Lords Sitting of 12 March 1979

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of London.

ARUSHA MINISTERIAL MEETING
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken note of the deliberations of the "77 Club" in Arusha and what attitude they propose to take to them.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we are carefully studying the Programme adopted by the developing countries at their ministerial meeting last month in Arusha. We hope that it will contribute to a constructive discussion at the Fifth Session of the United Nations Conference on Trade and Development which will be held in May.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, will my noble friend agree that a meeting of this kind, at which was represented well over half of mankind, warrants much more attention than has been paid to it in this country? Will he further agree with the opening address of the President of Tanzania, to the effect that this matter involves the prosperity not merely of the Third World but of the whole world? Were the British Government represented in Arusha, and what is their policy towards the UNCTAD meeting for which this was a preparation?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, further international work will be needed on most of the specific proposals in the Arusha Programme in order to assess the case for action on the lines which have been envisaged, but like other developed countries, we foresee a number of difficulties. However, we certainly share two of the assumptions underlying the Programme:
356
that developed and developing countries must work together to seek better ways of managing the world economy, and that effective international action is needed to tackle the problems of development. I do not know whether the British Government were represented at Arusha.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I must apologise to the House for my ignorance, but can the Minister tell me where Arusha is, and what is the "77 Club"?
Lord JACQUES: That is an easy one for me, my Lords, because I have looked it up. Arusha is in Tanzania.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is not the real problem here that of Government contributions to the Common Fund? In view of the fact that the non-aligned nations at Arusha decided to make their own substantial contributions, and bearing in mind that five European countries have agreed to do so, and that the Soviet Union and its allies have also agreed, is there not a danger that the United States of America, West Germany, and Britain may be ruled out of this great effort? Will the Government turn their mind very seriously to this problem, before Manila?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I can give an undertaking that the Government are devoting, and will continue to devote, their minds very seriously to the problem.

UN TREATY AGAINST HOSTAGE-TAKING
2.39 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: 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 what progress has been made by the United Nations committee at Geneva in preparing an international treaty against hostage-taking.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, considerable progress has been made. The text of a draft Convention will be submitted to the

357
next United Nations General Assembly where it is hoped those points still outstanding will be settled. The text has been placed in the Library. We await the committee's report.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I thank the Minister for the reply. Can he make clear whether endorsement by the General Assembly will be sufficient? Will it have to go to the Security Council? Will it have to be ratified by the separate Governments afterwards, and, if so, will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to speed up the process?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, indeed, my Lords; the normal process of ratification by the requisite number of Governments will, I presume, be a requirement of the General Assembly when it finalises the Convention. I can now give every assurance to my noble friend and to your Lordships that, as during the negotiations leading to this very useful draft Convention, the United Kingdom will, I hope, be in the van of those who will adopt and ratify the Convention.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that it is daily becoming more important that hostage-taking and political offences of all kinds should be incorporated within the multilateral laws regarding extradition, and that nothing short of that is likely to prove effective?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: I certainly agree entirely, my Lords. This is a new dimension of offences which have been growing for some time, and they are presenting increasing problems not merely to some countries, but to all. With regard to the point about extradition, the aim of the draft Convention and of the finalised Convention will be to make extradition or home prosecution the only two alternatives for signatory Governments.

SAUDI ARABIA: STATE VISIT
2.42 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, in view of their concern for human rights, they advised Her Majesty the Queen to accord a State visit to Saudi Arabia.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, Saudi Arabia is an important country with which we have long enjoyed friendly relations, to our mutual benefit. There is a large British community in the Kingdom, which is our largest market in Asia. Her Majesty's visit, as part of Her tour of Eastern Arabia, was entirely appropriate.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, while appreciating the necessity to balance the economic interests of royal visits with the characters of the régimes visited, may I ask my noble friend whether it did not put Her Majesty in an invidious position to arrive in Riyadh, the capital of Saudi Arabia, the very day after there had been a public amputation in the centre of that city?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have myself had the privilege and high duty of accompanying Her Majesty as Minister in attendance on her visits to more than one country—countries which vary very much in their internal policies. I know of no country to which I have been with Her Majesty, and to which other Ministers have accompanied her, where the internal policies could be described as entirely congenial to public opinion in this country. I think we should be careful not to apply to any country our own well-founded traditional as well as subjective repugnancies to certain practices. These things may be applied to us by other countries, who sometimes find in our usages aspects which deeply offend them. In any case, the way to achieve a higher common factor of humanitarian practice in all countries is for contacts, especially contacts of this kind, to be amplified and multiplied.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, rather than carping at a friendly Government which has made great progress in recent years, would it not have been more appropriate if the noble Lord had also paid some tribute to the wonderful job of work which Her Majesty did on this most successful tour?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I believe it is to my noble friend that the noble Lord opposite is referring. I am quite certain that my noble friend, like me and the noble Lord who has just spoken, would be among the first to pay the highest tribute to the devotion to duty and the sheer expertise of Her Majesty in everything she undertakes.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree with me, and perhaps with other Members of your Lordships' House, that if Prince Philip can go to Moscow then surely his wife is entitled to go to Saudi Arabia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would also agree, I think with the entire House, that it is high time my noble friend Lord Shinwell took his place once more at this Box.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider sending a copy of his most admirable Answer to President Carter?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, as I have been referred to on the other side, I would ask your Lordships to accept that there was not the slightest intention of casting any slur on the work which, I agree with my noble friend, Her Majesty has done in an excellent manner on her trips; but that is not the point I was raising. Would my noble friend not agree that there does come a time when one has to balance organised, institutionalised terrorism along with the economic and strategic interests of this country when advising Her Majesty as to which countries she should visit?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, on the first point, I think I made it absolutely clear in my response to the intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter, that I assumed that my noble friend Lord Hatch joined us all in paying tribute to Her Majesty. On the second point, I gave my view—and I think it is widely held—that in a world where countries' practices, philosophies and even religions vary so much, the best way to strive for a working congeniality of practice is by frequent visits and getting to know each other better, so that we move closer to a basic consensus of humanity. I am sure that it is not by
360
keeping away from each other, however obnoxious from time to time they or we may find certain practices in each other's policy. It is not in that way that we can aim at the essential unity of the various peoples of the world. It is a matter of opinion, and I am sure my noble friend Lord Hatch will give his attention to my opinion as well as I have to his.
The Earl of AVON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that the BBC coverage of Her Majesty's visit was very poor, and would it not be a good idea to encourage the BBC to provide us with a full-scale coverage of what took place so that we could all be better educated as to what happens in Saudi Arabia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is not entirely for me to answer that one, I think, but I am always in favour of encouraging the BBC.
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that, in the present situation in which the BBC finds itself in regard to its licence fee, it is very difficult indeed for the BBC to cover so many activities abroad?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that is a very fair statement indeed, to which the entire House will pay proper attention.

SHIPPING: AID AND SALES TO VIETNAM
2.49 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: 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 upon what principles they relate the proposed sale of subsidised ships to Vietnam with previous sales to other countries; and what has been the total cost to the taxpayer of these subsidies in respect of sales to each country over the past five years.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the Government are providing £4·5 million to the Government of Vietnam from our aid programme to assist it with

361
the purchase of these vessels. There is no subsidy to the shipbuilders. Over the past five years the Ministry of Overseas Development has provided £65·5 million to enable 12 countries to buy new and second-hand British ships for developmentally sound projects, but this is again not a form of subsidy. The Department of Industry has offered from the Ship-building Intervention Fund grants totalling £37·9 million to enable British shipyards to secure export orders.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his Answer, may I ask whether he considers that the granting of these sums of money to the Communist-dominated State of Vietnam is justified in view of the invasion of Cambodia, or Kampuchea, by Vietnam itself? May I ask him another question? Is not the whole purpose of aid to assist territories who might be financially embarrassed in order to prevent those territories from falling under Communist domination?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord, I would put it this way. Aid is primarily intended to help impoverished countries and the impoverished people who live in them. We pay very careful attention to other criteria; among them, very importantly, a country's practice in regard to human rights and the way it is moving in that sense. This particular programme to assist with the purchase of vessels in this country for the service of Vietnam was committed some time ago, since when the development, the movement of affairs and policies in Vietnam (as the noble Lord quite rightly reminded us) has been extremely discouraging, to say the least, to those of us who are keen to see an expansion of human rights. For that reason, the Minister of State for Overseas Development announced in another place on 13th February that, apart from any disaster and humanitarian aid, the Government proposed to provide no further bilateral aid to Vietnam in the present circumstances of human rights there. It would have been contractually difficult and counter-productive to this country if we had ceased the aid project to which the noble Lord drew attention. We decided it was best to observe the contract, but to say at the same time that there will be no further aid except in response to the
362
High Commissioner for Refugees and other humanitarian agencies of that kind.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, while recognising, of course, the cogency of what the noble Lord has said both as regards the original decision and as regards what has supervened, in retrospect can one not say with certainty that the cause of humanity would have been more advanced if the money had been spent on the helpless Vietnamese who are drifting about the world on other people's ships without a haven of refuge?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am not sure that in retrospect I would not agree with what the noble and learned Lord has said. Retrospection is at the same time tempting and daunting. However, we are in a contractual position which affects firms and workpeople in this country as well as the Vietnamese authorities. I think that on balance we have taken the right decision as regards that project. I agree entirely with him and I am glad that he has drawn attention once more in his own way to the tragedy of the massive exodus from Vietnam by helpless refugees, an exodus connived at and promoted by the authorities of the Vietnamese State.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend clarify this matter, for it is rather confusing to me and probably to others? Is it not the case that these ships have been built in this country and the whole purpose was to provide work for people in this country, most of whom were unemployed or likely to be unemployed? Is that not the position?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords, indeed. My noble friend has put with admirable clarity that the purpose of aid is to aid impoverished countries and the impoverished elements within them, while at the same time it has this acceptable advantage that the work is carried on and the goods are produced in this country, in this case in an industry which is in very great need of every support we can give it.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that to provide cheap ships to foreign countries of this sort who will run those ships with cheap crews will provide unfair competition to the European, and particularly

363
the British, merchant marine and exacerbate the present slump which has driven so many ships off the waters and delay the time when shipowners will be able to put genuine orders to the shipbuilders? Is the noble Lord aware that in the last two years the British merchant marine has reduced itself by 7 per cent? If ships are to be built by the Government to keep people employed, would it not be better that they should be chartered to British shipowners at prices which can be afforded in this slump, so that when the upturn comes, or when there is a strategic problem of war, these ships are in British hands and British sailors can benefit by employment?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord raises a number of important points; I hope I can remember all of them. As to the support for British shipbuilding firms, there is, of course, the intervention fund from which grants, not loans, can be made to them. As I showed in my Answer, a great deal has been done in that respect. As to competition, I think that this is arguable. However, aid, at the time, looked a very good thing, perhaps to encourage certain tendencies away from the past in favour of a better future, however we may think about it today. As to competition, if we had not done this I hardly think it would not have been done by others and possibly in the European Community; so that the question of competition is to be studied a little more carefully as to its implications, if I take a position of non possumus.
As to the international question of conditions, I agree with the noble Lord. There is still room for major improvement in the international agreements relating to conditions and standards, which include standards of payment. We have the Merchant Shipping Act 1970 which I put through another place, as the noble Lord will remember, which went a long way to do this with certain countries; but there are others coming up now on the shipping and shipbuilding scene and, speaking personally, I think it may be time to have another look at the internationalisation of standards and conditions and payment, and therefore of costs.
Lord SOMERS: My Lords, would the noble Lord tell us how we are to reconcile this aid to Vietnam with our supposed
364
increasing contact with and friendship towards the people of the Republic of China?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would hope that we will turn this operation to advantage in the new situation created by the withdrawal of Chinese troops from Vietnamese territory. As the noble Lord knows, we are very active in the United Nations and in the Security Council, and we have taken something of a lead in an endeavour to get a decision, indeed a mandate, that all those concerned shall withdraw their troops and forces from all the countries concerned in Indo-China; and that applies to the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia as well as to the Chinese operation in Vietnam.

BRITISH RAILWAYS (SELBY) BILL
2.59 p.m.
Lord MIDDLETON Lord MIDDLETON rose to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that before allowing the Bill to proceed they should consider whether in connection with the works authorised by the Bill, the owners, lessees and occupiers of land will have adequate redress under the Bill against the Board in respect of loss or damage occasioned by contractors or other persons let into the land by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of the British Railways (Selby) Bill promoted by the British Railways Board is to get statutory authority for the construction of about 14 miles of new railway track and all the works connected with it. It is essential that part of the new Selby coal field which lies under the existing main line—and it would be a substantial part—shall not be sterilised. Everyone now agrees that this new stretch of rail is necessary and the petitioners are now convinced that the Bill is satisfactorily drafted and, therefore, it is no longer an opposed Bill.
As I explained when your Lordships gave this Bill a Second Reading, the interests of those whose land or buildings will be affected by the works will be well looked after by the various statutes under which British Rail will have to operate,

365
and also by the code of practice which has been agreed by the Board with the interested bodies, except in one respect. The British Railways Board do not agree that they should be responsible in any way for loss or damage that may be done to those whose land or premises are affected by the works and which is done by the contractors whom the Board employ and bring on to the land. Damage by contractors operating for the Department of Transport unfortunately occurs all too frequently during road building. It is one of the commonest grievances of occupiers affected by roadworks that damage is done and there is no redress, either because the contractor simply refuses to make good the loss and the wronged person chooses not to pursue him through the courts as this would leave him worse off even if he succeeds or the contractor or sub-contractor cannot be identified, or else the contractor goes bankrupt and cannot pay anyway. This happens so often when roads are built that it is not reasonable to suppose that this new railway line will be built without similar cases. It is therefore hoped that British Rail will agree, in the code of practice to which I have referred, that they will be responsible for damage caused through the negligence of their contractors.
I know that British Rail have not built a new line for some time, but there is another public body which is actively acquiring land for laying pipelines and carrying out construction works, and this is the British Gas Corporation. This body takes a more enlightened view and undertakes in its code of practice to be responsible for the damage caused by its contractors. I quoted the relevant passage from their code of practice on Second Reading. I also quoted from a National Coal Board publication on compensation which demonstrates a rather more helpful attitude than that of British Rail. British Gas admit that their undertaking was made wholly in their own interests rather than from solicitude towards the owners and occupiers concerned. So clearly they find the task of acquisition, compensation and agreeing terms for reinstatement and so on is made much easier by eliminating this cause of grievance. It must be cheaper in the long run for British Gas to act in this way—so why not for British Rail?
366
The argument advanced by the British Railways Board is that such a concession would open the flood-gates of claims upon the taxpayer and set dangerous precedents. I cannot see that there is any merit whatever in this argument. First, I do not suppose that anyone believes that there is going to be a flood or avalanche of new railway lines being built in this country. We are still heavily engaged in digging up miles and miles of disused track. Secondly, there is no suggestion that British Rail should be responsible for contractors' damage after a new stretch—in this case the 14 miles of Selby—is completed. Thirdly, if damage is done to land, buildings or crops, there are three ways of paying for it: first, by the employer—in this case, British Rail—secondly, by the contractor who perpetrates the damage. Thirdly, by the owner or occupier who suffers the loss. British Rail are, in effect, saying that, if the contractor who should pay will not pay, then the occupier must do so since British Rail will have no part in the matter.
It is hard to see how any additional burden can be placed upon the taxpayer through British Rail assuming responsibility. When they enter into a contract with a firm to do work for them, they will presumably use or be guided by the Institution of Civil Engineers' conditions of contract; that is, the conditions of contract in connection with works of civil engineering construction which, suitably amended and brought up to date, have been widely used since 1945. One of those recommended conditions—No. 22—is that a contractor shall indemnify and keep indemnified the employer against all claims, demands, damages, et cetera, in respect of the works. Condition No. 23 sets out how this should be done by insurance.
We can be sure that British Rail will exact rigorous conditions from their contractors with regard to damage through faulty construction, and they could, I should have thought, also insist on the kind of recommended conditions with regard to damage to third parties' property to which I have just referred. I think it right that the British Railways Board should be required to consider once more why they should not follow the excellent example of British Gas. The amount of the claims in such cases is usually small. It is reasonable that a claimant should not

367
be put to the considerable expense of pursuing a contractor brought on to his land by British Rail, but should be able to go direct to the Board, subject, of course, to a fair assessment of damage. I believe that a more reasonable attitude by British Rail in this particular case, and perhaps in due course by the Department of Transport in the case of road building, would build up a fund of goodwill that would in the end result in cheaper acquisition rather than create an additional burden upon the taxpayer. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to whom the Bill is committed that before allowing the Bill to proceed they should consider whether in connection with the works authorised by the Bill, the owners, lessees and occupiers of land will have adequate redress under the Bill against the Board in respect of loss or damage occasioned by contractors or other persons let into the land by the Board in exercise of the powers conferred by the Bill. —(Lord Middleton.)
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Middleton, has said, this Bill is an unopposed one and will in the normal way be committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee. If the House accepts the noble Lord's Instruction, I intend to follow the new procedure which was recently agreed by your Lordships. Your Lordships will recall that, on the recommendation of the Procedure Committee, Private Bill Standing Orders were recently amended to give me discretion to invite members of the panel of deputy chairmen to assist me on an Unopposed Bill Committee. In the event of this Instruction being accepted, that is the procedure I intend to follow. The committee will then consider carefully the matters raised in the noble Lord's Instruction together with the words that he has uttered this afternoon, and will of course also hear submissions from the promoters. Then, as is usual when an Instruction is sent to a committee, that committee will make a special report to this House.
Lord MIDDLETON: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

NATIONAL HERITAGE FUND (No.2) BILL [H.L.]

  formerly NATIONAL LAND FUND BILL [H.L.]
  3.8 p.m.
  Report received.
  Clause 1 [Trustees of the National Heritage Fund]:
  The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): My Lords, there may be a misprint in the copy of the Marshalled List which some of your Lordships have. Amendment No. 1 should read: "Page 1, line 6", and then as printed.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 1:
  Page 1, line 6, after ("1946") insert ("shall henceforth be known as the National Heritage Fund and").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I ask leave to discuss Amendments Nos. 2, 4, 7 and 8 at the same time, as they are consequential on the first Amendment. It is very simple: having at an earlier stage altered the name of the fund and the name of the Bill, it now apparently becomes possible to alter the name of the fund to the National Heritage Fund and therefore be consistent throughout the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 3 [Administration of the Fund]:
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 2:
  Page 2, line 7, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Heritage").
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  The DEPUTY SPEAKER: I should point out that if Amendment No. 3 is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendments Nos. 4 and 5.
  Lord GIBSON Lord GIBSON moved Amendment No. 3:
  Page 2, line 10, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment would deprive the Treasury of the power to order the trustees of the Heritage Fund to compensate the Inland

  369
  Revenue for capital tax lost when what are known as the "in lieu" provisions are used—in other words, when land, buildings and works of art are taken by the Government in lieu of tax. The Treasury, of course, has possessed the power to use, and has used, the Land Fund in this way since the Finance Act 1946. We are discussing this Bill in the knowledge that it may very well not become law and that it is the Government's proposals in the White Paper which are perhaps more likely to reach the Statute Book. One of the main differences between this Bill and the White Paper is that the latter envisages the abolition of the "in lieu" provisions, but I am moving this Amendment on the basis that this Bill becomes law and that the "in lieu" provisions continue in force.
  My proposition is simply this: if we are dealing with a Bill to set up an independent body of trustees to administer a fund hitherto administered by the Treasury, we ought to take this opportunity to establish a better and different principle to the one we have followed hitherto. We should establish that, from now on, when the owner of a so-called heritage asset offers it to the State and when the Government, properly advised, are ready to accept it, it should be regarded as a tax-exempt gift to the State and the tax should simply be written off. Of course, it is true that physical assets have to be paid for with resources which could have been spent on something else, but there is a clear distinction between those assets which are consumable or which have to be depreciated and those which do not. In the case of land, historic buildings and works of art, the State is acquiring a non-expendable and non-depreciating asset—except, of course, that buildings require maintenance, but that is another matter—and there should be no need in such cases to compensate the Inland Revenue.
  I believe this is an accepted principle in France, where it is recognised that the tax yield from such objects is so small in relation to the total yield from capital taxation that an exception to the general rule can be made: the tax foregone is accordingly written off. If we, too, adopt this principle we shall enable the trustees of the Heritage Fund to concentrate all their relatively scarce resources on the acquisition and, where necessary,
  370
  the endowment of buildings, land and works of art not offered in satisfaction of tax. If this Heritage Fund is to make any real impact on the problem it is set up to deal with, it will have to be many times larger than the Land Fund if it is to meet even the most essential calls upon it and at the same time compensate for the tax foregone. Let us instead adopt a more civilised approach; write off the tax and be done with it.
  I hope that this Amendment may be acceptable to the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, but if, instead of this Bill, the Government's proposals become law the "in lieu" system will be replaced by private treaty sales, in which case no question of compensating the Revenue will arise. I should not like it to be thought, simply because I move this Amendment, that I favour the abolition of the "in lieu" system. In fact, quite the contrary is the case, and I fear that the disappearance of the "in lieu" system may throw even greater burdens on the Heritage Fund. Here I must declare an interest. I am chairman of the National Trust, which warmly welcomes the White Paper as a step in the right direction and wholeheartedly approves the concept of a genuine contingency fund. It is true that the National Trust has benefited greatly from the old Land Fund and I want to acknowledge this debt with gratitude. Much of the most beautiful countryside in the possession of the Trust has come to it from the fund and so have six or seven of the most famous houses in the country. Moreover, I would emphasise that, far from having found the Treasury unhelpful, we have been much assisted by the way in which it has dealt with us in all cases where the Land Fund has been used. So the National Trust is grateful to the Land Fund; nevertheless, we wholly approve the change to an independently managed fund.
  Having said that, however, the consequential proposal to abolish the "in lieu" system does give us cause for concern, and I want to ask the Government to consult us and others before they frame their legislation. At present, bodies like museums, the National Trust, the National Art Collections Fund and so on—there are many such bodies—acquire heritage assets in lieu of tax at little or no cost to themselves. If in the future all those bodies have to apply to the Heritage

