view, unless the African countries themselves show willingness for the United Nations to become involved in this situation—and they have so far made it clear that they do not want this—there will be no majority at the United Nations for any course of action which we—and I refer to the whole House—would be likely to think helpful. Indeed, there is a danger that in forcing the issue, in making a demonstration—and I am profoundly attracted to doing this—we might induce another resolution tying the United Nations by majority to the exact opposite of what we have set out to achieve.
It is easy to shoot down an argument like this, because it is not an easy or pleasant policy to follow; but I suggest that it is essential, at least at this juncture. However, I want to assure the noble Lord, Lord Home, out of deep respect for the way in which he approaches these difficult and important questions, that what he has said is already being assessed and examined very carefully by the Government, and his words today will be particularly studied. Certainly, if the situation were to change in
460
the way we think would be helpful to the purposes of the proposed move, we should wish to play a constructive role ourselves. We will most certainly keep this matter very closely under review, and indeed we are doing so already.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, linked, quite rightly, the United Nations possibility with the EEC and the OAU. I am not suggesting for a moment that the noble Lord, Lord Home, was suggesting a simplistic move on these lines by the United Kingdom alone, because he was not. I think the noble Lord, Lord Banks, put it precisely. I agree that we must move with the Community and with the Commonwealth in the United Nations. I do not wish to join in the denigration of any member of the Community, but perhaps the time is coming when it is necessary to say that if the political advantages of joint action by the Nine arc to be realised, then all the countries of the Nine must join in. If there is advantage in NATO, then everybody should be in, and not in-and-out, according to what may momentarily prove to be convenient. I have said before that I get a little tired of hearing the denigration of this country for the shortcomings of its friends and partners. This country is playing fair with the Community, despite the fact that there still remain in some quarters substantial reservations, as we have just heard, about remaining Members of the Community. This country is playing fair with all the organisations to which it belongs. This is a patient people—perhaps a little slow moving—but it is slow in moving away from its commitments as well as perhaps a little slow in moving towards the acceptance of new commitments.
If this debate does nothing more than emphasise once again that this country cannot do it all on its own, that it has the right to expect co-operation and help over the whole vast field of political and economic action—and a little help on Concorde would not come amiss—and a little more consistency in regard to what we call "joint action by the Community", then it will have achieved something.
The noble Lord quite rightly asked what we are doing to get joint action by the Community. Yesterday and today, the United Kingdom has been exerting itself in Luxembourg to achieve joint action. It is not for me to retread the

461
excellent speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Caccia, who was the first of a number of speakers to point out that the ranks have been broken already. This is, perhaps, plain speaking. The noble Lord asked me to use the right phraseology. I hope I am not disappointing him.
What comes out of this debate? Is it despair?—nothing of the sort! We forget our successes. I referred to one—the transformation of the rather grisly prospect in Portugal; probably in Spain, too. There is also the far more hopeful position in Greece. It is not for this country, or this House, to lose its nerve. We need to think carefully, as the noble Lord, Lord Garner, told us, about what we do, and reach out for our friends and partners and, with friendly frankness, seek to build cohesion of action which, once we get it, must prove effective.
I turn swiftly to another point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Home; that is, the future of détente. The Russians have argued that détente has nothing to do with their involvement in Angola in support of the MPLA. We have made it quite clear that we do not accept this, and we have made it clear both privately and publicly. The adoption of policies which serve to prolong rather than reduce tension, in the Third World in particular, can only be damaging to the spirit of global détente which the Soviet Union claims to cherish.
The noble Lord asked that we begin to monitor the implementation of the Helsinki agreements. We have never ceased to monitor them since their signature, and if the Soviet Union believe that in 1977, when the Review Conference takes place, we shall ignore and pass over the record of the Soviet Union during this period, then they have truly lost their touch with reality. Détente means responsibility and restraint on both sides, not just on one side. I have said at this Box that we do not accept what is sometimes called the Brezhnev doctrine of qualified sovereignty. We do not accept it in Europe; we do not accept it in Angola. I believe the Russians understand that we do not accept that doctrine. What is needed is not to denounce détente, but to restore it.
At this point, one is in difficulty about referring to third countries, and nobody knows better than the noble Lord, Lord
462
Home, who has served in a distinguished capacity at the head of these affairs, how difficult it is to do this. I am pro-American. I am grateful for the immense contribution made by that great republic across the Atlantic. I have great faith in their future. It may be that, for the moment, they are nursing their psychological wounds after one or two little local difficulties, but it would be a great mistake to under-estimate the tremendous moral, as well as material, strength of the United States. It would be an even greater mistake if Europe and the Free World were to neglect for a moment, as some two years ago we were in danger of doing, the real bonds between us and North America.
Finally, may I refer to another strand of discussion in this debate; that is, recognition. It is clear that the situation has evolved very fast and we are reaching a new phase. The question of recognition was discussed very fully by the political directors of the Nine in Luxembourg yesterday and today. I use the language which the, noble Lord, Lord Caccia, has enjoined on generations of Ministers, and again tonight on me. There is a diversity of procedures in the Community in regard to recognition. Not all Members are yet in a position to take the required action. Some may be in a little bit of a hurry; others are not in such a hurry.
It is now for individual Member Governments to decide on the question of recognition, in the light of the discussions which have taken place in the last two days. While those discussions did not literally synchronise the timing of the declaration of recognition, they nevertheless achieved a very substantial consensus among the Nine as to their way ahead, individually and collectively, in regard to Angola. The French Government announced today their recognition of the MPLA Government; other Members of the Nine may follow in the next few days. Her Majesty's Government are, like the others, carefully considering this matter, and I should like to inform the House that a Statement is likely to be made shortly on this question.
Of course, it is a pity that the Nine could not move as one. For the past year or so, there has been a gratifying increase in the amount of co-operation, at least on the political front, among the Nine. This is all to the good. In

463
the UN, and in other world for a, there has been a discernible contribution, which is all the more impressive and forceful because it has been a cohesive European one. But it is not yet perfect. Certainly, we should have preferred a joint move on Angola by the Community; in the event, this did not prove possible. But there will be a further opportunity for the Foreign Ministers of the Nine to discuss the question on Monday next. We still believe very strongly indeed—and I fully agree with the noble Lord, Lord Home, who made this point—that concerted action by the EEC would very greatly strengthen the position of the Free World; and when we get together on Monday I am quite sure that we shall, on the basis of the individual actions taken by members of the EEC, concert a proper kind of statement which will cement together on Angola a consensual European approach.
The debate has been valuable. It has brought out two points—deep concern about the future of Africa and about the possible dangers to the Free World, and deep concern also about the future of real détente. It has also sent another message: that of a growing determination to consolidate the Free World—in the Community, in the Commonwealth and in the United Nations—behind a joint policy aiming at non-intervention, peace and stability. This is the two-fold message that this debate has, I think, shaped.
I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government have been and are thinking very hard about these two points and will consider with great attention what your Lordships have said, particularly because so much of what has been said tonight is fully in accord with the policy of Her Majesty's Government.