  371
  Fund for grants to pay for these things, the competition for the fund's resources will be extremely heavy. I am told, for example, that the indemnity value of privately-owned works of art now on loan to the national collections alone is about £75 million. I appreciate there are assurances in the White Paper that the fund is not expected to do everything and that the Government will sometimes give direct aid, but the present "in lieu" system would, on the face of it, seem far more predictable and, for myself, I should prefer to see it left in being when the new fund is established. As an instrument it has served us well, and if the difficulties of saving priceless assets for the nation are to be overcome it seems a pity to discard any weapon of proved efficacy. It is much better to keep it and write off the tax.
  One last point, my Lords: it is a widely agreed objective that historic houses should retain their historic contents, but the National Trust has no purchase grants to help finance the acquisition of pictures or furniture by private treaty; and, if museums are asked to help us, will they want to leave pictures partly acquired with their precious purchase grants on the walls of National Trust houses? There are other worries with which I shall not detain your Lordships, such as the cost for the acquiring bodies of the negotiations now carried out by the Treasury Solicitor, and difficulties of that kind. Some of the acquiring bodies are quite unsuited to undertake negotiations at all, but I shall not detain your Lordships over these points. I hope the Trust, with other acquiring bodies and all concerned, will have the opportunity of discussing these matters with Ministers and officials before their proposals harden. In the meantime, I move this Amendment to call attention to the opportunity now before us to ensure that the relatively small resources now in the Land Fund and in the proposed Heritage Fund are not overburdened either by having to compensate the Revenue or by the removal of the "in-lieu" system which has served us so well. I beg to move.
  Lord COTTESLOE: My Lords, I wish very warmly to support this Amendment moved by my noble friend—if I may so call him—Lord Gibson. I hope that the noble
  372
  Lord, Lord Reigate, will accept it. The subsection that it is sought to delete assumes that, contrary to the proposals in the Government's White Paper, the "in lieu" system by which the Treasury may accept items for the national heritage in lieu of tax will be continued.
  I am most anxious that the "in lieu" system should be continued. It was first introduced in 1910 and over the years has played a valuable part in the preservation of the heritage. I will only instance the splendid works of art such as the Rembrandt portrait of an old man now in the National Gallery, the great Holbein cartoon of Henry VIII and other things from Chatsworth which were acquired by the nation for £1 million in the 1950s, and the Wellington papers currently being acquired for the nation for, I believe, a sum of £750,000 through the operation of the "in lieu" system.
  The fact is that while the operation of the system, with the provisions that it incorporates for the douceur which is referred to in the White paper, may indeed put the Treasury to some little trouble on some occasions, it does provide the owners of important heritage items and their executors with the simplest and most effective way of enabling those items to become the property of the nation and to be kept, on the advice of the Standing Commission on Museums and Galleries, in the most appropriate locations.
  The expanded system of private treaty sales proposed in the White Paper will not be so simple or so attractive from the point of view of owners, and it will not therefore be so effective in preserving the national heritage. It is one thing for an owner to be advised to surrender something rather than to pay an equivalent amount of tax. It is quite another to tell him that he ought to choose a gallery that may or may not have the funds available and to open negotiations with them; and he may, anyway, wish to hand over his property to the National Trust and to ask them to continue to house in it an item that is historically associated with it, which he wishes to surrender to the nation.
  Is the Minister able to tell the House whether the Government consulted the Standing Commission on this matter and, if so, what the Standing Commission advised? If they did not consult the

  373
  Standing Commission, why did they not do so? Perhaps he would tell us, also, whether the National Gallery was asked to express a view, or has expressed a view, and, if so, what it was. While, therefore, I ardently hope that the "in lieu" system will be continued as being in the best interest of the preservation of our national heritage, I support this Amendment because I believe that the operation of the "in lieu" system, the acceptance by the Treasury of items of the heritage in lieu of tax, should fall entirely outside the operations of the National Heritage Fund, whereas the subsection which the Amendment seeks to delete would perpetuate the system of reimbursement to the Treasury for items accepted.
  The fact is that such reimbursement by the National Land Fund, which was provided for in the Act of 1946, was, of course, no part of the "in lieu" system that was introduced in 1910, more than 35 years before the National Land Fund existed. And while it was perhaps possible, though doubtfully, I think, to justify the Treasury, having accepted an item in lieu of tax, reimbursing itself out of another pocket, so to speak, from the National Land Fund which they then controlled, now that the National Heritage Fund is to be in the hands of independent trustees, such reimbursement would be quite indefensible. It would mean that the Treasury, having accepted the item—land, historic house, picture or whatever it may be—would not only have the item, but would also require to be paid for it. They would have their cake and eat it, too, and that, in ordinary parlance, would be tantamount to fraud.
  I hold, therefore, that while the "in lieu" system should be continued, it should be continued independently of the National Heritage Fund and that there should be no question of reimbursement. If it be said that this would be an open-ended commitment to the Treasury, the answer is that they are always in a position to refuse to accept an item offered under the "in lieu" system; to refuse it not on any ground of their assessment of its national importance on which they would no doubt have, and would no doubt accept, the advice of experts, but to refuse it simply on the ground of not being able to find the money to pay for it. And if it also be said that the continuance
  374
  of the system would involve an additional Treasury expenditure of the £2 million or so a year, which the "in lieu" system has hitherto involved, the answer to that is that the White Paper tells us that more than £120 million a year is already provided for the national heritage, and to say in the light of that figure that some £2 million cannot be found to continue the "in lieu" system is manifest nonsense.
  For these reasons, I warmly support the Amendment and I hope that my noble friend will accept it. I hope also, profoundly, that if the Amendment is not accepted the "in lieu" system will nevertheless be continued, for its continuance would quite certainly be in the interest of the preservation of our heritage.
  3.25 p.m.
  Lord ANNAN: My Lords, may I follow the noble Lord, Lord Cottesloe, in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, for moving this Amendment. I shall not add anything to what they have already said about the continuance of the "in lieu" system, though here I must declare an interest as a trustee of the British Museum and of the National Gallery. But one of the factors which it is very important to take into account if there is any question of abolishing the "in lieu" system, is that the situation can very well arise where the trustees of whatever body is set up to administer the funds of the National Heritage Fund may well find that, in asking a museum or a gallery to accept a work of art, they will have to demand that that museum or gallery pays something towards the purchase of the work of art concerned. They would then find that, through no fault of the trustees of that museum or gallery, the trustees would have spent their purchase fund for that year and that work of art would then be lost to the nation. This is one of the things which anybody who administers a fund during the year for purchasing works of art knows can happen very easily. It is impossible to predict when works of art will come upon the market. That is the real value of the "in lieu" system.
  May I also reinforce one point which noble Lords have already made on the principle of consultation. It seems to me very unfortunate that this proposal to abolish the "in lieu" system came about without, so far as I can ascertain.

  375
  adequate consultation. Indeed, directors of museums and galleries were in constant touch with the Treasury and had their regular meetings every month or so in the Treasury, but never a word was said about the abolition of the "in lieu" system. Of course, I am not suggesting that there was any deception on the part of anyone concerned. I am not for one moment suggesting such a thing. But it seems to me as if this proposal to abolish the "in lieu" system somehow got inserted into the White Paper at a rather late stage in the writing of it. I would have been much happier if museums and galleries had been asked for their opinion before the White Paper was written.
  I say this, because I remember that it was only 10 years or so ago that some of us heard in your Lordships' House one of the most sustained polemics which has been delivered in recent times in this House. It was delivered by Lord Radcliffe at the time when the Government of the day decided, without consultation, to sell the site to which the British Library was to have been moved. Here, again, that was done without any consultation with the trustees of the British Museum. I wish that the Departments concerned in Whitehall would consult the trustees of these bodies before publishing something which is enshrined not in a Green Paper but in a White Paper, and therefore making it all the more difficult to get the Government to alter their opinion. May I just add my voice to those who wish to vote for this Amendment, and ask the Government whether they would very carefully consider the points which have been made in this debate before they introduce legislation in another place on this topic?
  3.29 p.m.
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am the last person in the world to disagree with the noble Lord when he suggests that there should be ample consultation before proposals are brought forward in the form of a White Paper or legislation. It probably would have been helpful if the Government had embarked on some discussion with the museums and galleries before the drafting of the White Paper, and I am surprised to hear, from what the noble Lord and others have said, that they have not done so. However, I do not altogether
  376
  understand the opposition which has been expressed on all sides to the replacement of the "in lieu" provisions by the private treaty arrangements which are envisaged in the White Paper.
  If there was any disincentive in the change for private owners to transfer their property to museums and galleries, or if it was made more difficult for museums and galleries to acquire private property, then I could understand the anxieties which have been expressed. However, to take the White Paper at its face value, it says that the identical tax and douceur arrangements apply in the case of private treaty sales to national and local museums and galleries, the National Trust and other institutions concerned with the preservation of our heritage. Therefore the individual owner is left in the same financial position, whether property is accepted in lieu of tax or is the subject of a private treaty sale.
  That takes care of the position where a person transfers his property to a public institution, whereas if one looks at it from the point of view of the gallery or other acquiring body I read lower down on page 4 of the White Paper that the Government intend to make special arrangements to ensure that in cases where the acceptance in lieu provision would have applied, the acquiring body will not have to contribute more to the acquisition than at present. Provided, therefore, that the Government can satisfy your Lordships, first, that the person transferring the assets is in no worse financial position than he would have been otherwise and, secondly, that the museum, gallery or other acquiring institution does not have to find more money than otherwise it would have had to do, then surely nobody at all is disadvantaged by the change. We have a common system of acquisition by private treaty, which I should have thought was a simplification of the existing procedures.
  However, this is the first time that I had realised that there was any strong objection to these proposals, and since the White Paper was published only a short time ago I think that it would be very helpful to hear what the Minister has to say this afternoon.
  3.32 p.m.
  The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My

  377
  Lords, before the noble Lord replies to the Amendment, I feel that I must say a word, but I am not going to be drawn at this stage into a full discussion of the proposals in the White Paper. The position is that my officials and the officials of the Department of the Environment, of the Treasury and of Scotland and Wales are at the moment meeting more than once a week in order to draw up a Bill which will eventually be presented to Parliament. That will be the right moment to discuss the details. However, my right honourable friend Mr. Joel Barnett, when he announced the White Paper to the Press, said that he thought that there would be a great deal to discuss, because there were a number of details which had not been settled, and he hoped that all interested parties would join in the discussion. In point of fact, one of my senior officials will be talking tomorrow to, I think, six heads of museums.
  We in the Government are quite determined that the change in the "in lieu" procedure, which is roughed out in the White Paper, should not work to the disadvantage either of people who wish to submit things in lieu or of institutions which wish to acquire them. I am not going to take it any further than that today because the details are still being discussed. If we find that there are insuperable difficulties, we can even go back on things. The intention of the Government in the White Paper is perfectly clear. This is not an appropriate Bill on which to discuss the matter. Therefore, I shall not vote either way on this Amendment.
  Today, I do not want to take the matter any further, beyond making two points. First, this is the first time for some time that my colleagues in the Treasury have been publicly congratulated by anybody, and I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Gibson for having said what he did. During the last 25 years that Department of State has done something very remarkable for this country, and it gets absolutely no credit whatever for it from the lobby. I resent this very much. But that is all right; that is what we are here for. Secondly, we are going to have complete consultation now. It might have been better to have had consultation first, but we must remember that there was a parliamentary committee which received evidence, that we were able to read, from
  378
  all the available bodies. It would not be true to say that it was consulted, but the matter was very closely discussed with the Standing Commission.
  Having said that, that is all that I want to say at this stage. In due course, after full consultation, we shall have the opportunity to see what the Bill produces.
  Lord REIGATE: My Lords, first may I say that it would be with great pleasure that I should accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, and supported by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe and by the noble Lord, Lord Annan. I do not know whether your Lordships will think that the Minister's reply to the question posed by my noble friend Lord Cottesloe is adequate. I do not propose to comment upon it.
  My Bill has been before your Lordships' House in one form or another for over a year, and I cannot but feel that if the Government were at any stage moved to act in any of these directions they might have started their consultations with the authorities concerned; namely, the Museums Association or anybody else. It is all very well for the noble Lord to come along at this stage and to say, "I'm not going to bother with your little Bill. It will all be put right in our Bill". That Bill is not yet even drafted. When can the noble Lord promise us that it will be put before the House; and who, can he promise us, will introduce it?
  I am not one to take umbrage, but I do not think that my efforts in this direction have been taken as seriously as it would have been sensible to take them. My Bill could have been taken at the Second Reading stage and have had incorporated in it all the recommendations of the Select Committee. I shall leave the point there. My Bill will have a Third Reading quite soon, I hope, if your Lordships approve it today, and in due course it will be presented in another place. If, however, the attitude of the noble Lord is repeated in the other place, the Bill will be stopped; that will be their decision and that is all there is to it. In the meanwhile, I am delighted to accept the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Gibson, if for no other reason than that Amendment No. 4 is no longer in order, which means that I do not have to

  379
  draw attention to the fact that I forgot to insert the words "of Inland Revenue".
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.37 p.m.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 2, line 16, leave out ("one-sixth") and insert ("one-quarter").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this alters the amount of the capital of the Fund upon which the trustees can draw without query from one-sixth to one-quarter. At an earlier stage of this Bill and, indeed, in the previous Bill, I was anxious to placate Treasury opinion, and I described this as a sop to Cerberus. I was unsuccessful. Since then we have had the White Paper.
  At this stage I totally disagree with the intent of the White Paper to fetter the trustees as much as is proposed. It is the intention of the White Paper and, apparently, of the Bill, whenever it appears, to limit the expenditure on items of land and buildings to not more than —1 million, and on other items to not more than one-quarter of a million pounds at any one time without the permission of the Government. The phrasing of the White Paper is very vague. It appears that the total limit is to be £5 million. I find this to be quite unsatisfactory. I wish the trustees to have unfettered freedom where the income of the fund is concerned; I think that they are unsuitable to be trustees if they cannot be trusted. As to the capital, I think that the trustees should have the power to spend up to one-quarter of the capital of the fund. I accept that some restraint is necessary, if for no other reason than to provide some defence for the trustees against excessive and extravagant demands from other quarters. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 7:
  Page 2, line 25, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Heritage").
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Clause 4 [Appointment and dismissal of Trustees]:
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 8:
  Page 2, line 30, leave out ("Land") and insert ("Heritage").
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 9;
  Page 2, line 31, leave out ("five") and insert ("six").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is quite simple. It increases the total number of trustees from six to seven; that is, including the chairman. I am sure from experience all your Lordships will agree that on any committee or board it is better not to have an even number. I beg to move.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  3.42 p.m.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 10:
  Page 2, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("(2) In selecting suitable persons for appointment as Trustees, the Prime Minister shall give preference to those who appear to him to have knowledge of finance and administration, or knowledge of architecture and the fine arts or such other aspects of the National Heritage as he deems appropriate.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment deals with the appointment of trustees. Since I launched this Bill some long time ago, I have received a great many suggestions from various quarters as to the qualifications which should be demanded of whoever appoints the trustees. There have been a great many suggestions which would enlarge the scope of the choice, which I have so far resisted. However, in this particular Amendment I have amended the Bill to include such other aspects as might occur to the Prime Minister from time to time. The problem here is that no one really can define "national heritage". I was challenged on this by one of my correspondents and I sat down and tried to define it, but I did not get very far. The fact is that we all in our own hearts understand perfectly well what is meant by the phrase, "national heritage", and if we were all to put down

  381
  our definitions I should think 90 per cent. of them would overlap, but it becomes a little difficult round the edges of the definition. When I was talking to a friend of mine I listed the obvious matters which would come within the province of the national heritage and when I had given a very long list he said "You have forgotten Cruft's Dog Show". There are many people in this country who would look on that as part of the national heritage, but I doubt whether it would be very popular as an object of expenditure for the fund. However, it gives some idea of the difficulties encountered.
  In this Bill I have stressed architecture and works of art. The original purpose of the Bill was, in Dr. Dalton's view, to secure land; but I think most of us realise that in the 30 years since Dr. Dalton made that proposition there have been considerable changes. Legislation has done more to secure our heritage as regards land than has probably been done by the National Land Fund itself. Circumstances have changed and I think most of us realise now that it is works of art and buildings which are most at risk. None the less there are other spheres of interest and the threat may change. The fact is as regards land preservation or conservation —or whatever the phrase is—it has one advantage, in that it cannot be pulled down like a building and it cannot be sold abroad like a work of art. So it has a stronger chance of remaining part of the national heritage than works of art or architecture. I am not averse to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, in his Amendment, but I am anxious not to open the door any wider than that or the next thing I shall get will be a demand for wildlife conservation and possibly even Cruft's Dog Show. I hope your Lordships will agree with this Amendment and that it will solve the problem. I beg to move.
  The DEPUTY SPEAKER: My Lords, we will now take Amendment No. 11 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 10.
  Lord AVEBURY Lord AVEBURY moved Amendment No. 11 as an Amendment to Amendment No. 10:
  Line 4, after first ("of") insert ("land conservation, or knowledge of").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should like to say first that it was with some consternation that I heard the
  382
  remarks of the noble Lord the Minister in reply to an earlier Amendment, because we seem to be wasting the time of the House in discussing this Bill at all if the attitude of the Government is going to be that, notwithstanding anything your Lordships may decide, this Bill must be swept under the carpet and we shall have to wait until the White Paper has been fully considered and the Government have brought forward their own legislation.
  This is a rather cavalier attitude to take to your Lordships' House. The Government come forward with a casual remark of this kind when we are in the middle of the Report stage, having carefully gone through—as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, said—something like a year of very thorough consideration of these matters and arrived at the Bill which is now before your Lordships and which is capable of being modified as it continues its stages, both in this House and in another place, so as to fit in not only with the proposals in the White Paper but with anything which may arise from the consultations about which the Minister has just told us. Before we leave this afternoon, I hope that we can persuade the Minister at least to modify that attitude and to say that it is possible that if the consultations make good progress, as we hope they will—and the Minister has said that they are already under way—it is not too late for the results of those consultations to be embodied in this Bill when it gets to another place.
  I certainly do not want to make the appointment of the trustees as complicated as the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, has envisaged. I can quite imagine the situation, because I know in other Bills people have suggested all sorts of other bodies which ought to be consulted and I would not wish to embody the trustees of Cruft's Dog Show among those who should be included in the list. To open the door to a multitude of other interests who think that they are entitled to special consideration when it comes to making decisions of this kind would be a great mistake; but I want to restore the central importance of land and to recognise it in the appointment of trustees, as it was originally envisaged by Dr. Dalton when he set up the fund in 1946. As my noble friend Lady Robson of Kiddington pointed out when the Bill was discussed on Second Reading, the fund was originally conceived as being mainly for the purchase

  383
  of land, although in point of fact I understand that something like 75 per cent. of the money which has been spent since then has gone on works of art and buildings, and only something of the order of 25 per cent. has been used to acquire land.
  That is partly because other mechanisms have been developed and the Treasury point out to the Select Committee on expenditure (Cmnd. 280, paragraph 12) that Dr. Dalton's ideas for creating national parks and for the acquisition for the public of stretches of coast and open country has seen fruition in the National Parks and Access to the Countryside Act 1949, and presumably in the Countryside (Scotland) Act 1968 and the Nature Conservancy Council Act of 1973. But the Select Committee went on to remark that the development of these alternative mechanisms has not allayed the fears for the future by organisations concerned with the land aspect of the national heritage. If one looks, for example, at the evidence given by the CPRE in paragraph 21 of the appendices to the minutes of evidence, one sees that in the CPRE's submission to the environment subcommittee inquiring into national parks and countryside it says:
  "We drew attention to the serious financial constraints which continue to prevent National Park authorities and the Countryside Commission from fulfilling the full potential of national parks"—
  and it goes on in that vein.
  That is why it is so important, I think, to ensure that in applying this fund, which will according to the White Paper have initially something like £5 million a year more than the National Land Fund has in its pocket at the moment—£15 million will be handed over and there will be another £5 million on top of that—the preservation of the countryside for the benefit of the people should be one of the main objectives kept in mind. It is for that reason that in this Amendment I am proposing that the wording of the noble Lord's clause on the appointment of trustees be slightly modified so as to include, in particular, land conservation. To allay his fears on the opening of the floodgates to the many other interests which might think that they had an entitlement to be represented, may I refer the noble Lord to the second paragraph of the White Paper where the Government state as their aim:
  384
  "To maintain and enhance all aspects of our heritage, including"—
  and they mention this first—
  "our countryside, historic buildings and their contents, and major works of art".
  So if we have a difficulty in defining what we mean by heritage, the simplest solution, I would suggest to your Lordships, is that we merely accept those items which are mentioned in the White Paper as being the ones what we are talking about in this Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I listened very sympathetically to what the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said. I must say I am still very reluctant to open the floodgates, all the same. He referred to the White Paper which refers to the countryside. His Amendment refers to "land conservation". I do not want to be pedantic, but what does he mean exactly by "land conservation"? If you take it as meaning someone who has knowledge of the countryside, it would be very hard to find somebody who has not any knowledge of the countryside, whereas when you are dealing with historic buildings and works of art you have experts and an expertise which is not demanded in the case of knowledge of land preservation or land conservation. We are not talking about soil conservation but land conservation. I honestly do not quite know what the phrase means, and I frankly would prefer not to accept it.
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if one was thinking of a name out of thin air, one could not do better than refer to our colleague, the noble Lord, Lord Molson, who, as chairman of the Council for the Protection of Rural England, is a person who has detailed knowledge of the countryside.
  Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, preservation of the countryside in the sense of the prevention of despoilment by building and development is one thing, but I doubt whether the words "land conservation" are apt to cover that kind of expertise. As I understand the expression "land conservation", it mainly conveys to most people's minds the protection of land from erosion by flood, protection by erection of sea defences and that kind of thing, which I would have

  385
  thought was not particularly appropriate in this case. Both for that narrow reason and for the wider one, that once you start specifying specialities of this kind there is no end to the process, I very much hope that my noble friend will not accept the Amendment.
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, there seem to be two points here. There is the question of whether the exact phrase I have used in the Amendment meets the requirement which I am trying to outline, and I think there can be differences of opinion about that. I certainly differ from the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, and the noble Lord, Lord Boyd-Carpenter. If they can think of a better way of describing what I am trying to do, I am certainly prepared to take the wording away and bring back something better at Third Reading, if the principle can be accepted. I think the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, is sympathetic towards what I am trying to do. He is only concerned, as I understand him, to ensure that, notwithstanding the concern of your Lordships' House with the protection of beautiful countryside, we do not give the opportunity to all the other interests the noble Lord has mentioned to come forward and demand to be included among those nominated as trustees. Provided that the noble Lord, Lord Reigate, can assure me that he is not in any way opposed to the principle, I am perfectly prepared to go away and consult with my noble friend Lady Robson, and of course with the noble Lord himself, and come back at Third Reading with wording that I hope will be acceptable to him.
  Lord REIGATE: My Lords, I am most anxious to placate the noble Lord so far as I can, but I did consider the matter between Committee stage and this stage
  and that is why I included the words "other aspects", which includes land conservation, soil conservation and almost anything else you like. I really would much prefer to leave it at that. If I may amplify the difficulty I am in, and which the Government will find themselves to be in if they ever get around to having a Bill at all, it is that it is a great mistake to tie the hands of the appointer of trustees with restrictions of this kind. And, blow me down!, the Government have done it already: they say Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be represented—out of a small number of trustees. Supposing they have seven, as I am suggesting in my Bill; three of those would be one Scot, one Welshman and one Northern Irishman; that is only four to represent little England and land conservation and everything else. It is a mistake at this stage. Perhaps I might in passing, although it is quite irrelevant to the Amendment I am discussing, draw your Lordships' attention to the sentence;
  "Scottish and Welsh bodies would continue to be eligible for assistance from the fund after Devolution".
  Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I did go as far as I thought I possibly could in trying to meet the noble Lord, Lord Reigate. If he does not feel able to accept the Amendment or to give an undertaking that after consultation he would be prepared to accept something on similar lines at Third Reading, I have no alternative but to test the feeling of your Lordships' House.
  3.57 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 11) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 9; Not-Contents, 102.

  CONTENTS

  Airedale, L.

  Banks, L.

  Hampton, L.

  Amherst, E.

  Brockway, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Avebury, L. [Teller.]

  Grey, E.

  Wigoder, L. [Teller.]

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Alexander of Tunis, E.

  Boyd-Carpenter, L.

  Daventry, V.

  Alport, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Davidson, V.

  Annan, L.

  Clwyd, L.

  de Clifford, L.

  Auckland, L.

  Cockfield, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Avon, E.

  Collison, L.

  Denham, L.

  Aylestone, L.

  Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

  Derwent, L.

  Balfour of Inchrye, L.

  Cottesloe, L.

  Douglas of Barloch, L.

  Blyton, L.

  Cromartie, E.

  Dulverton, L.

  Ebbisham, L.

  Kinross, L.

  Shackleton, L.

  Ellenborough, L.

  Leatherland, L.

  Shinwell, L.

  Elliot of Harwood, B.

  Long, V.

  Sligo, M.

  Emmet of Amberley, B.

  Lothian, V.

  Snow, L.

  Evans of Hungershall, L.

  Lucas of Chilworth, L.

  Somers, L.

  Exeter, M.

  Lyell, L.

  Spens, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  McGregor of Durris, L.

  Stamp, L.

  Fisher of Camden, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

  Gibson, L.

  Mishcon, L.

  Stone, L.

  Gisborough, L.

  Molson, L.

  Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

  Glasgow, E.

  Morris, L.

  Gordon-Walker, L.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Strathspey, L.

  Greenway, L.

  Norfolk, D.

  Sudeley, L.

  Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

  Norrie, L.

  Thomas, L.

  Gridley, L.

  Northchurch, B.

  Thurlow, L.

  Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

  Nugent of Guildford, L.

  Torphichen, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Hale, L.

  Plant, L.

  Trenchard, V.

  Hanworth, V.

  Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

  Vickers, B. [Teller.]

  Harmar-Nicholls, L.

  Porritt, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Hatch of Lusby, L.

  Rankeillour, L.

  Ward of North Tyneside, B.

  Henderson, L.

  Reigate, L. [Teller.]

  Westbury, L.

  Hood, V.

  Robbins, L.

  Willis, L.

  Hornsby-Smith, B.

  Roberthall, L.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Hylton-Foster, B.

  Sefton of Garston, L.

  Wilson of Langside, L.

  Janner, L.

  Segal, L.

  Wootton of Abinger, B.

  Killearn, L.

  Sempill, Ly.

  On Question, Motion agreed to.

  Resolved in the negative, and Amendment to the Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  [Amendment No. 12 not moved.]
  Clause 5 [Short Title Commencement and Repeals]:
  4.6 p.m.
  Lord REIGATE Lord REIGATE moved Amendment No. 13:
  Page 3, leave out line 3 and insert—
  ("(2) Section 48 of the Finance Act 1946 is hereby").

  HOVERCRAFT (CIVIL LIABILITY) ORDER 1979
  4.7 p.m.
  Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES rose to move, That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1979, laid before the House on 19th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the order is made under Section 1(1) of the Hovercraft Act 1968. It replaces a similar order made in 1971. It is necessary partly because of inflation and partly because there have been
  388
  changes in legislation in the meantime. In effect, it updates the 1971 order.
  In 1971 a modified version of the Carriage by Air Act 1961 and the Carriage by Air (Supplementary Provisions) Act 1962 was applied in respect of liability in carriage of passengers and luggage on hovercraft. It fixed the limit in respect of death or personal injury to passengers at £12,000. The order which is before the House will increase that limit to £30,000. I shall give two comparisons, one as regards shipping and the other as regards air.
  In the case of shipping, the limit of liability is just over £30,000 under the provisions of the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977. In the case of travel by air, there is at present a Bill before the House —the Carriage by Air and Road Bill—which proposes a limit of £66,000 per passenger, plus costs.
  In 1971, the limit of liability for luggage was fixed at £138 for the luggage in the passenger's charge, and at £7 per kilo for other luggage. Since 1971, those limits have been increased in respect of air passengers. The £138 for luggage in the passenger's control has been increased to £216. The £7 per kilo for other luggage has been increased to £10·78 per kilo. Those higher figures already apply to aircraft passengers. However, experience has shown that in the case of hovercraft the luggage is seldom weighed, and that

  389
  the limit which was related to weight is not suitable. The order before the House raises the limits for luggage in the control of the passenger from £138 to £216, so that is the same as it is for air passengers. However, in the case of other luggage, instead of adopting a rate per kilo, it fixes an additional and separate limit of £216. So there is a maximum claim of £216 for luggage in the passenger's control and a further £216 in respect of other luggage.
  In 1971, the liability rules for cargo were based upon the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1924. However, in June 1977 that Act was superseded by bringing into force the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1971. The order now before the House applies this change in maritime law to hovercraft.
  I turn now to the vexed question of global limit. In maritime law, shipowners have a global limitation of liability. The 1971 order applied the law to hovercraft, but expressed the limits per kilo instead of per tonne. Those limits applying to shipping have since been increased by approximately 50 per cent. This order gives a similar increase in the limits for hovercraft. However, in 1971 and in the order which is before the House, in the case of hovercraft there was and is excluded from the global liability the liability to passengers for death, personal injury and luggage. Shipowners can include passenger claims in the global limitation, but they will be limited in so doing when the 1976 London Convention comes into force. Provision for the United Kingdom implementation of that convention is included in the Merchant Shipping Bill, which is at present under consideration in another place.
  I should explain what the London Convention will do in regard to shipping. It will not allow the shipowner to include his liability to the passenger in the global liability, but it will fix a separate global liability of £16 million for any one incident, regardless of the size of the ship, for liability to passengers for death or personal injury. To apply this global liability of £16 million to hovercraft would, in practice, have no effect because the largest hovercraft has a capacity of just over 400 passengers and if that hovercraft were fully laden and every passenger was able to claim the maximum
  390
  of £30,000, it would still fall short of the global limitation for shipping of £16 million.
  It is intended that the order before the House will come into operation on 1st April. We have had all the necessary consultations and we are satisfied that it will not cause inconvenience. I beg to move.
  Moved, That the draft Hovercraft (Civil Liability) Order 1979, laid before the House on 19th February, be approved. —(Lord Jacques.)
  4.15 p.m.
  Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, there is really not too much to say about this order. Of course the House will be grateful to the noble Lord for explaining the order. We on this side of the House have no wish to hold it up or to oppose it. Indeed, as it is an order, despite its long and detailed provisions, we would not be able to amend it even if we wanted to. Therefore, all we could do would be to reject it, which clearly is not desirable.
  However, briefly, I should like to sound one note of warning. In recent months and years we have considered a number of orders relating to hovercraft, and in general we seem to be applying to them the full panoply of civil aviation legislation. As the noble Lord has explained, that is not strictly true in the case of this order because here we are introducing some of the principles of maritime legislation. But I hope that we shall avoid the pitfall of so ensnaring these new, revolutionary craft in a tangle of complicated legislation that their effective operation becomes difficult or impossible. Already there are some doubts about what I shall call the "airworthiness" code—if that is the right word—which is applied to hovercraft. Some say that these craft are now so wrapped around in regulation that their exploitation will prove difficult. I have the impression that we shall do that in this other area of civil liability also.
  Of course passengers and shippers who use these craft are entitled to proper protection. Certainly this order provides for that. But I am concerned that we are making the whole fabric of the legislation surrounding these craft so complicated

  391
  that there may at least be a disincentive to operators to introduce them on a wider scale. However, having said that, I do not think that this is the time or the place to oppose the order. Indeed, I hope that your Lordships will agree to it.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, briefly, I should like to thank the Minister for the clear and lucid way in which as always, he presents the matter from the Front Bench. I should like to join with the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, in wondering whether the fabric of legislation relating to hovercraft is not being tied up too much with civil liability and liabilities in relation to maritime law and civil aviation. Therefore, after again thanking the noble Lord for his presentation, I simply want to raise the matter whether the Government would have in mind more flexibility and perhaps more originality as regards the liabilities and arrangements associated with this revolutionary kind of transport.
  Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in the area of civil liability the hovercraft is not being subjected to more regulation than shipping or air flight. What happened in 1971—which I think was very sensible—was that we applied to passengers and their luggage, not the law regarding air travel or shipping, but a modified version of the law relating to air travel. For example, the maximum liability was not that which applied to a passenger travelling by air, and under the new order it is not that which applies to a passenger travelling by air; it is less than half what the figure will be when we get the effect of the Carriage by Air and Road Bill, which puts the figure at £66,000 maximum.
  On cargo, both the 1971 order and the present order simply apply the maritime law, with suitable modifications. From my study of it, I am convinced that on this particular aspect of civil liability we are not subjecting the hovercraft transport industry to any great nuisance and that it is treated very fairly and in line with shipping and civil aviation.
  Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord for that information.

  THE COMMONWEALTH
  4.20 p.m.
  The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale)The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Greenwood of Rossendale) rose to call attention to the role of the Commonwealth and its continuing value; and to move for Papers. The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the flags of 40 Commonwealth countries flying today in Parliament Square in celebration of Commonwealth Day, I think it would be right that my first words today should be words of thanks to Her Majesty for the very wise Commonwealth Day statement that Her Majesty has issued. I should like, too, to thank two noble Baronesses in this House. The first is my noble friend the Government Chief Whip who found time for this debate. I know her devotion to the Commonwealth, and I know that when she led our delegation from the British Commonwealth Parliamentary Association at Kingston her speeches made a great contribution to the debates there.
  I must also thank the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. She and I, as members of the Executive of the CPA, heard at the same time that it would not be possible for another place to find time to discuss Commonwealth Day. Quite independently the noble Baroness and I thought that it might be possible to obtain time here. With what I know is characteristic generosity the noble Baroness was kind enough to entrust to me the privilege of moving this Motion this afternoon. I am truly appreciative of her kindness, although the responsibility of doing justice to a subject as great as this is a very heavy one indeed. I believe very strongly that next year and for many years to come this should be a great parliamentary occasion, with the Leaders of the parties reaffirming their belief in the ideals of the Commonwealth. It really is not good enough for Governments, or Oppositions, or anybody else to leave it to what one might call freelance work by Members of your Lordships' House. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will take that message very seriously indeed.
  I have in my hand a poster which was issued for Commonwealth Day by the Commonwealth Secretariat. It portrays tellingly and attractively the diversity of religions, languages, colours, legal systems

  393
  within the Commonwealth and, above all, it shows dramatically the youth and the youthfulness of the Commonwealth. In the vast Commonwealth, with its 950 million people, more than half of them are under the age of 25. They constitute a possible breeding ground for the evils of extremism and violence, but they also offer the most fertile soil for the ideals of tolerance, interdependence and coexistence which bind the Commonwealth together.
  It is a poster directed particularly at young people. I am told that when the Department of Education and Science were asked how many copies they would like they said 30,000. On being told that only 500 could be provided free they decided that 500 was the number that they wanted to use. Altogether in this country, which is still the heart of this great Commonwealth, whatever its titular position, no more than 3,000 of these posters were distributed; 52,000 went to overseas countries, and Canada itself produced 65,000. Really, my Lords, we must do much better than that on future occasions.
  May I now touch for a moment on the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association to which so many of us in this House and another place are tremendously indebted. It is an organisation which enjoys my confidence and affection, and looking at it I think objectively I have no hesitation in saying that it is well run, efficient, vigilant, and quite invaluable in preserving links between the Commonwealth countries. At this very moment, for example, at the 28th seminar of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association on Practice and Procedure there are 25 Commonwealth Parliamentarians; and I believe that Sir Robin Vanderfelt and Mr. Peter Molloy are doing a great service to the Commonwealth.
  Having been for a moment critical of the Department of Education and Science, I feel that I must praise the Government for having made a donation of £100,000 to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association's working capital fund. It now stands at £350,000. The largest and the smallest countries were among the first contributors, India and Gibraltar, and the Isle of Man was the first to put its money on the table.
  It has been a privilege for me to serve the Commonwealth in the Colonial Office and the Ministry of Overseas Development, and on the Board of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. It has been a privilege, and it has been equally a privilege to know and work with men like Mr. Nehru, whom I first met a few days after he had come out of a British prison when I was in Allahabad in 1933, and whom I last saw only a few weeks before his death. It has also been a privilege to be a disciple of my noble friend Lord Brockway. When I spoke twice at Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences I was proud to see how many of the leaders there I had met in the course of their campaign for independence, so that my feeling of privilege is indeed one which is extensive. I do not think I need remind your Lordships that the history of the Empire and the Commonwealth is a tangled story. It is not wholly good, but there is very little of which we need be ashamed and there is a very great deal of which we should be proud. With very few exceptions those who have moved into independence have done so on terms of friendship, and I hope that that friendship will endure for all time.
  I remember when I was Minister of Overseas Development returning from lunch with Colonel Ojukwu and driving through a Nigerian forest when I saw that we were flying the flag on the bonnet of the car. I asked the driver whether it should not be Lord Thurlow, as he now is, who should be riding in a car which was carrying the flag, and were we not infringing protocol by doing so. The Nigerian driver said, "Don't make me turn it down, Sir, the people love it. It reminds them of the good old colonial days". When a few minutes later we broke down in a village there was ample demonstration of the pleasure on the part of the local inhabitants.
  Apart from the links, and apart from the friendship, there is not very much wrong with a system which has produced from very small countries indeed men of the stature of Seewoosagur Ramgoolam of Mauritius, Joshua Hassan in Gibraltar, John Compton in St. Lucia, Seretse Khama in Botswana, George Price in Belize, Harry Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore, Ratu Mara in Fiji—and so one could go on almost indefinitely. But there must

  395
  have been something to enable those dependent territories to produce men of the statesmanlike stature of those to whom I have referred.
  I sometimes wonder whether perhaps we have gone a little too far. I am not absolutely convinced that it is in their own interest or wise in the wider interest to give independence to countries which are too small and too poor to sustain it; they can become dangerously unstable. Even in the 'sixties there is reason to believe the United States and Soviet Union were getting a little anxious about the speed of decolonisation by Great Britain. That was why, at the Colonial Office, I pioneered a new form of associated statehood in December 1965. I hoped it would facilitate federation and the forging of special relationships between tiny countries and their larger friends. I also called a conference to discuss the problems of the smaller territories; it came to be known as the "What shall we do with Pitcairn?" conference, and we never had a wholly satisfactory answer to our question.
  However, inside the Colonial Office I enunciated what I called the "piano stool principle of colonial policy", having taken the title from an occasion when a man arriving at a party saw a friend of his sitting at the piano. He went to his friend and asked, "What are you doing sitting at the piano? You can't play", and his friend replied, "I can't, but as long as I sit here nobody else can play either". There is of course a moral in that story because so long as we are in control of various parts of the world they will not fall into the hands of those who may not be the best friends of this country—and my goodness how much we owe to the peoples of the Commonwealth and the Colonies during the two world wars we have undergone—though it is not for me to remind your Lordships that nature abhors a vacuum.
  I wish to pay tribute to the men and women of the Colonial Service. I do not think it is sufficiently appreciated how very different they were from the diplomats in the Foreign Office and in the Commonwealth Relations Office, as it then was. In the Colonial Service they were not diplomats; they were the practical men who dammed rivers, built bridges, ad-
  396
  ministered law, protected health, looked after security and did all the things to make the territories to which they were sent viable, tolerant and civilised. Today especially we must salute them, just as we do the civil servants in India and Burma of earlier years.
  I have concluded after a great deal of thought that the impact of membership of the European Community has been less damaging to the interests of the Commonwealth than I feared at one time would be the case. It has had some detrimental effects, but I hope that perhaps the noise many of us made at the time may have been partly responsible for the fact that both Mr. Heath and the Labour Government went out of their way to protect the interests of the Commonwealth in their negotiations. I know that the present Prime Minister is utterly devoted to the cause of the Commonwealth and I believe I can say without fear of contradiction that my right honourable friend Mrs. Hart has been an absolutely first-class Minister of Overseas Development, and that the protection that has come to the developing countries has come in large measure through her efforts.
  I am always a little afraid that we may get rather self-righteous when we read lessons to other Commonwealth countries on how they should conduct their affairs, because what is appropriate to us is certainly not in every case appropriate to them. Democracy can taken many forms. But I am encouraged by the fact that Parliaments seem to be coming back into favour. After an interval of six years, Swaziland has a new Parliament; Bangladesh had elections last year; Ghana returns to the parliamentary fold in July; Nigeria, with 20 Parliaments, will become a parliamentary democracy by 1st October; and I know your Lordships will share my pleasure that the Clerk Designate of Ghana's National Assembly, Mr. Aggrey-Orleans, is here on attachment in the Palace of Westminster.
  I am more grateful than I can say to my noble friend Lord Shackleton for having at some inconvenience come here this afternoon. I hope that when my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts replies to the debate he will reaffirm in the most robust manner that there will be no change in the status of Gibraltar, Belize or the

  397
  Falkland Islands without the genuinely full-hearted support of those people who want to remain British and who do not want to become Spanish, Argentinian or Guatemalan. I can see no point in the rounds of talk with Guatemala and Spain and the Argentine which, every time they take place and however altruistic the purpose of my honourable and right honourable friends in the Government, only go to cause anxiety and to unsettle the people of the territories whose future is inevitably going to be discussed.
  On one occasion, I went to a social occasion linked with the United Nations in New York and I found myself pinned in a corner by the Spanish Ambassador. It was a terribly noisy party and I could not hear a word he was saying, so every minute or so I would say very loudly and firmly, "We do not regard Gibraltar as negotiable." I hope Lord Goronwy-Roberts will say that our Government still do not regard Belize, the Falkland Islands or Gibraltar as negotiable. I beg to move for Papers.
  House adjourned during pleasure, and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.
  4.38 p.m.
  Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the House will be indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for having introduced this debate today. As a former Secretary of State for the Colonies and as a former Minister of Overseas Development, no one can be more qualified than he to open such a debate and, as one would have expected, he spoke with great knowledge and was immensely stimulating. It was no coincidence, as he explained, that this debate should have been introduced on Commonwealth Day, but even if it had not been introduced on Commonwealth Day it remains a highly important subject, one to which too often people give nodding approval but for which in their hearts of heart they would like to see a clearly defined future.
  Of course that is never possible. When a young man asks his superior, "What is my future?", the only real answer is, "Be yourself,' work hard and contribute your best in whatever circumstances you may find yourself, and then you will have a future". I believe that advice applies equally to the Commonwealth, but with a
  398
  much more pungent line; it has, in my view, a hugely important part to play not just in self-interest or self-advancement, although they may play a part too, but as a force of stability, maturity and collective judgment in a turbulent world.
  Those who see the Commonwealth standing merely as an obelisk to past glories fail totally to comprehend the substantial latent talent for good and for world understanding which is contained within its curiously undefined limits. The Commonwealth, like your Lordships' House, is unique; there is nothing like it in the world. It has rightly been described as a microcosm of the world; a voluntary union of countries which has neither rules nor obligations, and yet of which one person in four throughout the world is a member, the common cohesive factor of which is a shared history, a common language, and a natural and genuine friendship. Into this history has moulded and developed an attitude of common approach and sensitivity to world affairs, and when this essence (as one might call it) is distributed throughout the globe—through Europe, Africa, the Americas, the Caribbean and the Pacific—no one can really doubt that that holds great potential for the influence, for better or for worse, of world events.
  Throughout the world there is a common tendency developing within countries and between countries; and it is that of size. The village school gives way to the comprehensive; the small firm becomes a member of a group; and so countries in their turn flocculate together in various groupings throughout the world. One may wonder what is the cause of this. I suggest that there are two reasons, and they are both connected. The first is power; not necessarily, but sometimes, the overt clamouring to dominate. Frequently, though not always, the inverse applies when, as in a run on the bank, if you do not get in quickly, too, you will be left out in the cold with nothing. The second reason is the fear of the unknown, and the consequent desire to feel the hand of friendship. No one can stand by and witness the extraordinary sophisticated capacity which man has developed for himself to blow to pieces not only his enemies but also himself and his environment without being terrified for the future, and frightened of the unknown. Of course,

  399
  there is nothing new in the fear of the unknown; it affects each generation in turn. It is only when the unknown becomes known, and the future becomes the past, that history almost seems obvious. In the same way, no one in the free West can view the march of Communism across the countries of the world without asking, "Is it going to stop, and if so, where, and what can I do to prevent it? "No one can watch the development of world economics, the scales of size which ensue, without asking, "Ought we to be part of this or part of that?"
  So we have seen the understandable grouping together of countries for whatever purpose—military, economic or ethnic—sometimes to dominate, but mostly, at least in the Free World, to protect and to preserve. The danger is that these organisations may stand like huge chrysanthemums, all broadly based, but inward-looking; and if they become inward-looking, they stand the danger of creating for themselves, and for others, a whole series of new and additional problems.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, said that he was apprehensive at the time the United Kingdom joined the European Community, and he was glad that it had not worked out as badly as he had thought. There were some who then said that we were turning our backs on the Commonwealth. I never believed that that was so, nor that the option ever was the Community or the Commonwealth. Britain can be of greatest value to the Commonwealth if Britain is strong, and if Britain's membership of the Community will help to make Britain strong, her membership of the Community can be only of benefit to the Commonwealth. Equally, if Britain can help to contribute not only economically but, more importantly, by influence and by judgment, to a strong Europe, that will benefit not only Europe but the Commonwealth, too, provided that Europe is not permitted to become self-orientated; and this is where the influence of the Commonwealth can be substantial.
  If Britain by virtue of her Commonwealth association with countries all round the world can import into the Community a realisation of the inter-
  400
  dependence, and the dependence, of other countries, possibly right at the other side of the world, on the actions of the Community and of Europe, that will help Europe to be, as it must be determined to be, outward-looking, not inward-looking. In the same way, in other parts of the world the meetings with which members of the Commonwealth may find themselves involved—for example, the Organisation of African Unity, or the Association of South-East Asian Nations—can only be enriched and be less self-orientated if the Commonwealth members can bring to those organisations the knowledge and experience of the problems of other parts of the world which they will have gained by their membership of the Commonwealth. Of course the intimate, friendly, family meetings of Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences, with their lack of rigidity, add greatly to the fullness of genuine understanding.
  Meritorious as these groupings may be, the world cannot be separated into watertight containers whose occupants are each beavering away for their own ends. We all depend upon the actions of our own organisations of which we are members, but we are all affected by the actions of those organisations of which we are not members, and the Commonwealth, by being a harmonious extract of the nations, the creeds, and the races which cover the world can bring, I venture to suggest, a maturity, and indeed a serenity, of judgment to those organisations which will enable them to become less introspective and more outgiving for the benefit of each other and of the world. In an age which requires to quantify the value of a person or an organisation by means of statistical facts or figures, or units of output, it is as well to remember that the most significant factors which tend to alter events are the unquantifiable: confidence, judgment, understanding, experience, loyalty, and trust; and it is these in which the Commonwealth is both rich and unique.
  I was glad to hear the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, pay a tribute to the colonial officers of years gone by who gave so much to the developing countries of their generation. Nowadays we tend to apologise for the Empire and the past as if it were something of which to be ashamed; but it is not. The Empire was the precursor of the Commonwealth; the United Kingdom disseminated across the

  401
  world the rule of law, parliamentary democracy, and the technology of the day, and it thereby helped those countries to grow. There is nothing to be ashamed of in that. It is true that what may have been done, or the way in which it was done years ago, might be unacceptable were it to be done in that fashion today, but it is a cardinal error to criticise the past with the standards of the present. In falling into that error people sometimes fail to acknowledge, or to accord approval of, and even worse, they register disapproval of, the work which was done by the people of the Colonial Service and the leadership which the United Kingdom gave, and still gives, and from which other countries materially and significantly benefited.
  But as times change, so do methods and attitudes change. The Commonwealth itself changes, and therein lies its strength. The qualities and requirements of leadership change; and it is leadership which the world and the Commonwealth require. I was impressed by a definition of the qualities of leadership which I think refers as aptly to the Commonwealth as it does to the individual. It was given by the late Keith Erskine of Securicor. I have inverted a sentence, but he said that,
  "Leadership is not by driving, by compulsion and enforcement, by carping criticism or by reluctance to make allowances. Leadership is by example, by quiet authority, by warm understanding, by timely appreciation and by patience".
  What a motto for the United Kingdom, and what a motto for the Commonwealth!
  It is far easier to criticise and to condemn, with all the rectitude which such condemnation implies, rather than to understand—and, having understood, to solve. Take Rhodesia, and the fearful problems which surround that country. I have never been there, and I therefore feel it almost an impertinence to comment other than to say that it is easy for those who are miles away from the scene, and who, mercifully for them, do not have to live with the problems and the tensions with which that country bristles, to criticise and condemn, separated as they are by miles both physically and emotionally from the contact point of reality. I wonder whether there is not here an opportunity for the Commonwealth to bring to bear its understanding, humanity and corporate wisdom to help a colleague in distress. Such action would help the
  402
  United Kingdom from getting into a position of isolation and exposure in the councils of the world; and if the immediate solution to the Rhodesian problem, whatever it turns out to be, results in the long-term in the infiltration of Russian influence and Communism to that country, then that will have a disastrous effect on the future of Africa, the freedom of the West and the Commonwealth. So the Commonwealth has a direct interest in ensuring the stability of Rhodesia.
  My Lords, the diversity and the corporateness of the Commonwealth can be a stabilising influence in the world; and if such influence is needed now, how much more will it be needed in the future? When we see a country like Iran, a short while ago the stabilising influence of the Middle East, suddenly blow up as it has in the last few weeks, one cannot but say, "Where next?" It exemplifies the difficulties of sudden wealth, of over-rapid economic development and of expectations stimulated but unfulfilled—expectations which can be neither curtailed nor contained; the perfect entree for Communism. This creeping mycelium of Communism can be seen at work throughout the world, whether it is in the build-up in the Russian naval fleet or her activities in Africa and elsewhere. The West must not be asleep, and nor must the Commonwealth be asleep, to the vulnerability of the Free World to the supply of materials such as chrome, manganese, vanadium plutonium and uranium. These are basic supplies which we all take for granted but over which Russia and Southern Africa—South Africa, Namibia and Rhodesia—have a virtual cartel; and if Russian influence were to take over, overtly or covertly, in Southern Africa, that could deny to the West, and especially to us in Europe, these basic raw materials. Russia does not have to acquire; to deny is sufficient.
  That is why, in our search to protect the freedom of the world from Communism, the Commonwealth has such a unique part to play, where all members are united, from their various origins and from their different corners of the globe, to stay free. They can together act as a buffer against Communism. By their conduct they can be an answer to Communism; and by their interlocking support they can protect each other from Communism from within.

  403
  My Lords, members do need mutual support, and I should like to give your Lordships an example of what I mean. Some two years ago I happened to be in New Zealand, and I learned how that country wanted to develop the techniques of deep-water fishing, which they had never done before. They did not have the boats, the knowledge or the expertise. They particularly wanted partners and advice; and, above all, they wanted, for obvious and historical reasons, the United Kingdom to help them. Although some people did go out from the United Kingdom to investigate the situation, the fact is that, whatever the reasons were—and I have no doubt they were very good reasons—out of 40 approaches from companies and Governments to help New Zealand develop its deep-water fishing industry, not one came from the United Kingdom despite New Zealand's predilection for United Kingdom help. New Zealand is therefore now getting her help and her know-how elsewhere—from the Japanese, from the Koreans, from the Germans and from the Russians.
  I have no doubt that the New Zealanders are perfectly capable of looking after themselves and of dealing with the Russians; they are pretty old hands at the game. But what of the other members of the Commonwealth in the Pacific? There are some 12 independent States there. Apart from Australia and New Zealand, there are countries like Fiji, Tonga, Samoa, the Solomon Islands, the Gilbert Islands, Tuvalu, Nauru, Papua New Guinea and so forth. Some of them are tiny States: Nauru has only 4,000 square miles. They are highly vulnerable to pressures and to influences. Now that they are independent they are, quite naturally, taking a pretty close look at their traditional friends, to see what they make of them, and also at those who, for whatever reason, would wish to become their new friends. As their traditional friends it is imperative that we make sure that we measure up to this scrutiny.
  The Russians and the Chinese have both been active in this area in the last two years, establishing a political relationship with some of these States and offering aid for development—ports, airports, fisheries development and so forth. They are all apparently harmless projects in themselves, but we know the Russian
  404
  pattern. First they undercut mercantile freight rates, then they get fishing facilities, then anchorages, then port facilities and then sometimes bases; and what initially starts by being a harmless entry of a fishing vessel eventually becomes an intrusion by a naval vessel. It is no quirk of accident which has permitted Russia's navy to develop from being a mere coastal navy 20 years ago to being a full ocean-going navy today. So, my Lords, as the United Kingdom pulls out its physical presence from the Pacific by granting independence to these Commonwealth States, we must not negate the responsibility, which still firmly adheres to us, of ensuring that there remains behind a credible and reliable political and aid presence. There cannot be left a vacuum for others to fill. The influence of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth is vital to the stability of the Pacific, and we must not expect Australia and New Zealand to provide that on their own.
  Some of what I have said makes one feel that the future is alarming; but the power and indeed the influence which the Commonwealth can exert for the benefit of the world, has, in my modest judgment, never been greater—and, of the two, influence and not power is far the more effective and far the more acceptable. As the United Kingdom is encouraging more members of the Commonwealth to become independent, and to be responsible for their own affairs, there is a tendency to feel that, as with children who have grown up and come of age, the parents must not interfere and the younger generation must be free to do as they will. That is right; but, my Lords, the influence of the parents and the home continues, is substantial and is vital.
  So it is with the Commonwealth. The influence of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth must continue, it is substantial and it is vital. In case we feel obliged, for wholly meritorious reasons, to be over-hasty in relinquishing our influence over newly-emerging independent members of the Commonwealth, I can do no better, in conclusion, than borrow some words from the autobiography of my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, The Way the Wind Blows. In a few succinct but telling words he encompassed the whole cross-current of forces which are exerted on a growing

  405
  family and which, I venture to suggest, apply with equal justification to the growing family of the Commonwealth as they do to the growing family of an individual. He said:
  "The home must not be possessive. It is enough that it should be there".
  I would merely add that it is up to us to see that it is there.
  5 p.m.
  Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, the House is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for initiating this debate appropriately enough on Commonwealth Day. I would agree with him absolutely in saying that it should be an annual occasion both in this House and in another place to have, as near as possible to the date of Commonwealth Day, a debate on the Commonwealth itself. As a former Secretary of State for the Commonwealth, albeit only for a short period, I had probably less than 12 months' experience in that Department. Having started off as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations and finishing up as Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs, I had within the short period of 12 months lost my "relations" and simply finished up with "affairs". But the experience was well worth having. I was, in fact, the last but one, I think, of the Ministers before the merger with the Foreign Office. At that time there were rumours throughout the Commonwealth of the possible merger which was to take place, and the idea was not thought to be entirely acceptable to the Commonwealth countries. Certainly the older Commonwealth countries like Canada, Australia and New Zealand felt it a little unwise, to say the least, that they should be linked with foreign countries within one Ministry and within one Department. Some of the new, emerging, independent countries, too, who had elected to become part of the Commonwealth on attaining independence felt that this merger would be unwise for they certainly did not regard themselves in any way as foreign countries. However, all those fears seem to have been unfounded and the present arrangement of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office would now appear to be quite acceptable to both the old and the new Commonwealth countries; perhaps for the very simple reason that the title of the Depart-
  406
  ment includes the word "Commonwealth" —something quite as simple as that.
  I am sure that the world history of the past century will be marked by the fascinating fact that what was originally the British Commonwealth of Nations should have evolved into a Commonwealth of Nations independent of the United Kingdom, into an association of nations equal in stature and no longer subordinate to any other. Perhaps another interesting, and to some extent anomalous, fact is that within the Commonwealth something like 20 countries are republican; and yet are perfectly happy to accept Her Majesty the Queen as the Head of the Commonwealth. It is an excellent thought. In one sense the word "Commonwealth" is a little wrong; it is a bit of a misnomer, because the wealth, or, for that matter, the poverty, of the individual Commonwealth countries is certainly not common to all. There is a considerable diversity economically within them. But I like to feel that there is much that is common to the 36 or 40 countries. As one example, most of the parliamentary systems and procedures are based on our own, itself the result of centuries of parliamentary government. Most of the new Parliaments which have resulted from countries gaining independence and retaining Commonwealth membership have had very willing help from our own Clerks at the Table with their vast experience of Parliament. And that help has been greatly appreciated.
  It is not always easy to install exactly one's own parliamentary system on a new emerging and developing country. I recall one story of such a country being anxious to follow us in every possible way and to emulate our institutions, and they were asking questions about what happened in the British Parliament. One such question was, "What do you do to persuade party supporters to vote together in Parliament? "Of course, the short reply was, "We use Whips." I wonder if that reply was ever really understood in some of the new developing countries.
  When moving round the Commonwealth one cannot fail to be impressed by the work and activity (which has already been mentioned) of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Their seminars, conferences, exchange visits of Parliamentarians between one Commonwealth

  407
  country and another are invaluable. One cannot overestimate the value of such visits. There is no surer way of Commonwealth Parliamentarians getting to know each other better than to meet in that way in each other's country. Equally, I think the biennial Commonwealth Prime Ministers' conferences held in different Commonwealth cities are extremely important. They arc certainly not always the easiest or quietest of meetings of Commonwealth heads. Nevertheless, they provide wonderful opportunities for the Prime Ministers of both the very large and the very smallest of Commonwealth countries to meet together on a basis of absolute equality.
  Following the unilateral declaration of independence in Rhodesia, most of the Commonwealth countries were not only incensed at what had happened in that country but many of them blamed the British Government. I had the pleasure—the doubtful pleasure at that time, in 1966—of attending the Prime Ministers' Conference in London with the Prime Minister. During the time of that conference, which lasted just over a fortnight, the Prime Ministers not only got very annoyed and truly let off steam, but at one time even talked of expelling Great Britain from the Commonwealth. So one can see how free discussion was on an occasion such as that. Looking back and reflecting, I do not think that any of it does any harm at all; in fact, to the contrary, it does a great deal of good. But on that occasion, thanks to the Prime Minister's calm and careful handling, assisted by some of the heads of the older Commonwealth countries, the conference closed as usual with an agreed statement. I am sure that most of the Prime Ministers' conferences are a little more restrained than that one was, but whatever heat is engendered these conferences are well worth while.
  On a rather different aspect of Commonwealth affairs, I can recall that in the early days, in the formative days of the Commonwealth, there was a feeling that the Commonwealth Secretariat, separate from the departmental ministries of the countries, was quite unnecessary. I once heard it described as a luxury. That view could not have been more wrong, as time has proved. With the increasing number of countries gaining their independence and
  408
  electing to remain within the Commonwealth, the Commonwealth Secretariat has proved not only necessary but essential. I personally should like to pay tribute to its work.
  As the countries for which we in the British Parliament have some responsibility become fewer and more and more countries gain independence, I feel that the future role of the Commonwealth should remain very much as we know it now without many changes. It is my hope that with each independence we shall see a new member of our Commonwealth club, if we may call it that, sharing some common bonds but always retaining their own national characteristics and cultures.
  I have no desire to be in any way controversial in a debate of this sort, but I would add as regards the difficult problem of Rhodesia, which will finally be settled when this Parliament grants Rhodesia independence as the new State of Zimbabwe, that I hope it will be within the Commonwealth of Nations. 1 should like to see that before next Commonwealth Day.
  5.1 p.m.
  The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, everyone is grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for initiating this debate on this particular day and for the opportunity to hear another noble Lord who was Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs speaking so fully from his experience. The problem of the Commonwealth is that you suffer on the one hand from over-enthusiasm, which may be highly emotive, and on the other hand from almost total indifference and hostility. It is difficult because it is rather evanescent to ask what are the facts today? What really is the situation as it exists?
  I have had the honour of attending the service held this afternoon in Westminster Abbey along with the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I think that it is right that there should be formal expression of concord from time to time. This is an annual service, well organised by the Dean and in the presence of the Head of the Commonwealth. There you can see a common affirmation by those representing every big religious body throughout the world, not only in English,

  409
  but in our old languages: Arabic, Pali, Sanskrit, Hebrew and Punjabi; and, beside those religions, also four branches of the Christian Church. To me this represents a common respect for standards and institutions. Just like us, members of the Commonwealth do not live up to their standards. Nobody ever does. If you lived wholly up to your standards, they would probably be hardly worth living up to. That does represent standards which we are recognising, and it seems to me of outstanding importance that all should know they are recognised throughout the Commonwealth.
  Our association has grown up in an odd way. The only rule is the recognition of the Head of the Commonwealth. There is no obligation in politics, in economics or on the military sphere. The Commonwealth is governed by the standards which whoever is currently leading sets for himself. That is the only standard that we have. That is the basis on which this organisation will continue. I happen to believe in what Sir Robert Menzies said—that this is primarily an association of people and not an association of governments. In point of fact, we do not very much mind if governments change from time to time in different Commonwealth countries. They may change here, they may change elsewhere. What we are interested in are the lives of other people who live there.
  In many ways, the political sphere is the most difficult one; and, of course, as the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, has said, the meeting of Commonwealth Prime Ministers is of extreme importance. But this does not bring it down to the people in this country or indeed to the people living in the Commonwealth, and there we can all do something. Not enough is done, not enough is recognised. The most obvious aspect is professional training, seeing that the experience which we have is being more widely diffused. This is most notable in the legal profession. The Inns of Court take a great deal of trouble with students who come here. The expertise of medicine, engineering, music and accountancy have to be learned and understood in the complicated structure of a modern state. We have the advantage of years of experience in running organisations and building them up. New countries are suddenly thrown into this difficult and technical world, a world
  410
  riven with every form of violence, and they have to face it and build up their structure. It is in that that we can make a big contribution.
  There is another contribution, and I put it in the simplest terms. I have been associated with the Victoria League, among other organisations, for a number of years. The purpose of the league is to ask visitors into people's houses. In my own experience in various countries nothing is more revealing, interesting and human than to see how other people live. We can all do that in different ways and it is worth a great deal of trouble. It cannot be done simply and it is not always economic, it is an expensive business; but it makes an immensely human contribution to what I say is a gathering of people. May I also say, going back a little on the professional side, that the top members of our professions in this country can do a tremendous job by visiting various members of the Commonwealth. Their presence is immensely welcome. There is a certain pride in showing how they do it. I was delighted to hear three comments on how possibly it can be done better. Here is a service that is open to everybody.
  The noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, said perhaps we were a little self-righteous. I think we are. We are far too ready to criticise what happens in other countries; things to criticise happen here, too. It is not so often that the media get hold of things happening elsewhere which are infinitely worthwhile. It is generally recognised that this heritage in which we find ourselves has come to us by chance. There was never much theory behind it; but what one can say is that if it was not here we should give our eyes to have it. Not only that; it is the object of envy of many other countries who ask, "How did you do it?". Frankly, there is no simple explanation. I am afraid that one must ask the question whether we are going to be up to the unique tasks which come to us. That is what will be the test of whether or not this will continue.
  It is unfortunate that we are still the hub of the wheel. I should like to see many more spokes between the other parts of the wheel. They are growing, but growing slowly. There still rests with us a very heavy burden, and the growth of the cross-spokes is taking place. There was

  411
  a time when Winston Churchill spoke of our finest hour. A Swiss commentator said today that it was not very likely anyone would say that of us today. None the less, it would be foolish for us to write off the Commonwealth. It has not developed as anyone thought it would; and, with great respect, I think it will go on changing in a great many different ways. There is something in my experience strangely different in going into a Commonwealth country compared with any other country, however agreeable, pleasant and good they are.
  There was a time when the Commonwealth essentially stood for law and order. We do not stand for that today: some people may say we stand for the permissive society. I think it is a pity that we should not distinguish more sharply where liberty is related to permissiveness. There can be no liberty without a standard of organisation and law. I think we should welcome this debate. I entirely agree with the noble Lord that we should hold a debate of this kind, or something like it, and it may be that among the 40 other members of the Commonwealth some similar debate is taking place. We shall learn about that in due course. What we do know today is that man has invented the ability to destroy himself completely, and the only way we shall stop that is if we have mutual respect and understanding of people who live in other countries.
  5.31 p.m.
  Lord THURLOW: My Lords, I share the gratitude that has been expressed to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, for introducing this motion. I am glad that some years ago he had the opportunity to share the heartwarming experience of the reaction to the British flag in Nigeria. I may say that even when I was widely believed personally to have lit the fire of the first large-scale assassinations of Ibos in Northern Nigeria—I believe many still believe this—there was nevertheless no disposition to be other than courteous to the British flag when I circulated in what later became known as Biafra. I hasten to explain that I had this dastardly reputation because I had flown a thousand miles into the heart of the anti-Ibo North in order to play in a polo match!
  I think this is an appropriate occasion for a stocktaking, not only because it is
  412
  Commonwealth Day but because it is five years since we acceded to the EEC Treaty, it is over 15 years since the Commonwealth Secretariat was established and it is more than 10 years since the merger of the Foreign and Commonwealth Offices. We can now get a certain perspective. In the debate in your Lordships' House after the referendum three years ago, I think we nailed to the mast the illusion that there was some kind of dichotomy between entering Europe and being a member of the Commonwealth, and that these were in some way alternatives. I hope this cry will not be raised again by those atavistic forces which are venturing to try to resurrect the issue of entry into Europe. It is completely fallacious.
  There are two factors which in retrospect, I think, can be held to have a special responsibility for the continuing strength of the Commonwealth. The first one, as the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, reminded us, is the importance, which we cannot exaggerate, of personal links. Here, I venture to ask those responsible for staffing and for the training of our own officials who handle relations with foreign and Commonwealth countries to try to ensure that in the future, as in the past, there will be a maximum amount of continuity and personal acquaintance among those who conduct relations with the Commonwealth and their opposite numbers.
  The second factor to which attention has already been drawn is the continuing extremely valuable work of the Commonwealth Secretariat. As the noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, commented, when the Secretariat was established some people suggested that perhaps it was a bit of a frill. That certainly was not the feeling in the Commonwealth office. In the Commonwealth Office there was unrelieved joy that at long last the Office was being relieved of the function of general co-ordination of matters of common concern in the Commonwealth—a function which had for long confused opinion and led to a good deal of misunderstanding.
  The Secretariat has gone from strength to strength. I should like to refer to one or two illustrations of initiatives that it has taken and of new ventures which are achieving most valuable results. The

  413
  first is the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. Every Commonwealth country has its own instrument for administering aid to other Commonwealth countries, but the Commonwealth Secretariat has started this new concept of each Commonwealth country being able to receive financial help from central Commonwealth funds, to enable the poorer countries to send personnel with experience relevant to the needs of other countries in the Commonwealth and to help them when they themselves could not afford to pay for it. I think that is useful, and certainly a great number of visits by experts are being financed in this way. Last year there were 300 attachments of such experts of over six months' duration, and that is very useful. Again, in the field of education and training this new fund has 500 projects, some of them involving considerable numbers; and it is being further developed.
  Thirdly, the Commonwealth Secretariat, through this fund, is able to help the weaker members of the Commonwealth to get on with the difficult and complicated business of export promotion. We ourselves in this country know that it is no easy matter to export: it is very hard, complicated and sophisticated work. Through the Fund for Technical Cooperation, the weaker and less experienced countries receive the kind of guidance and professional help that this difficult export promotion requires.
  Another illustration of a new initiative is the youth programme. It is increasingly realised—and the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, I think, referred to the fact that over half the 1,000 million population of the Commonwealth is under 25—that there is a youth dimension to every social, economic and indeed political problem. We tend to think that youth will somehow grope its own way towards playing its part in the different specialised fields. This youth programme, set up by a former Heads of Government meeting, takes a much more sophisticated approach than that. It recognises that within each Commonwealth country there must be leadership and there must be the development of a form of profession to give guidance as to how the younger bracket can in fact be led to play a positive, active and constructive part in as many as possible of the spheres of national life.
  414
  The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, referred to the undoubted fact that the Commonwealth is essentially an association of peoples rather than an association of Governments alone, and to the importance of professional contacts in this. I should like to pay a very warm tribute to the work that has been done, so unobtrusively and so effectively for the last 10 years or more, by the Commonwealth Foundation. We do not see very much in the headlines about the Commonwealth Foundation, partly because its extremely able Director-General, Mr. Chadwick, is a most unassuming person who does not seek headlines, but the Foundation needs all the help that it can get. We cannot exaggerate the value over the years of more and more professional contacts being built up and cherished by continuous meetings and interchange of visits, and the Commonwealth Foundation has, by its efforts, enormously increased the number of interchanges and conferences of this kind.
  I should like to ask the Government one question in the field of aid. A couple of years ago I raised the question of what seems to me to be an unnecessary and tiresome lacuna in our arrangements for giving aid to some of the very small territories that want aid most. Those like the noble Lord, Lord Grey, behind me, and myself also, who know the particular circumstances of very small islands, realise that it is very difficult to get viable commercial projects going in these little places where everything costs so much to start. It goes without saying that in small islands almost everything that is needed for a new project has to be brought in from outside. It is immensely costly, compared to building a hotel in this country, to build one in a small island in the Caribbean. Everything has to be carted in from outside, and across customs barriers, too. Is this not a field where it is clear that the aid-giving countries, such as ourselves, should seek to prime the pump? I think it is perfectly clear. We are told that it cannot be done. Why cannot it be done?
  Direct aid is given by the Ministry of Overseas Development, but it is not given to private concerns. Private enterprises, where they are to be helped from Commonwealth sources and aid sources, are helped by our instrumentality of the Commonwealth Development Corporation. But

  415
  the Commonwealth Development Corporation can help only projects which can be seen by reasonable estimates to be commercially viable. So we have the lacuna that direct Government assistance cannot be given to a project, however worthwhile, because it is in private hands, and the CDC cannot prime the pump because the capital costs are too high for viability. Surely it is not beyond the wit of the extremely able men in Whitehall and the CDC to bridge this gap, and to allow direct Government money to move towards the CDC to enable them to administer projects which can help in starting up what will eventually be viable enterprises in these small countries, especially in the field of tourism. After all, we do it ourselves in the hotel field. We subsidise our private enterprise hotels. Why can we not do it for the dependencies that need it so much?
  Thirty years ago, at the time of the great debate about India and Pakistan joining the Commonwealth, I was rather a heretic about expanding the Commonwealth. I was very conscious of the value that we derived from the very close-knit ties that we had with our Commonwealth partners, which were so very clear in the post-war reconstruction period as well as during the war. Was it wise to inflate the Commonwealth? I was wrong. History has shown that this entirely new kind of Commonwealth, now with 40 members, has a part of the utmost value to play in the wider international community. Here is a nexus of people who can work together, who can trust each other and who can devise means of taking initiatives in the wider international stage of a kind that it is extremely difficult to generate in the pandemonium of 140 Governments, all exercising their muscle power. I was wrong, and I have no doubt whatever that the Commonwealth in its present form will go from strength to strength.
  5.37 p.m.
  Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, out of his very great practical experience of the Commonwealth, has given noble Lords very valuable and fresh information about the Commonwealth and has made very important suggestions. I am sure that we are all very grateful to him for letting us know what he thinks, out of his great
  416
  experience. I should like to join all other speakers in thanking my noble friend Lord Greenwood both for introducing this subject and for the manner in which he did so.
  I was for a time Secretary of State for Commonwealth Relations, as the position was then called, and I spent a lot of time studying what I thought held the Commonwealth together and constituted the glue and kept the whole thing going. I came to the conclusion that the heart of Commonwealth unity is a shared history. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, who is not in his place, that the whole thing was not planned in any way. It was brought about by history which affected us, as well as all the other members of the Commonwealth. From the beginning, the Commonwealth has continually changed and developed, often to the dismay of traditionalists, but if it had not developed continuously the Commonwealth could not exist today.
  The Commonwealth started as a completely Anglocentric Empire and then became an Anglocentric British Commonwealth. Canada always opposed the concept of a British Commonwealth, because this concept could not accommodate the French-speaking Canadians or, indeed, any other non-British element in the Commonwealth. But, at the same time, Canada was fearful of absorption into the United States and wanted the Commonwealth as a counterweight. Therefore, Canada wanted to see a Commonwealth continuing that had room for non-British elements, and Canada played a very important part in shaping the Commonwealth in such a way that it has survived till today. Only because the existing members had become sovereign, independent nations did Nehru, at the Prime Ministers' Conference in 1946, change his decision, already taken, to leave the Commonwealth. He saw with his own eyes that these existing members were so sovereign and so independent that India would not lose a jot of independence by continuing to remain in the Commonwealth. The same applied to the other Asian members. Because the Asian nations were in the Commonwealth, the African nations decided to stay in—and so on as each new wave of independence took place.
  The Commonwealth is the only international organisation that cannot be

  417
  joined. Nations can only grow into membership by evolving from colonial status to sovereign independence. One can say, indeed, that if there had been no Empire there would be no Commonwealth today. The form is that when a country attains independence it signifies its desire to remain in the Commonwealth. Then the existing members unanimously agree to accept it. A nation therefore does not join the Commonwealth; it continues in the Commonwealth and merely changes its status within it. Today this is standard and common practice, but the original establishment of this procedure was not so easy. I played a certain part in evolving the present formula in the complex arguments that took place in the case of India.
  At the same time as India continued in the Commonwealth, the British Commonwealth became simply "the Commonwealth". There were two main reasons for this. One was that more and more members had no British clement in their population. Secondly, the United Kingdom appropriated to itself the term "British", as in "British Rail" or "British Airways". It would, in any case, have been impossible to continue with the term "British Commonwealth", because that would imply that the Commonwealth belongs to Britain, in the same way as its railways do.
  Many factors arising out of the history of the Commonwealth helped to hold the Commonwealth together, and a good many of them have been mentioned by previous speakers. The recognition by every single member of the Queen as Head of the Commonwealth and the unrivalled esteem in which she is held throughout the Commonwealth is a vital unifying factor. And because the Commonwealth has a personal symbol of unity, it can have a total variety of flags and national anthems without losing unity. As some speakers have said, the Commonwealth is also held together by a network of official and unofficial economic, scientific, educational, medical, legal and cultural links. These are manifested, in the main, in Commonwealth-wide organisations, and they are based on a similarity of standards and ways of doing things throughout the Commonwealth.
  A point which I do not think has been mentioned so far but which seems to me to
  418
  be of considerable importance is that every member gains, through membership of the Commonwealth, in importance and status in the world. The smaller members would hardly be known at all if they did not attend Heads of State meetings. Even the larger members—Australia, Canada, India and the United Kingdom itself—gain in prestige and influence because of their membership of a Commonwealth that is spread over every ocean and every continent of the world.
  As my noble friend Lord Aylestone said—and I agree with him—the relatively recent and important factor of unity is the Commonwealth Secretary and Secretariat. When, at the beginning of the Commonwealth, Australia pressed for a Commonwealth Secretariat at almost every meeting of Prime Ministers in order to consolidate the position of the British in the Commonwealth, this was always blocked by Canada, for the reasons which I have given. Only when a large number of smaller members arose in the Commonwealth did they revive the idea of a Commonwealth Secretariat, but for the opposite reason from that which had inspired Australia in the beginning. They did not want the United Kingdom to go on organising Prime Ministers' meetings and the like. They wished this to be done by a body responsible to all members. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, that this has turned out to be a most valuable factor of unity in the Commonwealth. One result of the Commonwealth Secretariat is that Commonwealth meetings are no longer held automatically in London but in various Commonwealth capitals and that the local Prime Minister or Head of State presides.
  Another vital factor is that English is the language spoken by all leaders of Commonwealth countries. The English spoken in England is no longer "standard English". There is no "standard English"; every variety of vocabulary, pronunciation and even spelling is equally valid throughout not only the Commonwealth but all the English-speaking world. A continuing and visible proof of the unity of the Commonwealth is that so many Prime Ministers and Heads of Government regularly come from the ends of the earth to attend Heads of Government meetings. They show that they attach great importance to them. They give up time and

  419
  travel enormous distances to attend these regular meetings.
  The Commonwealth has practically reached its finite size and form. In no sense is it Anglocentric any more. One can no longer properly speak of Britain and the Commonwealth but of Britain as a member of the Commonwealth. I agree with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, that the Commonwealth will certainly develop further. I think that as it develops it may come closer together, because now no single country dominates it. That is what has held the Commonwealth, so to speak, apart. I think that it may well come together as it develops in the future. At the moment we can affirm with assurance that a Commonwealth that has developed and grown so far and that has shown its continuing value to its members will endure as a permanent, important and beneficent part of the world order.
  5.47 p.m.
  Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I should also like to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, and thank him for initiating this debate. When he and I realised that the Leader of the House of Commons had written on 8th March, 1978 that he was unable to find time for a debate this year, we were both very disturbed. Therefore, I am very grateful to him for taking on this task. I am also grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, for permitting us to hold this debate on 12th March when, we hope, other countries are holding similar debates. I should also like to thank the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, for what he has said. Having stayed with the noble Earl in the Far East, I know all about the splendid work that he did there.
  I feel very humble, because I think I am the first person to speak who has never held the post of Minister or administrator. On the other hand, I am a "grass roots" person, because I have worked in the Civil Service in Malaysia and have slept in long houses in Sarawak. I have also worked in India and have lived in a Basha building, eating rice with my fingers out of a quale. Therefore, I know about what I call the "grass roots" end of it, and I probably had to obey some of the orders of the noble Lords who have already spoken.
  I wish to mention the International Friendship League, of which I am the
  420
  President. This does exactly what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, wants. The League is completely voluntary, it has 30 branches, it runs three hostels, and it helps to bring people from overseas into English homes. The noble Earl ventured to suggest that this might he expensive, but my answer is that if we invite people into our homes for a cup of tea and a biscuit and make them feel welcome that is all that they want. They want to be invited into English homes to meet English people. I do not think that the type of hospitality that is extended to them matters.
  Turning to the problem of the English language, I believe that for the first time pidgin English was today read in Westminster Abbey. I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, can confirm that pidgin English was read today in the Abbey? The noble Earl says that he does not remember. I want to concentrate on the question of the Commonwealth Secretariat. I should like to pay a tribute to the marvellous Guyanese who is now the Secretary, Mr. Shridath Ramphal. I have read his report of the activities from April 1975 to 1977 and the progress in getting new members to come in and the money they have subscribed—£1,810,420 and, marvellously, a contribution of £1,000 from Nauru—are very good indeed.
  There is one difficulty in connection with which perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, will be able to assist. At the moment the officers work in five different places. There are 300 in staff of 20 different nationalities. Surely somewhere can be found for them and I am going to suggest Richmond Terrace. That has been empty for a long time; it is near the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and I believe the various countries would be quite pleased to contribute to the necessary alterations, if only they could get the whole organisation working together.
  I should like to quote a short poem which the Secretary-General of the Royal Commonwealth Society mentioned when he was talking about a changing world order. He said,
  "Not in this land alone,
  But be God's mercies known;
  From shore to shore,
  Lord Make the nations see;
  That men should brothers be,
  And form one family
  The wide world o'er.".

  421
  I think that really expresses what we feel today. He added that to form that family might well be the precondition of human survival on any tolerable basis. In my opinion one of the greatest things for which the Commonwealth stands is peace in this world, and, in my view, so long as the Commonwealth keeps together there is less chance of there being a world war. Also, I hope that English remains the working language because it is very useful in communications. Having been in the Council of Europe, I know only too well the difficulties one encounters when one has to put on earphones to hear the representatives of the different countries speaking. However good the interpretations are, it is not the same. I have been to four Commonwealth conferences of the parliamentarians and it has never been necessary to have any translations at all.
  Lord GORDON-WALKER: My Lords, one cannot make a joke when people are interpreting and others are listening through earphones.
  Baroness VICKERS: Yes, my Lords, it is particularly awkward when it is in German because they laugh about 10 minutes afterwards! I should also like to mention a very interesting little booklet entitled, From Governments to Grassroots which is the report of the advisory committee of the Commonwealth Secretariat which has done a wonderful job. It is on the relationships between the official and the unofficial Commonwealth and the references they were given were to study and report the scope for the greater role of the NGOs in the information and the education fields. There are two types of NGOs: the Commonwealth Institute, the Commonwealth Foundation and the Royal Commonwealth Society and there are others which I think could be made more use of. For instance, the Commonwealth Press Union. Surely they could help by including a leaflet with their CPV quarterly. This would be sent to many countries and would be very valuable. I think there should be discussions with the Commonwealth Broadcasting Association on how to exploit the interest which was promoted and which we all remember, by the wide television coverage of the Commonwealth Games and also of course the cultural festival which accompanied it.
  422
  The CBA and the Secretariat should study the feasibility of producing radio cassettes. It is easy to put material on to cassettes and they are easy to send away, and I think we should put on to cassettes the various aspects of life in Commonwealth countries, which could be used in schools. Some of the Governments have foreign exchange problems and I think some consideration should be given to easing the travel restrictions particularly, as has been mentioned, for young people because I think that hinders a lot of the conferences. Furthermore, the customs regulations should be reviewed. It is very aggravating that when one sends books to these various countries one has to pay a considerable duty upon them.
  In the excellent report of the Commonwealth Secretariat there is a list of the number of seminars. I tried to count them, but there are too many. I was interested that the multilateral trade negotiations were discussed, senior medical officers, education administration—and those were only a few, which I think were beneficial. Of course they have a tremendous number of publications, which I regret to say do not seem to find their way very far out of some of the offices. There is a splendid list—on economics, on education, on rural development (which has not been mentioned so far); on law, on science and technology and youth. This is not an original idea of mine because it is suggested in the report, but I should like to see the appointment of a co-ordinator who could co-ordinate the unofficial with the official Commonwealth. I believe that would be a great advantage. There are many NGOs, as we know and I have already mentioned two, but I should like to mention some that are definitely voluntary organisations. The Council for Education in the Commonwealth has three MPs as chairmen, one from each Party; it was formed in 1960 and I was one of the first chairmen. It has been carried on very well ever since. They should really be co-ordinated because they have a great many good ideas and I believe it would be an advantage. Then we had a debate with regard to overseas students affairs and the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, kindly answered it. When she was replying for Her Majesty's Government she said that no decision had been made, but time has passed since then and perhaps this evening the noble Lord may have a little more information.

  423
  Then there is the Women's Corona Society—and I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Grey of Naunton, is here because his wife is the present president. That is run entirely by women and has 29 branches in different countries. Interestingly enough, Nigeria has a big association with eight branches; the Gilbert Islands has two branches and Malawi has three, just to mention one large country and two smaller ones.
  Before people go overseas, and particularly business people and their wives, there are courses telling them about the money, about the language and giving them an insight into any country to which they are going. We also provide women speakers for the Commonwealth. So I should like to suggest that, in view of the fact that during the last 12 years it has been found that there are 20 Commonwealth professional associations, 15 national professional centres, all more or less working on their own, if this little booklet, From Governments to Grassroots, has done a worthwhile job we might find them putting some very useful ideas in front of the Government, and we could get co-ordination between the different organisations which are working in water-tight compartments.
  It has been said by one noble Lord that the Canadian Government in 1977 requested the Secretary-General to establish this actual committee. It has been established and, so far as I know, nothing has happened since. So I think it has done a worthwhile job and I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us something about it. In particular, I should like to know whether it is possible to co-ordinate the five different offices in some building where they can work more efficiently together.
  5.59 p.m.
  Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I must begin with an apology to my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale and to the Minister that I may not be here at the end of the debate. I am going to a Commonwealth occasion—the celebration of the anniversary of the independence of Mauritius. I should like to thank the noble Lord for his kind reference to myself, but still more the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers. I am pleased, as often
  424
  occurs, that I am following the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, and I shall be making some reference to what she has said later in my speech.
  My Lords, during 70 years of political activity I have seen four revolutions. The first is not often recognised—the political and social revolution in our own country. When I first became active in politics large numbers of working men had no vote; we had no manhood suffrage; of course we had no women's suffrage. There was literally starvation in our land, and a political and social revolution has taken place in this country in changing those conditions. The second revolution I have seen is the Soviet revolution, the third the Chinese revolution, the fourth the colonial revolution. It is possible that we are now witnessing two further revolutions: the change in the whole of industry by the technological revolution, and an Islamic revolution in Asia. But tonight we are considering the colonial revolution and the Commonwealth which has followed it.
  I think the first thing to mention about the colonial revolution is the short time in which it occurred. For over three centuries territories had been occupied in Asia, Africa and South America by the great Powers. But in 20 years that old system was almost completely overthrown. I think it was largely due to the effect of the Second World War, a war against Fascism and for democracy, but not only in its ideological aspect; the experience which those thousands of Asians and Africans had in travelling about the world made them conscious of the self-government which other peoples enjoyed.
  The colonial revolution began by the recognition of the independence of India, for which Clem Attlee, the Prime Minister, Stafford Cripps, and, if I mention him in influential background, my brother-in-law, Reginald Sorensen, had so much responsibility, But I want to recognise this tonight, that the very power of events there meant that not only the Labour movement, which accepted in principle the right of peoples to govern themselves, but also the Conservative Party, which had been the Party of the Empire, took a great part in bringing about the change. I want to pay my tribute to Mr. Iain Macleod for the service which he rendered

  425
  when he was a Conservative Colonial Secretary. A little ironically, Iain Macleod used to ask me to have discussions with him more than any Labour Colonial Secretary had ever done. He saw that unless self-government was given to the continent of Africa there would be Maumau all over in Africa and not only in Kenya.
  That colonial revolution is now almost complete. There remains Rhodesia, about which I will speak a little later, Hong Kong in its difficult position, and the small islands. I want to endorse what my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale said about the small islands. It is impossible that small islands with a population of perhaps even less than 1,000 should be independent and self-governing. I would like to see them federated under a new Commission which would be established by the United Nations. I believe that is the solution to their problem.
  My Lords, I want to confess at once that, though I have taken considerable part in the struggle for the independence of nations in Africa and Asia, I am very often disappointed by the results—military coups, violence, denials of human rights. But there are two things that should be said about that. The first is this: they have happened less within the British Commonwealth than they have in territories which were under other colonial administrations. I want to recognise this. Though I spent a large part of my life in challenging British Imperialism, the British colonial system was preferable to other colonial systems in Africa, preferable to the French system of amalgamation with Paris, preferable to the Belgian system which denied any place to the indigenous people, any authority in their administration. The British colonial system did at least, with all its atrocities, evolve so that the African and Asian people could move to membership of their Legislatures. I believe it is that difference which is responsible for the fact that there have been fewer military coups, less denial of human rights, less violence within Commonwealth territories than in the territories of other colonial administrations.
  There is a second comment to be made on this. When we deplore what has happened within the new independent nations, let us remember that there has
  426
  been less violence in Africa and Asia than there was in Europe in the parallel situation when the old empires in Europe were disintegrating into nations. The revolutions, the violence, the inquisitions, the persecutions in Europe were much greater than anything that has happened in Africa or Asia.
  My Lords, I want to say a word in comment upon the speech which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has delivered from the Opposition Front Bench. He saw the Commonwealth as an instrument of the Free World against the Communist world. Most of the Commonwealth nations are not Communist: like us they hate the totalitarianism of Communism. However, they also remember the imperialism of the West and that in their struggles aid has been given, however cynical it may have been, from the Communist countries.
  The majority of Commonwealth countries are not aligned with the Western group: they are unaligned. Because they are unaligned I believe that the Commonwealth has a great contribution to make to peace which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has said it will fulfil. It is the unalignment of the majority of Commonwealth countries which will contribute to that end—indeed, it was those countries that called the United Nations Disarmament Conference. That is the contribution which they are making to world peace.
  I have said that I have often been disappointed by what has happened. I have also been encouraged. As regards democracy we have the magnificent example of India. For a period there was Indira Gandhi and her régime, which was overwhelmingly defeated. We have the example of the democracy which India has maintained over the years. I admit that there is a challenge. Communist China appears to have advanced so much more rapidly than India. I tell my Indian friends that they must be more radical and drastic in dealing with the problem of their villages and village poverty if they are to make their democracy a success.
  There is also the question of human rights. I have recently been to East and Central Africa. Before I went, Amnesty gave me a long list of prisoners of conscience—men and women who have been

  427
  held in prison without being charged or without a trial. There is not a single detainee in Kenya, Zambia or Tanzania who is now on that list. The first action of the new President of Kenya, President Moi, was to release every prisoner who had been jailed without being charged or tried. In Zambia, the only detainees in prison who have not been charged or tried are the SWAPO dissidents and even as regards them a solution is in sight. Half of them are rejoining SWAPO and the other half have been placed under the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees to be sent to other countries if they cannot go back to Namibia. When I was in Tanzania, the last 14 prisoners who had been held without being charged or tried were released. Over that vast area of Africa—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Paget will read what I am saying—human rights are being recognised as they have never been recognised before.
  I am encouraged by the dedication which Commonwealth countries have to the service of other peoples who are under repression. Zambia, so loyal to the decision of the United Nations to apply sanctions, has probably suffered in consequence more than Zimbabwe itself has suffered. I have met Kenneth Kaunda. I shall not say that he is bitter because he has a character which is rarely bitter. However, he is hurt by the fact that, while his people suffered for their loyalty to carrying out sanctions, British oil companies, with the knowledge of some of our Cabinet Ministers, were breaking those sanctions and sending their oil to Rhodesia.
  I am encouraged by the experiments which have been made in Africa as regards democratic socialism. They are often denounced as Communist, but that is ridiculous. As regards Tanzania, which is one of our Commonwealth countries—I have met Julius Nyerere and he has said, "It will take 30 years to establish socialism here". He tells me that there is not a single person in Tanzania today who is living on unearned income. All industry has been taken over as a public service. The great plantations which were privately owned are now co-operatives and heroic, although rather pathetic, village communities are being established. Anyone who has seen that is inspired by what the Tanzanian people are doing.
  428
  The Commonweatlth, despite its diversity—for example, its democratic States, its theocratic States, its scientific Socialist States, its democratic Socialist States and its capitalist States—is progressive in the world today. There has been a series of Commonwealth conferences. All of them have contributed to progress. They are attacks upon the remnants of colonialism, racism, and apartheid. However, a new issue has now arisen. At the last Conference of the Commonwealth nations at Kingston the issue of a new international economic order was raised. I am glad that our Prime Minister made a contribution, because it is now the issue which our Commonwealth must face—namely, the fact of the rich and poor worlds; the millions within our Commonwealth who are hungry. Commonwealth statesmen are leading that campaign—Manley and Burnham at Kingston and now Julius Nyerere at the great Arusha conference which has just been held. Our British Government, if they are to retain the solidarity and sympathy of other nations in the Commonwealth must endorse the demands for a new world order which will end the disparities between North and South. My Lords, this is Commonwealth Day. I salute the Commonwealth for its achievements in the past. I salute it still more for my hopes for its future.
  6.20 p.m.
  Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, when following a speaker in your Lordships' House, it is customary to comment on the statements that he has made. I have the greatest respect for the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, but I disagree fundamentally with the statement he made that there has ever been what he has termed a colonial revolution. For some 30 years I served as a colonial overseas officer. I went out from this country about 50 years ago, not in the belief that I and those who served with me were the most superior beings on this earth, but in the belief that we had a duty to serve. When I travelled over that long distance this was borne in upon me by the fact that we had a British Navy in the Mediterranean, in the Far East and in the Atlantic Ocean, and when I arrived it seemed to me that that Navy was keeping the peace of the world, which all peoples of the world enjoyed.
  Following on from that, I remember meeting Mr. Ormsby-Gore, as he then was

  429
  —a Secretary of State some 50 years ago—when I, as a young man of 20 years of age, had a conversation with him. He turned to me and said "Do you know why you are here?" Young as I was, I was completely overcome by his words to me. However, he went on to say "You are here to lead these people to self-government". That was 50 years ago; and that was what we were involved in.
  In following up my reasoning behind all this, I know from my personal experience that it is always an anxious time for Her Majesty's Government when deciding at any one moment when a particular country is ready for self-government. We had a responsibility for those people whom we were endeavouring to serve. This country had a responsibility to ensure that when it was handing over government to independent nations, they were fully equipped and able to carry out that task to the benefit of their own people in those territories. That is my answer to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Brockway.
  This evening, I am immensely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for introducing this debate. It is most timely. When we consider that our former colonial empire—now devolved to independent nationhood—extends to over one quarter of the earth's surface, it is of immense importance—and this underlines the remarks that I have just made—that what independent nations believe of us and we of them should be accurate and true. It is because I value the continuance of the Commonwealth that it is most important to underline that precept: accurate and true—for, in the years following victory in the last war, we have come to doubt some of the principles which governed our colonies and to place tradition under the microscope. This tearing up of the roots for minute examination and scrutiny of the fundamental beliefs of our forefathers which gave us a stable society has extended over the whole of our political spectrum, and has not escaped the distortions spoken and written about our colonial policy.
  If we want the concept of the Commonwealth to succeed—and I want it to succeed—let those in this country who must one day (when we are no longer alive) by the natural progress of affairs succeed to the positions that we hold,
  430
  know the truth of our past. Otherwise, our young people will lose any interest in the Commonwealth and it will die. Let me quote an example of what I mean. In our British schools where African and British boys study together, among many of the emotive statements in a book on Africa there is this—and what conceivable good can it do to the fostering of good Commonwealth relations for African boys and British boys to read this about Africa in our schools?—
  "European interests always came before the interests of those people overseas".
  That is entirely false, and that I know from my experience.
  I can say to your Lordships that remarks of the kind that I have depicted appear in the books written by some of our academics, whose grey matter is vastly superior to mine, and that in isolated cases statements of this kind fall from the lips of some of our politicians. I cannot believe that in either category these gentlemen have had my experience as a colonial officer in Malaysia for some 30 years when it was my duty to give effect to your colonial policies. That applied to all territories under the administration of the Colonial Office. Therefore, I am in a position categorically to deny that it was ever the policy of the Colonial Office to place the interests of this country before those of any overseas territories, or to carry out a policy to their detriment.
  Let me face squarely the charge of exploitation. Yes, this country benefited by its association with our overseas territories, and so did they. That is a fact. Let me illustrate that statement from my own experience. As a former Commissioner of Customs and Excise in Malaysia, I am in a position to state that every dollar and cent of the huge revenues that we collected from the export of rubber and tin, the import duties and the Excise duties was ploughed back into the construction of roads, ports, electrical installations, hospitals, schools, et cetera. All those were handed over by Britain as going concerns at the time of independence and, under an independent government—I have taken the trouble to research this—they have, to their eternal credit, greatly extended those facilities. That is the position today.
  I believe that there is a dire need for an international public relations officer

  431
  for the Commonwealth, or a need for an historian, to comment on the Commonwealth's affairs. The part played by Britain in the past has been entirely honourable. In this country our children should know that. So should the children in the independent nations of the Commonwealth. Only then can they look each other straight in the face. We are now removed from close contact with our overseas friends for, by virtue of their independence, we no longer live among them. That makes it more important than ever for us and for future generations, accurately and faithfully to record these overseas people who helped us. I believe that the future of the Commonwealth depends upon this. Given that our record is faithfully kept, the Commonwealth can be strengthened by its young people, for boundaries are coming down and the isolation of distance will be removed by the speed of travel. The truth about our past will fortify them and us in the years ahead in a Commonwealth association with one another which I hope will continue.
  It has been my privilege to be a colonial officer in Malaysia when Colonial Secretaries of some standing visited that country. To mention only a few whom one remembers with affection, there were the late Jim Griffiths and Oliver Lyttleton. I remember the visit of the noble Earl, Lord Listowel. I remember too on this Commonwealth Day the joy of the Malaysian people at the appointment of Sir Hugh Clifford as Governor and High Commissioner for the Malay States. That was many years ago when I was a young cadet in Malaya. At that time, the Malays were thrilled because when Sir Hugh was appointed he had, some years prior to that date, endeared himself to the peoples of Pahang as a young cadet and district officer. There are many books about Sir Hugh, and many books about Malaya which are worth reading and which could possibly be studied in our schools and certainly by the young people of this country.
  I remember too Sir Frank Swettenham and also Sir Shenton Thomas, Governor and High Commissioner in 1940, who, when it was obvious that the Japanese attack on Malaysia in December 1941 and February 1942 would succeed, stated that it was the duty of every colonial
  432
  officer to remain and share the sufferings of the Malaysian people—those people whom we had endeavoured to serve. So far as I am aware, every colonial officer followed the Governor's advice. This was in the highest traditions of the Service. I am most grateful for the tributes which have been paid to the Colonial Service this evening by noble Lords and particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, who introduced this debate.
  It is not my purpose to mention what happened afterwards during imprisonment in Changi Jail, but it is appropriate to remember with gratitude and even affection on this Commonwealth Day those Malayan people who died so that some of us in Changi might live. They were discovered sending in to the jail food and drugs to help us when we were desperately short of both. For this many of them suffered torture; some of them suffered execution. But does not this act underwrite the strong bonds which existed between us and those people who were the recipients of our service?
  It is nonsense to say that we were not wanted anywhere. At the granting of independence some of these people expressed regret to me personally at our impending departure. In conclusion, I remember one incident which I think is appropriate to what we are thinking about tonight. As a young officer many years ago when wireless communication first became possible, it was a great thrill for us to listen to England some 12,000 miles away, and I remember the occasion when Her Majesty's grandfather, who seemed to be very tired at that time, went down to receive the congratulations of both Houses of Parliament in Westminster Hall at the end of a long reign. As we were listening to this many miles from anywhere a young Malay turned to me and said, "You know, having heard him speak, I feel it makes me want to do something better with my own life".
  My Lords, that is my feeling about the Commonwealth. I am grateful to the noble Lord for introducing this debate. It is most timely. I believe in the Commonwealth's future. I am most grateful for some of the speeches I have heard this evening. They give me hope, and I hope that they will be of assistance to Her Majesty's Government.
  6.35 p.m.
  Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, it has become a platitude in talking about the Commonwealth to speak of it as an unique institution. It is unique, and many speakers have said this afternoon that it has arisen out of the British Empire. I would say rather that it has arisen despite the British Empire. The noble Lord, Lord Gridley, who preceded me, set the precedent for answering, or following, the previous speaker, and I am happy to do so, if only briefly.
  I plead guilty to being one of the writers that he spoke of who, in writing history of the British Empire and of other empires has said that at the height of empire the interests of the Europeans were always paramount. That was what colonialism was about. What I should like to suggest to him is that he considers, Yes, the colonial Powers built hospitals, roads, schools, and provided water. Yes, there was a positive side. I would entirely agree with him and pay my own personal tribute to many of the devoted colonial officers, with many of whom I have stayed and enjoyed their hospitality and seen their devotion to the local people. But in its essence the colonial ethic, the imperial ethic, is that of domination by the great Powers, and in this case we are talking about the European great Powers.
  I would suggest to him that he considers that although many speakers have talked about the coming of independence to the Colonial States during our lifetime, it would be more accurate to talk about them regaining independence. All these people have known independence long before the Europeans came. There were States; there were empires; there were whole structures of political institutions that had been devised in Africa, Asia, the Caribbean and South America when Europeans were living on a very low political standard. Of course, we have not time to debate this tonight, and it is not the main thrust of the debate, but I should like to undermine a little of the complacency that has been heard in this Chamber this afternoon.
  The Commonwealth is a political institution. As a political institution it will live and grow provided that it has things to do; that it is not just accepted. Yes, we all speak English; most of us play cricket; we know each other; we come
  434
  to London and we have meetings with each other. No, as a political institution this institution depends on its action, on its activity. I suggest that it has two principal activities that are challenging it in the near future. Before I do so I should like to ask noble Lords to consider whether they are not, either consciously or unconsciously, forces undermining the continued existence of the Commonwealth.
  I shall give two examples. My noble friend Lord Brockway has already referred to the speech of the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, speaking second in the debate. I agreed entirely with the first part of his speech and admired the language in which he spoke. With the second part I disagreed entirely, and I would ask him to reconsider his approach. He spoke of the Commonwealth being a buffer against Communism. It is not, and those who would like to make it into such an institution are doing it an ill service. It will not become a buffer against Communism, and if we try to make it so we shall destroy it because from the Commonwealth countries themselves the world looks a very different place than it does from within this Chamber.
  If the Chinese come and show you how to grow rice or build a railway from Dar-es-Salaam to the Copper Belt, you do not ask them what their political philosophy is, and I can assure noble Lords that, from my experience, knowledge and observation, their political philosophy has never interfered with the kind of aid they have been giving. I do not want to pursue this too far and I would only add that the Russians have not been as sensible as the Chinese and never as constructive. If you try to make the Commonwealth into something which is an extension of what you consider to be the national interest of this country or Western Europe, you will destroy it precisely because the majority of the people of the Commonwealth do not look on the world as divided in the way you in this Chamber look upon it.
  The second factor which is undermining the continued existence of the Commonwealth is the kind of speech we heard last week which takes aside what are called the new Commonwealth mothers in this country, which separates them from the mass of our British community, although

  435
  many of them may have been here for 20 years, and which identifies—quite incorrectly, as any scientist here will support me in saying—skin colour with ethnicity or culture. If one wants to see an example of British Victorian culture, ask my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead to give some instances of the roast beef and Yorkshire pudding one must eat at 100 degrees in the Caribbean.
  When that sort of speech is made, when we start talking about new Commonwealth immigrants, when we are frightened that new cultures coming into this country may diminish the development of a British culture—which, after all, has always been a mongrel culture and has alsways had a mixture of cultural ingredients—we are not just insulting the members of the British community, we are also antagonising every Commonwealth country outside these islands. The speeches that are made on those lines—unscientific and appealing to the lowest emotions—are reported in the Press of our Commonwealth fellow-members and they are a threat to the continued existence of the Commonwealth.
  The speaker to whom I am referring said the British people would no longer argue. We will argue all right and we have always been prepared to argue. What we will not argue is on the false premise that you identify a person's character, worth or culture according to the colour of his or her skin and classify them as new Commonwealth immigrants. That brings me to the first of the important challenges which I believe the Commonwealth now faces, and that is in the whole field of race relations.
  Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I am listening intently to my noble friend's remarks. He referred to Commonwealth mothers being mentioned in some speech, but we have not learned to whom he has been referring, and that is a little confusing.
  Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I was referring to a speech made last week in which a percentage was given of new Commonwealth mothers in this country and I was attacking the concept that you divide the people of Britain according to the colour of their skin, because that is only what "new Commonwealth" is used
  436
  for; it is a euphemism for colour and I am sure the speaker would agree that when he is talking about new Commonwealth mothers and births to new Commonwealth mothers he is in fact talking about coloured mothers and coloured babies.
  I was saying that the whole issue of race relations is the first challenge to the Commonwealth. It has been said on a number of occasions by speakers in both Houses that the Commonwealth is an organisation, an institution, which has no rules and no bounds. That is not so. I was present at the Singapore Commonwealth Conference in 1971 when the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles was approved unanimously by every Prime Minister and Head of State at that meeting. That declaration is worth reading; it is up in lights in the Commonwealth Institute and many schoolchildren read it every day. It is worth reading because it lays down that the Commonwealth does not recognise racial, colour or ethnic differences as factors for separating mankind.
  In laying down those principles, the Commonwealth was reflecting its own history. It is not a coincidence that the only two members of the Commonwealth to be expelled—or, to be absolutely and technically accurate, asked to withdraw—have been South Africa and Rhodesia, in both cases because of the racial policies and attitudes that were institutionalised in both those countries. I hope that when the Minister replies to this debate he will be able to tell us how the Government are preparing for the next Commonwealth Conference to be held in August in Lusaka, and what contribution they intend to make to what has been this long-standing race relations issue, the issue of the continuation of white supremacy, a relic of the Commonwealth and a relic of colonial days in Southern Africa. It is not unrelated to the racial tensions in this country.
  Let us recognise that this Commonwealth of ours is present on all the six continents of the world. It embraces peoples of every major religion and of every major ethnic community, but perhaps, above all, it is populated by three-quarters of the world's poor, and that is the second central issue that our Commonwealth has to face. As my noble friend Lord Brockway pointed out, a start was

  437
  made in Kingston, but we have been disappointed that in the last four years there has not been more follow-up. We have two-thirds of the world's population commanding no more than 12 per cent. of the world's products and only 7 per cent. of its industry. Here in the Commonwealth we have the opportunity, a better opportunity perhaps than in any other international institution, to discuss face to face and calmly, in an atmosphere of negotiation, this real problem which faces both the Commonwealth and the rest of the world. I hope that the Minister will say how the Government are preparing for this. I believe that at the Lusaka Conference our Government can make an even greater contribution than was made by the Government in the Kingston meeting of 1975, but only if it is identified with the needs of the vast majority of Commonwealth citizens.
  If we use the great skill in this country, in other Commonwealth countries, and in the Commonwealth Secretariat—to which I also pay the highest possible tribute—to face the central issue of our generation, I believe that the Commonwealth itself can play a vital international role, the effects of which will be much wider than those simply within the Commonwealth itself. Let us remember that the members of the Commonwealth have already played a great role in world history, not least in this country. Let us also remember that it is not a one-way traffic. We learn much from our Commonwealth members, if we listen and look. The Americans have learned much. It was the slaves who took the techniques of tropical farming to Central and Latin America. Today it is members of our Commonwealth coming into this country —not just the Canadians, the Australians, and the New Zealanders, but also the Africans, those from the Caribbean, and the Asians—who are making a new contribution to an enriched culture in this world and in this country. That, I believe, is the opportunity and the challenge which faces our Commonwealth, and we must be active within it if it is to continue to exist.
  6.53 p.m.
  Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, I wish to add to the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, not only for having most fortuitously initiated this extremely important debate
  438
  on Commonwealth Day, but also for making a very convincing and characteristically knowledgeable speech. Unlike many noble Lords who have taken part in the debate, I have never served in Government, and my visits to the Commonwealth have been fairly limited, being confined to New Zealand, Fiji, and the Caribbean. It is true that today mention of the word "Commonwealth", especially among young people, evokes a certain amount of cynicism, and I should like to suggest one or two reasons why this is the case. I believe that a certain amount of the "us" and "them" attitude is taken. The White Commonwealth is not infrequently played off against the coloured Commonwealth; Canada, Australia, and New Zealand against the newer members. I have never personally agreed with this; I do not think that many people have. One question which we must ask ourselves—and I believe that history will show this
  —is whether in some cases independence has not come just a little too soon. It was bound to come, as we have been reminded. Fifty years ago a distinguished person mentioned the fact that a great nation was preparing for independence.
  I went to St. Martin-in-the-Fields for the Independence Day service for Dominica. The first High Commissioner there, Arden Shillingford, happens to be a very good friend of mine. I have never been to Dominica, but I know some of its people over here, and I would be among the first to wish that country well. However, bearing in mind its 55,000 people—equivalent to the population of a town such as Eastbourne—one must be a little apprehensive about how they are likely to manage, though one hopes that the apprehension is misplaced.
  In 1974 I paid a business visit to St. Lucia, which I believe is known as the jewel of the Caribbean, and anyone who has been there knows why. It is a country of great beauty, with wonderfully friendly people, a thriving tourist industry, a fast-developing harbour, and a large quantity of mineral resources, particularly in the northern part of the island. I received a personal invitation from Mr. Compton, the Premier of St. Lucia, to attend the recent independence celebrations. Unfortunately, due to business and personal commitments which I could not cancel I was, most reluctantly, unable to accept. However, I went to Westminster Cathedral

  439
  on a very cold, bleak day to attend the service of independence, and a very beautiful and moving service it was. It was interesting to note that in the choir there were, I think I am right in saying, one or two young St. Lucian boys. The flag of independence was carried up to the altar by three charming St. Lucian girls, two of whom were nurses. I wish to say a few words about that later. I personally regret, in a sense, that an island such as St. Lucia is breaking away from the Commonwealth. However, at the same time I do not think there is any prospect that we shall lose contact with the island because though I say that it is breaking away from the Commonwealth, I feel that perhaps through this move we might more firmly cement relations with it.
  Last September I had the great privilege of being one of the 10 United Kingdom delegates to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Jamaica. Incidentally, I believe that the next conference is to be in New Zealand, and I think that it is the following year that it is to be held in Zambia. I should like to pay a tribute to our hosts in Jamaica, who ran this conference with great efficiency and courtesy. I would also join the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood, in his tributes to Sir Robin Vanderfelt and to Mr. Molloy, and certainly to their counterparts in Jamaica. Here was a real opportunity to meet representatives from about 20 Commonwealth countries. With many of the views of those countries one might have disagreed; but, after all, my Lords, the idea of a conference is to share opinions, to expound views and to try to find some common ground.
  My own impression of this conference, particularly in the case of the plenary sessions, is that much was done there. I may say that the conference was held at a very difficult time, because it coincided with the publication of the Bingham Report. I should also like to pay a personal tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies, who led the United Kingdom delegation with the utmost tact and distinction at that especially difficult time. I will not say that all my views and the views of some of my noble friends accorded chapter and verse with hers, or indeed with others at the conference, but the way she handled a potentially difficult situation was, I thought, masterly; and,
  440
  although this conference took place last September, I make no apology for putting that tribute on the record now.
  My Lords, looking at the matter of race relations, I think New Zealand gives a lead here. I was there in 1971, as many of your Lordships know, with my wife and with Princess Alexandra and her husband, for the centennial celebrations of the City of Auckland. We attended many functions and I had to make many speeches. I had two Maori welcomes, which were fascinating; and I visited a number of Maori people. One I met was a particularly fine wood-craftsman and a justice of the peace; and, of course, over here we have that outstandingly fine singer, Kiri Tekanawa. One of the first VCs of the war was won posthumously by a Maori. When one talks about the role of the Commonwealth one has only to go to the Domain in Auckland and see the Roll of Honour. As I think I have mentioned before in your Lordships' House, there, on a wall, there are some 4,000 New Zealand names of those who fell in the last war, largely in Crete. That, out of a population of about 3 million, is a very large percentage; and, of course, these New Zealanders included a substantial number of the Maori population.
  I think one of the most moving experiences I have ever had was to go to the dawn Anzac Day Service in 1971. It was held at 5 o'clock in the morning, and one looked over Auckland Harbour as the dawn was breaking. There was created an extraordinary feeling, because although Auckland is 13,000 miles from the Isle of Wight, one almost had the feeling that across the water was the Isle of Wight, so close are the contacts which still remain between our two countries.
  My Lords, the role of the Commonwealth at the present time is a difficult one, because we have 40 countries all of different sizes and different populations which now have indepencence, and the question really is as to how we can best assimilate those differences. I think one most encouraging aspect—and this really gives the answer to the continued value of the Commonwealth—is the number of Commonwealth nurses and doctors in this country, particularly in our hospitals, who do such outstandingly fine work. The six mental hospitals in the area of

  441
  Surrey where I live have a very large number of nurses from the Commonwealth—from the Caribbean, from India, from Malaysia, from Mauritius in particular, and from many other countries—and the integration among the various races and our own British staff is very much to be praised.
  My Lords, it is a great pity that this debate has taken place in a House which is less than full. It has merited a much larger attendance, mainly because of the vital importance of the subject. I would say only this in conclusion, that whatever may be the future of the Commonwealth, there is certainly no need to apologise for it. There will be scepticism shown in some quarters, and the question will be raised as to how some of the problems are to be resolved in these countries; but I think it is fair to say that we in this country and those in many of the larger European countries have faced the same problems and have not yet quite solved them all. So I believe there is much hope for the future of the Commonwealth, and that it is more and more necessary for an even closer partnership between this country and all the Commonwealth countries, the old ones and the newest of the new. It is absolutely essential for the sake of mankind that this partnership should continue.
  7.9 p.m.
  Lord SEGAL: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in congratulating my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale on having selected Commonwealth Day for this debate. Few Members of your Lordships' House are better qualified than he, with his long record of years of devoted service to the Commonwealth, to initiate our discussion. I believe the Commonwealth has a greater role than ever to play in world affairs, and never was it more badly needed than it is today. But I want to confine my remarks to the youngest independent member of the Commonwealth, St. Lucia. Two weeks ago I was privileged to attend (I was much more fortunate than the noble Lord, Lord Auckland) her independence celebrations, and most impressive they were.
  The one discordant note was struck by the BBC reporter, Mr. Martin Bell. Many of us who heard him were really left wondering whether he was indeed referring to St. Lucia at all, or to some
  442
  other island of his own imagination. His was a half-baked, slanted piece of reporting, totally unworthy of a great nationalised medium such as our own BBC. The whole British Press, in contrast to the BBC, acquitted themselves very creditably. The Guardian came out with the headline: "Islanders cheer a free St. Lucia". The Daily Telegraph stated: "Outlook bright as St. Lucia wins full independence". The Financial Times lead with: "St. Lucia becomes independent: favourable omens for self-rule". Only the BBC, that great untouchable quasi-Quango now beyond the reach of Parliament—I had always imagined that Parliament was the supreme court of the realm until it whittled away one of its greatest privileges only recently—did St. Lucia and the cause of Britain irreparable harm.
  When one thinks of the magnificent role played by the BBC during the Second World War and of the millions of people oppressed by Nazi terror sitting glued to their radio sets, listening to the BBC broadcasts as the only source available of honest, factual reporting, one can realise how the BBC has sunk over the years. Then, it was a source of hope and comfort in Europe's darkest days. Now, my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich has had a great deal to say about the BBC's slanted approach in dealing with the problems facing our police, but, in reporting the St. Lucia independence celebrations, the BBC representative, Mr. Martin Bell, would appear to have plumbed even lower depths still.
  The BBC report reminded me very forcefully of an account of the reporter's role that I had recently read in a cheap American paperback:
  "Reporters are not supposed to care what their victims think of an article after it has been published. A good reporter must find means, any means, to make people reveal what they should never reveal. I have watched crack reporters bullying, stalking out their prey, kicking on doors and refusing to relent after the source has cracked. I was warm and seemed so ingenuous that people talked to me as if I was a friend. But I was not a friend. I wrote what I thought regardless of the consequences".
  That almost fits in with the BBC's reporting of these happy, spontaneous celebrations that I witnessed at first hand on the island of St. Lucia.
  I would ask a question of my noble friend who is to reply for the Government—and I apologise for not giving him prior

  443
  notice; for I heard of this debate only last night. Has any protest been received by Her Majesty's Government at the BBC's reporting of these proceedings? I readily understand that he cannot answer it in today's debate, but could he not obtain a transcript of the BBC's reports? If there is any way my noble friend can make amends to the Government and people of St. Lucia for the BBC's deplorable lapse of good taste and objective reporting on an otherwise supremely happy occasion, I hope it is not already too late for him to do so.
  I ask because this is a matter of extreme importance. The island of St. Vincent is to attain its independence later this year. Antigua may well follow suit in the near future. I submit that it is no business of ours to interfere in the internal politics of these Caribbean islands; but I am jealous of Britain's good name. It is of the utmost importance that, when we cede independence to these islands, we bow out with honour and dignity and with a good grace that will leave no unpleasant taste behind. Here, I must pay tribute to the representative of Her Majesty at the independence celebrations of St. Lucia. Her Royal Highness the Princess Alexandra and Mr. Angus Ogilvy won the hearts of everyone throughout the proceedings. The Princess presided over them with a dignity and charm which was superb. She went out of her way on numerous occasions to mix freely with the people of the island, especially the children; and carried out an exhausting programme of activities with a warm kindliness and sweetness that left behind an excellent impression. No one could have fulfilled these heavy duties or carried them out, often in intense heat, with greater devotion and more striking success. She proved herself in every way an admirable representative of the Head of the Commonwealth.
  I should also like to add a tribute to the Government representative, Mr. Ted Rowlands, who had a very important role to play in the proceedings. He played it with grace and good humour that did credit both to the Government and to Britain. As I have said, the one discordant note came unfortunately from the BBC's representative, Mr. Martin Bell; and I would ask my noble friend to see that in due course full amends are somehow made to the people of St. Lucia and active
  444
  steps are taken to prevent a future repetition of this deplorable episode.
  Listeners to the BBC programme may well have asked: who is Mr. George Odlum? He is the deputy leader of the Opposition, a handsome but frustrated firebrand who, if I have got my facts aright—and I speak subject to correction—was engaged in a street brawl at the time of the last election and was subsequently involved in police court proceedings. He is rather like a limbo dancer on the island, one who swallows a flaming torch and breathes out flames afterwards. His engaging personality seems to have buttonholed every delegation that visits the island. He was the main source of Mr. Martin Bell's information. In Mr. Martin Bell's own words:
  "he wears his politics on his sleeve, the sleeve of a Castro-style uniform".
  How Mr. George Odlum must now be laughing up his sleeve and how foolish has our own BBC been made to look after incalculable damage has already been done!
  In contrast, how generous and liberal-minded was the attitude of the Prime Minister of St. Lucia, Mr. John Compton, throughout the proceedings. Among the 51 nations represented, Cuba sent five delegates who were the honoured guests during these celebrations. I had the privilege of sitting with them during one of the official lunches and I know how much they valued the invitation extended to them and how pleased they were to be present. Yet Mr. Martin Bell reported, apparently through his contact with Mr. George Odlum—and I can only paraphrase—that, in a country whose politics were as sulphurous as its hot springs, what should be one of the smoothest transitions to independence was threatening to be one of the most acrimonious. Mr. Martin Bell quoted Mr. Odlum as saying:
  "The Opposition of St. Lucia warn that they cannot guarantee the safety of people attending the independence celebrations".
  But who is Mr. George Odlum to guarantee their safety? I never sought his protection; and, indeed, felt much safer without it. Could not Mr. Martin Bell get his information from the official leader of the opposition, Mr. Josie, or was it because the Guardian has described the leader

  445
  of the opposition as "the quieter Mr. Peter Josie"? The Guardian of 21st February went on to say, very properly:
  "On the last occasion that visiting VIPs"—
  As I said, they attended from 51 countries—
  "were threatened with a riot, only a few bits of banana were thrown".
  On the next day, Independence Day, 22nd February, the Guardian reported:
  "Princess Alexandra arrived with the Foreign Office Minister of State, Mr. Ted Rowlands, amid the apparent collapse of the Opposition's efforts to disrupt the celebrations of the island's independence from Britain".
  But the damage by the BBC had by then already been done.
  I can vouch, after attending nearly all the official Government celebrations on the island, that I saw no sign of any disturbance and no untoward incident of any kind. But to sensation-hungry reporters that is not news. On the contrary, I have rarely seen such spontaneous rejoicings on all sides. The St. Lucians are a gay, happy and very friendly people, and they revelled in the carnival atmosphere of their independence celebrations. The carnival on 26th February began at five in the morning and went on till after mid-night. The streets were packed with wildly enthusiastic crowds, some six or more deep, lining the pavements, and the long procession of decorated floats, steel bands, laughing, singing children, all in their gay fancy costumes was a real joy to behold. So much for Mr. Martin Bell of the BBC, who by then had left the island, and his mentor Mr. George Odlum.
  My Lords, why do I stress these matters in this evening's debate? It is simply because, as I have said on previous occasions, I believe profoundly in the Commonwealth. I believe that this unique, free association of 40 independent States can be a power for untold good in this sorely distracted world of today. I believe that Britain, the mother-country, should still remain a trustee for their welfare and good relations long after their independence has been achieved. As a benevolent midwife, we have presided over their birth. I hope we shall long continue to preside over their growth and prosperity, and play a role worthy of our great past as the noblest, and yet the most maligned, colonial power in the whole of human history.
  7.24 p.m.
  The Earl of AVON: My Lords, I too should like to open my remarks by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Greenwood of Rossendale, for originating this debate. My theme is on the changes which have taken place in the Commonwealth since the war and the need for the attitude of this country to change too. I thought that I might be rather out of step with the rest of the debate today, but in point of fact many noble Lords have spoken on the same topic. As the noble Lord has stressed, Britain is now just an equal member of the Commonwealth. I have some very small doubts about the relationship between our Government—and successive Governments—and the Commonwealth. These doubts stem from the many changes that have occurred over the past 30 years.
  Since the war there has been the NATO Alliance which, although shared with Canada, has made our friendship with the United States of America of a special importance to us. An example of this would be our appointed Ambassador in Washington at the moment or an Ambassador which Mr. Macmillan sent to Washington some years ago. Both of these were personal appointments, but they were to Washington, not to Canberra or Ottawa. This is the obvious special importance which perhaps we overstress when we are thinking of our relationship with America. Then, over the past two decades, there has been our preoccupation with entry into Europe, putting a severe strain at times on some of our Commonwealth relationships. Here we might perhaps turn to the Benches on my right and their preoccupation with Europe, yet there is not one of that Party here tonight. Also, to be a member of three clubs—and I am sure some noble Lords are members of many more than three—puts a strain on the amount of time one can spend with each club. I feel that we have now put a slight strain on the Commonwealth by the addition of these two clubs.
  There has been the most welcome step of the formation of the Commonwealth Secretariat; and may noble Lords have already paid tribute to the Secretariat and I should like to add my own tribute to them as well. They have done tremendous work. Their work is mainly administrative and cohesive at the moment.

  447
  But because they work in London this should not lessen this Government's responsibilities with the Commonwealth abroad. I feel that having the Commonwealth Secretariat here is, on the one hand, an advantage, but on the other hand a disadvantage. Another small point is that Governor-Generals now tend to be nationals of their own country. This is an excellent step but it means that one more small link with this country has been severed. In the past there has been an India Office, a Commonwealth Office, a Dominions Office and a Colonial Office. Now it is all under one roof.
  Still talking of the changes of the moment, we have had a tremendous preoccupation with Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway is constant in his attention to this detail in this House. This is a Commonwealth issue of tantamount importance but it should not overshadow the other Commonwealth relationships. All this adds up in my mind to two trends: first, the Government of Britain has been, and is, mainly occupied with its alliances closer at hand and the African problem. Secondly, the responsibility of upholding the Commonwealth is slipping from the hands of Whitehall. This may be no bad thing, but there must be no vacuum left. I believe, because of these trends, Government needs a new initiative and a more positive approach to the Commonwealth today. "New initiative" and "a more positive approach" are easy to say but are difficult to put into practice. I suggest that the aims could be to ensure the continuing strength of the Commonwealth; to nurture present members; to look for new members; to harness the goodwill both for trade and mutual benefit; and to maintain an alliance which is a positive help to world peace. In answer to some noble Lords opposite, the very mix of the Commonwealth geographically, from a religious point of view, and politically—and it does not matter what politics—is one of the major factors for world peace for tomorrow.
  Perhaps this is going backwards a little, but I should like to see one of the Ministers of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office called the Minister of State for the Commonwealth. We
  448
  know their duties are parcelled out to some degree, but would it not be nice to have a Minister whom we could all see? Most people in this House would welcome the noble Lord who is going to reply to this debate in that position. Also I should like to see this Minister of State for the Commonwealth so rarely in the Foreign Office that when he is greeted there it is always, "Hullo, stranger", because he is contantly visiting the Commonwealth.
  I may be treading on dangerous ground in suggesting this because it might already have happened, but I should like there to be a study of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office to see whether its constitution might not be changed once more, perhaps into Overseas Affairs, one Minister of State being responsible for the Commonwealth and being so titled, one for Europe and being so titled and one for Foreign Affairs. Another idea might be to have a combined programme of visits done at Cabinet level not only for the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State but for other Ministers such as the Ministers for Trade and for Defence. I should like to see this co-ordinated so as to cover not only the 40 existing countries of the Commonwealth, but also to go to the Provinces: perhaps to Perth and British Colombia. The Minister may perhaps tell me that that already takes place. There is so much goodwill in these countries that it seems to me to be absolute folly not to make the best use of it.
  For some of the reasons I stated earlier, I believe there is a real danger that the Commonwealth could drift into becoming a less meaningful family, and I believe that the Government in this country should take a positive step in order to ensure that that does not happen. The Government should also take the initiative in enhancing our country's standing within the Commonwealth, for the benefit of the peoples in this country and in order to increase the trade between our country and Commonwealth countries, both now and in the unpredictable future. I am pleased to support this Motion.
  7.31 p.m.
  Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, may I begin by joining in thanking my noble friend Lord Greenwood for giving us the opportunity of marking Commonwealth Day with this debate. I

  449
  am sorry that I was not in my place to hear the first few minutes of his speech, but I heard most of it and I can assure him that I shall study Hansard very carefully. I am glad to have the opportunity of following the noble Earl, Lord Avon. His father was a man for whom I had great admiration, and I find that what he has had to say is very thoughtful and very thought provoking.
  I speak today as one who grew up in a small colony, practised medicine in three colonies, led a nationalist movement in one of those colonies and, while practising medicine in this metropolis, have taken an active interest in Third World politics. In fact it is no secret that the Committee of African Organisations and the anti-apartheid movement were both started in the basement beneath my surgery. I have, however, always been a Commonwealth man and was a member of a group in the Royal Commonwealth Society called Nudge. It was formed to keep nudging people in authority in this country into keeping the Commonwealth and Commonwealth interests in the forefront of policy-making.
  I have seen the Commonwealth grow from its immediate post-war membership of seven to the 40 members of today. In my student days the struggle was for the independence of India, and though I cannot speak Hindi I am well accustomed to shouting "Jai Hind". But, although India became independent in 1947, it was not until 1957 that the Commonwealth had its first African member, when Ghana became independent on 5th March. Today the Commonwealth has strong representation in Africa, South-East Asia and the Caribbean. As these territories are part of the regional groupings, the Commonwealth is well represented in the Organisation of African Unity and is steadily increasing its representation in the Organisation of American States and the Latin American Group of the United Nations. The Commonwealth represents a large proportion of the United Nations and is well represented among the non-aligned States and the Group of 77. So the Commonwealth has its tentacles far and wide in the various organisations that exist today.
  There is no set pattern to the political composition of its members. Although they all recognise the Queen as Head of
  450
  the Commonwealth and many Commonwealth countries are monarchies with the Queen as Head of State and the Governor-General appointed by her on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, many of the territories are republics with their own presidents. Moreover, they are not all democratic. Some are democracies on the Westminster model, some are one-Party States, many are dictatorships, and I think it is fair to say that the Commonwealth even contains a tyrant. Commonwealth countries have broken off diplomatic relations with each other and Commonwealth countries have been at war with each other. Therefore, there is no one pattern that pervades the Commonwealth. Although the members are all former British colonies or protectorates, not all the former British colonies have joined the Commonwealth, and one of those who originally joined has recently left.
  In 1965, as has already been mentioned, the Commonwealth established a Secretariat and appointed a Secretary-General. This particular innovation has enabled the Commonwealth voice to grow and to be heard more clearly as the years went by. I think it is fair to say that the Commonwealth voice is being heard more clearly today than it was 10 years ago. The Commonwealth has been well served by its two Secretaries-General. Arnold Smith had the job of laying the foundation, and he did it well. Shridath Ramphal has built on that foundation and is doing an extremely good job.
  In two of the major problems concerning the world today, the Commonwealth is well placed to make a substantial contribution to their solution, and it is imperative that it should be seen to be making that contribution. It is odd—not so odd really—that both my noble friends Lord Brockway and Lord Hatch of Lusby have touched on the points I am now about to touch on, because the two problems I am referring to are the bridging of the gap between the "haves" and "have-nots" and the making if possible for people of different races to live together in equality and friendship. For the Commonwealth consists of industrialised nations, mainly agricultural nations, developing nations, some rich nations, some poor nations, some predominantly white nations and some predominantly black nations. It is

  451
  therefore well placed to make contributions in these two fields.
  Although the efforts to solve these problems provide opportunities for the Commonwealth to show its worth, they carry dangers for the Commonwealth. The present North/South dialogue, to which my noble friend Lord Brockway referred, and the move to try to establish a new international economic order provide the Commonwealth with a splendid opportunity for influencing the negotiations and helping to create the requisite climate for the leap forward which this can bring. Britain's agreement to the Common Fund can be regarded as an example of the value of Commonwealth discussion and this has led to some progress being made, even though rather slowly. Through the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Cooperation, the Commonwealth Youth Programme, the Commonwealth Foundation, the proposed attempt at co-operation for accelerating industrialisation, the conferences and seminars on national development and the help it provides in export promotion and trade fairs, the Commonwealth Secretariat makes a contribution in this field.
  Britain's entry into the Common Market and the consequent Lomé agreement has provided additional avenues for aid to the poorer countries of the Commonwealth. But I think it is only fair to say that Lomé has not proved as helpful as was hoped, and that the EEC is still not as co-operative or outward-looking as was expected. The EEC countries have such differing national interests and Britain is in so much disagreement with her EEC partners, that it is doubtful to what extent we shall be able to open the doors, which must be opened if Lomé II is to be a success. But in terms of the Commonwealth it is essential that it should be successful, and that Britain should be seen to be pulling out all the stops to make it so.
  Economic divisions lie at the root of most national disagreements. It is essential that a way should be found of creating the kind of partnership between developed and developing nations which the Lomé Convention seemed to have begun. We must build on the strengths of Lomé I and remedy its defects during the present negotiations. This country
  452
  has a very important part to play in seeing that this is done.
  The race issue is more complex, but poses a more immediate danger. It is seen in its crudest and most dangerous form in Southern Africa, but that is exactly where it is likely to cause most difficulties and, what is more, that is where the danger is most imminent. The failure of successive British Governments to deal with the Rhodesian rebellion has allowed an abscess to fester in that region which, when it bursts, will have very serious consequences. Moreover, there is the obvious danger—and I see it more and more every day when I listen to some of the speeches—that a British Government will misread the situation and allow themselves to be drawn into supporting the white minorities in that area, in the mistaken idea that they are protecting Western interests. That would be a terrible mistake, for it is those very interests which would be jeopardised by such an act.
  All Members of your Lordships' House know that the Russian influence in that area is now very much greater than it was in 1965. Please ask yourselves, my Lords, why, and then proceed to use whatever influences you have to prevent policies from being pursued which would inevitably lead to greater Russian influence in the area. I am not speaking only about Rhodesia. I am speaking also about South Africa. Had Mr. Smith accepted the deals that were offered him on the "Tiger" and the "Fearless", things would have developed differently in Rhodesia. There is still time for South Africa to adopt policies that could prevent the kind of damage that Rhodesia now suffers. I know that she has many friends in your Lordships' House. I hope that she will have her attention drawn to this fact.
  But the danger to the Commonwealth inherent in the race issue is not confined to Southern Africa. It is even more important in this country. The world is too small for us to think that we can live in separate compartments. We must live together or perish. This point is one which needs to be made more and more, because there are still a lot of people who have not realised that the conquest of the air, which had the effect of bringing countries closer together, also brought

  453
  people closer together and made their separation from each other more difficult. It has also made us more interdependent. People's ideas and horizons must expand to meet this fact. We in this country have a splendid opportunity of showing the world how people of different races can live together in equality and friendship. Please let us grasp it with both hands.
  There is one last matter, on which I wish to comment, which has been commented upon by more than one speaker; that is, the question of the small territories. This is an issue which the Commonwealth must face, as there are more and more small countries becoming independent and becoming members of the Commonwealth. I am sorry I cannot agree with my noble friend Lord Greenwood that you can at this stage stop the process—you cannot. What you have to work out now is a way of dealing with it. I think that a system of common services, particularly overseas representation, will have to be evolved. In the St. Lucia debate, I mentioned that some of the small islands in the Caribbean were exploring this possibility. I believe that they should be encouraged and, perhaps, given some help at a Commonwealth level. This is a matter which calls for deep and careful thought, and for urgent action. I conclude as I began by declaring my faith in the Commonwealth, and my hope that it will prove itself the great and enduring institution for which it has all potentialities.
  7.49 p.m.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that we are all extremely grateful to my noble friend Lord Greenwood for opening this debate, and for doing so in a speech of such distinction, knowledge and sincerity. He brings to these discussions a unique record of service to the Commonwealth and, indeed, in international affairs, and it is always a pleasure and an instruction to listen to him.
  It is, indeed, most appropriate that we talk of the Commonwealth on this day, the second Monday in March, when all around the world other Parliaments and a great many other non-governmental organisations, as the noble Baroness reminded us, will be doing the same and
  454
  marking this unique occasion. Her Majesty, in her Commonwealth Day message, has emphasised that the association of nations, involved as it is in political, social and economic problems, is above all concerned with the lives of people. Indeed, she went further and highlighted, as two special Commonwealth successes, the Commonwealth Games held in Edmonton last year and the accompanying Festival of Arts, noting that both of them brought together in friendship young people from all over the world. We were reminded that the Commonwealth is a very young affair. I have here a few figures of my own: two-thirds, or 66 per cent. of the Commonwealth's vast population, which is not far short now of 1,000 million people, is under the age of 30, while 42 per cent. is under the age of 15. Here indeed is the wave of the future.
  Moreover, the notable manifestation this afternoon of Commonwealth celebration—the special religious observance—should, I think, be particularly noted, because it was a gathering of representatives of all faiths. This is the ecumenical principle carried beyond even the efforts of the Churches themselves in the fact of the Commonwealth. We were delighted that the representative of Papua New Guinea should have read a portion of the Christian scripture in his own language, in pidgin. The religious observance attended by Her Majesty as Head of the Commonwealth and by a wide variety of distinguished representatives of the Commonwealth itself shows us that while the Commonwealth is diverse—and its diversity, as we have heard, is one of its strengths—it also has a persistent cohesion.
  One noble Lord was almost on the point of properly misquoting Voltaire. If I have got his intention, although perhaps not his words, right, it is that if the Commonwealth did not exist it would need to be invented, like Voltaire's God—and it would, I suspect, be as impossible to invent the one as the other. The Commonwealth has been given to us. It has emerged as an organic, growing, cohesive association of free peoples and we should make much of it. I take particular note of what my noble friend has said about it: that there may be deficiencies in the way in which we in this country celebrate this great fact of our life.

  455
  Although it is diverse and also at the same time cohesive, the Commonwealth is so adaptable. It keeps abreast of the demands of an increasingly complex and troubled world. It has expanded and grown; the one does not always mean the other. We now have 40 members, four new members having joined since 1977, with a little assistance from myself and the enthusiastic agreement of your Lordships' House. In every case, these newly independent countries have said at the end of the constitutional conference, "Yes, we want to join the Commonwealth." In most cases, they also want to have Her Majesty not only as the Head of the Commonwealth but also as their own Royal Head of Government.
  The fact is that the expansion and the co-operation are happening today more than ever before. They are indications of the value that the members of the Commonwealth place upon membership. As an increasing number of smaller countries join its ranks, so the Commonwealth takes a special interest in the particular problems of such small countries, and very useful and practical ideas about these problems have been and are at present the subject of study and discussion in Commonwealth agencies. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, for a most thoughtful and constructive speech. I have made a special note of the suggestions which he made about looking at possibly better ways of assisting the developing and, indeed, the smaller members of the Commonwealth.
  It is absolutely right and proper that the British Parliament should stress in this debate the continuing value of the Commonwealth. I should like on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, if it is necessary, to emphasise that the United Kingdom's commitment to the Commonwealth remains wholehearted and as strong as ever. We value our membership most highly. Perhaps we do not stress it sufficiently strongly in public. We are a little shy of asserting our enthusiasm in case we are suspected, perhaps, of somehow trying to reintroduce into the new Commonwealth our predominance in the old Empire. But that time is past. It is time for Britain, as one of the 40, as an equal, sovereign, independent member of an association of other equal, sovereign, independent countries, to come forward a
  456
  little more, to shed the inhibitions of the past and to declare its enthusiasm, its affection and its dedication to what the Commonwealth stands for.
  I should like to refer to an extremely cogent point that was made by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He put it so well. I am paraphrasing, and I hope that I do no disservice to the noble Earl. He said that our membership of the Commonwealth in no way conflicts with our commitments to any other international or regional body to which we belong—for instance, the United Nations and the European Community, a point which indeed my noble friend Lord Greenwood of Rossendale emphasised with great clarity in the first part of his speech.
  The Commonwealth has no constitution or rules. It therefore adds to rather than subtracts from the sum of our international relations. As an example, I think it is true to say that our commitment to our Commonwealth friends has helped in recent years to create a more outward looking attitude within the European Economic Community, and I believe that this will grow. I am not looking too far ahead, I hope, when I say that I hope that the two communities, if I may put it like that, will grow ever closer together, because the bonds within the Commonwealth are also the bonds which ultimately may well link it with the community of Western democratic nations in Europe.
  May I join with other noble Lords in paying tribute to the valuable contribution which the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association makes to the Commonwealth relationship, because a commitment to elective democracy remains a major strand of the Commonwealth purpose. And speaking of democracy, perhaps I may here refer to my noble friend's specific question to me. He mentioned the future of Gibraltar, the Falklands and Belize. I can only say once more what I have said many a time at this Box in the last few months and, indeed, few years. Her Majesty's Government will propose no change in the constitutional position of those countries which is not clearly and democratically endorsed by their peoples.
  I shall now turn to the role of the Commonwealth today and the practical benefits which it brings to its members.

  457
  Here, it is important to stress that we cannot expect or ask the Commonwealth to do more than it is able to do. Nor can we expect unanimity on every issue. We have here representatives of a quarter of the world's population. There is bound to be diversity and indeed a variety of practical interests and occasionally a conflict of interests. Its members come from every continent. The various countries represented in the Commonwealth are in various stages of development; they are of varying size, both in population and in area; they include people of almost every religion and race. So the first benefit it brings to all its members and ultimately to the wider circle of the nations of the world is not unanimity, still less uniformity, but understanding; the attempt at understanding, the will to understanding—and for this it is uniquely fitted. Indeed, that will to understanding leads to concrete examples of practical co-operation.
  The first benefit that comes to us is the meeting of the Heads of Governments. In five months' time, the heads of Governments of 40 countries will be sitting, informally but in dignity and equality, around one table in Lusaka—not in London this time but in Lusaka — learning from each other how each one sees the world's problems, speaking strongly and frankly to each other in the way my noble friend Lord Pitt of Hampstead has been speaking to this House once more tonight. I am sure that we all listened with particular respect and attention to what he had to say. So will they be speaking in Lusaka, but for all this strong and frank talking it will be in a friendly and informal spirit and I am equally sure that the meeting will contribute not only to a greater understanding of Commonwealth problems but to an understanding and a practical solution of major international issues which perplex the whole world.
  My noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby asked me what we were doing as a Government and as a member of the Commonwealth to prepare for the next Heads of Governments conference in Lusaka and what contribution Britain was making to what is likely to be a major discussion there of Southern African and North-South issues. Of course the preparations for the Heads of Government meetings in Lusaka or elsewhere are in
  458
  the hands of the Commonwealth Secretariat in consultation and co-operation with a host government—in this case, Zambia. The agenda is a matter for the Commonwealth Secretary-General in consultation with Commonwealth Governments, including that of Britain, but I think we can expect the usual wide-ranging discussion of world political and economic trends, including the problems of Southern Africa and North-South issues, and we in this country shall certainly play a full and constructive part in discussing those issues.
  The Heads of Government meeting of course is only one part of the total Commonwealth relationship which is nowadays practical and down to earth. For example, a meeting of Commonwealth Ministers to discuss co-operation in promoting increased industrialisation in the developing countries of the Commonwealth has just taken place at Bangalore in India. The British delegation was ably led by my noble friend Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe. I have already had reports that Ministers found that meeting valuable, not only in discussing an action programme on industrial co-operation but also in exchanging views on their industrial experience and on the potential for promoting joint ventures and other collaborative action. This is entirely in the spirit of that historic meeting a few years ago in Kingston, and my noble friend Lord Brockway referred to the importance of the continuing North-South dialogue. Kingston was a breakthrough. One is in parts disappointed with the results of these movements forward but nevertheless movements forward they are, and Kingston in particular showed how the Commonwealth could show even the United Nations how to make progress on this vital question. I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Brockway for having reminded us of this fundamental aspect of the Commonwealth effort. Much of the best and much of the most practical work in preparing for what he called a new economic order and what I would call a better international economic order owes a good deal to its Commonwealth origin.
  Here the noble Lord, Lord Thurlow, went into some detail as to practical suggestions—and I repeat, full note will be taken of what he had to say. Before I leave that particular point I should like to refer also to another specific point made

  459
  by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. He quite rightly referred—and I am glad he made this point—to a certain disappointment in New Zealand, a Commonwealth country, because the United Kingdom had perhaps not responded to the opportunities of co-operating with that country in the matter of deep sea fishery development. I can assure him that we shall continue to encourage the British fishing industry to help to develop New Zealand's deep sea fisheries, although this is of course essentially a matter for industry to decide. It is not only a question of Governments, it is also a question of industrial enterprise and we shall do everything we can to help as a Government.
  As to Russian participation, so far as we know New Zealand has not sought Soviet help. There would be nothing wrong in that of course. New Zealand does permit Soviet vessels to continue to fish in her 200-mile zone under an agreement signed on 4th April 1978, and similar agreements have been reached with Japan and the Republic of Korea. It is not for me to comment on the way in which the Government of New Zealand organise these participating arrangements. They are entirely within their rights and I am glad that they are doing it in an international way. But I am quite sure that in coming to these agreements the New Zealand Government and people keep a very firm grip on their own essential interests and that there is nothing to fear in any strategic sense from these developments and much to welcome in an economic sense.
  An example of the Commonwealth at work at a practical level is of course the assistance given to member countries by the Commonwealth Fund for Technical Co-operation. It is not all a matter of flags. A tremendous amount of hard, practical work, yielding practical results, goes on through many agencies, and I am only giving one or two examples this evening. The CFTC has provided for the training of people from five member countries in rural development, schools broadcasting, family planning and the like. It is arranging a course for the training of diplomats in the Eastern Caribbean. It is advising the Government of Tanzania on a wide range of mineral policy issues. These are but a few of the many activities of the fund.
  460
  Certainly, I need not go into detail about all the Commonwealth does, except to emphasise that it does a good deal, and a good deal that is practical. There is very effective co-operation across the board in the fields of education, finance, health, law, food production and rural development, youth matters and technical co-operation. There is the Commonwealth Institute, which fosters knowledge and understanding of the modern Commonwealth by information and education, and the Commonwealth Foundation, with its task of furthering professional links, a point specifically raised during the debate. Of course, there are many more Government and non-Government organisations in the Commonwealth. They do much of the detailed and constructive work, and I should like here and now to pay a tribute to their admirable efforts. And at the centre, providing focus and continuity, there is the Commonwealth Secretariat, now in its second decade at the service of all member Governments. Mr. Ramphal, the Secretary General, and his staff work tirelessly and, if I may say so, with imagination and intelligence to coordinate the manifold areas of Commonwealth activity, and I join with those noble Lords and the noble Baroness who expressed appreciation of the splendid work rendered to the Commonwealth by Mr. Ramphal and his assistants.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, in this connection referred to the need, as she and the rest of us see it, for housing the Commonwealth Secretariat in one building. We are well aware of the Secretariat's difficulties over accommodation and have undertaken to see what we can do to help. We are at present awaiting details of their needs, into which they have been ca0rrying out their own special study. The will is there. There is at least one member of the 40-strong Commonwealth—that is the United Kingdom—that fully understands the difficulties that the Commonwealth Secretariat is faced with, and is anxious to help.
  May I close by referring to two other speeches. I have referred already to the speech of my noble friend Lord Pitt. If I may say so, it is particularly inspiring to hear him on the subject of the Commonwealth; nobody can speak with more convincing eloquence about this love of the Commonwealth and his devotion to it

  461
  than Lord Pitt. We are grateful to him for both calling our attention to the grave and dangerous difficulties that confront us in the heart of the Commonwealth itself, especially in Africa, and warning us once more about the need to place the highest priority on the solution of the problems of disillusion and of conflict that beset the modern world, not least in the Commonwealth.
  My noble friend Lord Segal spoke eloquently about a part of the Commonwealth he knows well and in which he has served well: he spoke of St. Lucia. Certainly, I note what he said about presentation of this occasion in the media, and I am quite sure that the BBC will read with great attention what my noble friend has had to say; in particular I think Mr. Martin Bell, who has a deservedly high reputation as an analyst and commentator on international affairs, will wish to examine very carefully what my noble friend said about his performance. I should like to he there when Mr. Bell and my noble friend get together to discuss the matter.
  May I close, however, by quoting from the Declaration of Commonwealth Principles approved by the Heads of Government at Singapore in 1971:
  "The Commonwealth of Nations is a voluntary association of independent sovereign states, each responsible for its own policies, consulting and co-operating in the common interests of their peoples and in the promotion of international understanding and world peace".
  It goes on to say this:
  "We believe in the liberty of the individual, in equal rights for all citizens regardless of race, colour, creed or belief".
  I say to the House that an association of free nations founded on such principles cannot but survive and succeed.
  8.17 p.m.
  Lord GREENWOOD of ROSSENDALE: My Lords, I am sure that the most effective way of expressing my appreciation to those noble Lords who have taken part in this debate would be straight away to ask leave to withdraw the Motion. That I will do in one minute, but before that I should like to say how greatly I have appreciated the many courtesies that have been extended today and the very wide range of knowledge that has been brought to bear on this debate. I want, too, to thank my noble friend the Minister of
  462
  State, not only for the reassurances he gave—and I knew he would give—about the three territories on which I questioned him, but also for the way that he treats your Lordships' House. There is no one who makes himself more thoroughly master of the facts; his research combined with his sense of history and his long experience make him a most acceptable spokesman for Her Majesty's Government.
  The last thing I want to say, my Lords, is how strongly I endorse the praise which has been lavished on Mr. Arnold Smith and Mr. Ramphal. Mr. Arnold Smith I have known for very many years. I came to know Mr. Ramphal pretty well when we had the Guyana constitutional conference. Day after day I sat opposite Mr. Burnham and Mr. Ramphal, and as Mr. Jagan at that stage had decided not to come to the discussions I felt it was my duty to see that his point of view was not ignored. Therefore, day after day I put Mr. Jagan's point of view, and Mr. Burnham or Mr. Ramphal replied. I had already lost the friendship of Mr. Jagan, and I came very close to losing the friendship of Mr. Burnham and Mr. Ramphal as well. But nevertheless it survived, and I am full of admiration for the way that Mr. Ramphal is fulfilling his duties. If anyone would like proof of that, may I once again refer them to the report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association Conference in Kingston. With those few words and with many thanks, my Lords, I ask leave to withdraw my Motion.
  Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (DEFINITION OF TREATIES) (ECSC DECISION ON SUPPLEMENTARY REVENUES) ORDER 1979
  8.20 p.m.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS rose to move, That the draft order, laid before the House on 31st January, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper I should like to make a comment on the reason why this item on the Order Paper is being taken now and not, as previously indicated, before the

  463
  debate which we have just held. Noble Lords will be aware that last week a question was raised in another place about the powers of this House as regards Orders-in-Council made under Section 1(3) of the European Communities Act 1972. The question was referred for a decision to the authorities of the other place and, as noble Lords will know, a ruling was given this afternoon that the financial implications of the order are not such as to make its discussion and approval by this House a breach of the privileges of the other place.
  I trust that your Lordships will agree with me that, in the circumstances, it was well that we should take the Commonwealth debate first so that the results of proceedings and rulings in another place could have time to mature and reach us in this place. I think that it was necessary, out of respect to the Speaker of the other place, that that should be so, and I hope that your Lordships will agree that I took the correct procedure even though it meant, at very short notice indeed, reversing the position of two items on the Order Paper.
  With that word of procedural explanation, I now beg to move that the draft European Communities (Definition of Treaties) (ECSC Decision on Supplementary Revenues) Order 1979 which was laid before the House on 31st January 1979, be approved. The order specifies as a Community Treaty the decision taken at the Council of Ministers on 30th October 1978 to allocate supplementary revenues to the 1978 budget for the European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC).
  If the House approves, the order will formally define the decision as a Community Treaty. I know that the noble Lord, Lord O'Hagan, is well versed in this matter, but he will agree with me that I should take one or two minutes to place formally on record what we are doing. The order will formally define the decision as a Community Treaty under Section 1 of the European Communities Act 1972—the enabling Act which we passed when we joined. I believe that noble Lords are familiar with this procedure—I know that the noble Lord who is to speak for the Opposition is very familiar with it—which
  464
  we have considered on a number of occasions in the past.
  The purpose of the Council decision specified in the order is to provide the European Coal and Steel Community with the additional revenue needed to make good a deficiency in its 1978 budget as a result of increased expenditure arising from the steel recession. As the House knows, the steel industry has been hit by a sharp fall in demand, at a time when world steel production capacity had been greatly increased in anticipation of a high level of demand which failed to materialise. The steel industry has suffered accordingly.
  In human terms, the main brunt has fallen on the steel workers themselves, a distressing number of whom have been made redundant throughout the Community. The deficiency in the 1978 budget has arisen largely as a result of Community policies designed to soften the impact of the crisis on these men. As the House may know, they qualify for resettlement aid. That takes the form of making up for a period the earnings of re-employed workers to the level they received before they were made redundant, providing additional unemployment benefits, and making grants towards re-training. The 1978 budget provides for an increase of 35 million EUA (European Units of Account) on expenditure in this area. Noble Lords will wish to know that Community reimbursement to the United Kingdom of aids for resettlement is expected to be £7·7 million in 1978 compared with £2·1 million in the preceding year, 1977.
  The Community of course provides not only resettlement aid. As noble Lords know, it has agreed policies for encouraging the creation of alternative employment for redundant workers. Interest rebates, generally of 3 per cent. over five years, are given on ECSC loans for projects providing employment for redundant coal and steel workers. A recent example is the interest rebate given on an ECSC loan of £78 million towards the cost of the Ford motor company's projected new engine plant in South Wales. The 1978 budget increased expenditure in this field by 7·7 million EUA.
  In addition, interest rebates are available on ECSC loans for coal projects and

  465
  aid for those steel projects which are considered to be of particular value in restructuring the industry. The Community's objective here is to bring the steel industry's capacity into line with the level of demand forecast in the 1980s, and to improve its efficiency so that it can meet world competition. An increase of 12·5 million EUA is included in the 1978 Budget under this heading. The total of expenditure provided for in this way in the ECSC operation budget amounts to 152 million EUA for 1978. This is some 38 million EUA more than for 1977. This figure takes account of the reduction from 18 to 5 million EUA in the ECSC's contribution to the general EEC budget towards the administrative expenses of the Commission.
  Given these plans for increased expenditure, the Community was faced with the problem of deciding how to raise the necessary funds. In view of the difficulties currently facing the steel industry, the Community decided against raising the production levy above its existing level of 0·29 per cent., that is, the production levy on the coal and steel industries by which Community expenditure is financed under the terms of Articles 49 and 50 of the ECSC Treaty. The Council agreed instead, in December 1977, to make up the anticipated 1978 deficit by means of exceptional contributions from member States totalling 32 million EUA, a figure which was subsequently reduced to 28 million EUA. In the event the sum raised by the production levy had increased as a result of a slight improvement in production levels in 1978. So the figure was subsequently reduced to 28 million EUA. The Council subsequently agreed on the contributions that individual member States should make. The United Kingdom will contribute 17·4 per cent. as compared with 21·3 per cent. contributed by France and 33·1 per cent. by the Federal Republic of Germany. Accordingly, I seek approval for the necessary Order-in-Council, and I shall seek to answer as well as I can any points of clarification or detail which the noble Lord. Lord O'Hagan, or any other noble Lord may care to raise.
  Moved, That the draft order, laid before the House on 31st January, be approved.—(Lord Goronwy-Roberts.)
  8.30 p.m.
  Lord O'HAGAN: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for changing gear with his customary facility and drawing the attention of the House to this important, though minor, Definition of Treaties Order. This is, of course, part of the continuing constitutional protection secured by the European Communities Act, 1972. We are grateful that another place has made up its mind as to the standing of your Lordships in this matter and, of course, understand the reason why this order's place was change in today's business.
  I listened with interest to what the noble Lord had to say. The only question that has arisen in my mind when studying, the order he did not answer. In the memorandum of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of 3rd January it was stated, as he repeated, that our own contribution would be about £3·3 million. It was also stated that:
  "Each Member State will pay a specified sum on 1 December 1978, or soon after".
  The question I should like to ask the noble Lord is: Has our sum been paid, has that of other Member States been paid, and are we all paying on the same date or not?
  I do not want to delay your Lordships and I hope the House will understand that I am trying to help the noble Lord by giving him a little time if I say something on a personal note. This is the last occasion on which I shall be speaking from this Box and from the Conservative Front Bench, perhaps for many years. I am resigning from the Front Bench and returning to the Back-Benches in your Lordships' House in order to have more time to work to return to the Back-Benches of the European Parliament following the elections on 7th June to that Assembly or Parliament, as your Lordships may choose to call it. It is, of course, peculiarly indicative of the way in which this House works that we have spent an afternoon talking about one worldwide relationship in general, that we return to a particular aspect of today's most powerful link of Britain with the wider world in discussing this order and that we end with an Unstarred Question on the Constitution of our country and its evolution.

  467
  I do not want to say anything about the activities to which I shall primarily be devoting myself in the coming months, but, should I be successful in reaching the Back-Benches of another Parliament, I should wish to disappoint my noble friends on this side of the House and my noble friend on the other side of the House if they think that they have heard the last of me. I believe that those of us from this House and from another place who may have the opportunity of serving in the European Parliament have a special duty to help to ensure that this new and squalling baby in the long line of Parliaments has some sort of link with our own and most ancient and primary Parliament. That I shall seek to carry out in my own limited and Back-Bench way.
  Quite properly, this order is the subject of scrutiny by this House. Direct elections make no difference to the need for this House to examine this sort of order. I am glad that we are still allowed to inquire into it and that the other place has permitted us to do so. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts—my noble friend—will be able to tell us about the position regarding the contributions of the different member States.
  Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, before I answer the specific point put to me by the noble Lord—if I may say so, in turn, my noble friend—I should like to add to the words of explanation which I made to the House about the order of business. The Motion which I then moved and which I now conclusively move—if I may put it like that—was originally to be taken before the debate which has just been concluded; that is, the debate on the Commonwealth. Last Friday it was decided to take the order after the Motion, and a Notice was accordingly circulated to that effect. It was brought to my attention that a Business of the House Motion should have been moved to dispense with Standing Order No.37(4).Unfortunately, that preliminary was overlooked, but I am quite sure the House will agree that, despite this technical breach, we were quite right to proceed with the order and that it should now be approved.
  Before I conclude, I should like to say something about the noble Lord, Lord
  468
  O'Hagan. I wish that he had announced his intention of moving—howsoever temporarily—to the Back-Benches without asking, as is his unfortunate wont, a very difficult question. However, the resources of the British Civil Service are not exhausted, and while I was puzzling over this procedural problem I was able to find the answer for him. It is like trying to solve both the Guardian and The Times' crosswords at the same time. Our sum has not been paid and will not be paid until the procedure in which we are engaged tonight is completed. Other member States will pay when their procedures are carried out. I think that, financially and procedurally, that is fair enough.
  Before I sit down, may I say that I listened to the noble Lord's statement of his intentions with mixed feelings: with a certain sense of relief, which is understandable, that his very pointed and effective attentions from that side of the House will not, at least in the foreseeable future, be my lot. For that relief, much thanks. On the other hand, we all feel disappointed that he should be removed, however temporarily, from that Bench and only hope that his retirement—his retreat—to the Back Benches is not only temporary but strategic, and that he will re-emerge like a lion refreshed, primed with experience in the European scene, which is quite a good apprenticeship for the larger task of coping with this House.

  SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY: REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN
  8.39 p.m.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware that an inordinate amount of misinformation was circulating in Scotland during the campaign period preceding the referendum on 1st March; and whether they accepted or repudiated the statement used in some Yes campaigns advertising: "If you don't vote, you vote No". The noble Lord said: My Lords,in tabling this Question, I intend to concentrate on the

  469
  referendum held in Scotland on 1st March, and not on what should be done about the Scotland Act 1978. There will doubtless be opportunities to debate that later, and last Thursday the Prime Minister stated in another place that he needed time and also that repeal orders would, in due course, be tabled.
  The referendum, with the simultaneous one in Wales, was the first of its kind to be held in the United Kingdom. Therefore, it seems appropriate that we, in your Lordships' House, should consider, while it is fresh in our minds, some of the extraordinary statements that were made during the preceding period. In this House we considered beforehand arrangements for holding the referendum. We now have the time in this House to consider what happened. The Government said beforehand last year that they were modelling the referendum so far as possible on the 1975 referendum on Europe, but there were fundamental differences, as was pointed out in our debate on the referendum order on 5th December. The details are contained in the record of that debate. I shall simply sum them up now.
  On this occasion in 1979, the Government were officially supporting one side in the referendum. In the 1975 referendum on Europe, Ministers were allowed to campaign on both sides. There was no financial assistance, free printing, or post provided by the Government on this occasion in 1979. There was no accounting by each side afterwards. On the other hand, in the Europe referendum, individual's expenditure of over £100 had to be included in the accounts, and five senior Ministers' expenses were in the White Paper, four on one side and one Cabinet Minister on the other. These were examined and certified by the Comptroller and Auditor General. Most of the money accounted for on that occasion had not been contributed by the Government. Most of it had come from other sources, but it still had to be declared and the expenditure reported.
  Another important difference, because it involves a major constitutional change to the present system—the greatest since 1707—was that the Commons inserted the 40 per cent. provision. The Government made no attempt to change that in this House. That provision in itself
  470
  made the referendum not strictly comparable with the 1975 one. I have reminded your Lordships of these principal differences because I have been aware that there has been little sign South of the Border that the referendum campaign was taking place. I was myself in Scotland for about two-thirds of the time between mid-December and 1st March. This was because there were two recesses and because of my usual habit of flying to London for the days when I am needed here. Of course I was mostly in the area of my home in Nairnshire, near Inverness, but I was also in other parts of Scotland.
  I think it is only right to point out the background to the referendum; namely, that in January and February most people in Scotland were very vague about what the Question was. The Press and the media did not help. I know that headlines and shorthand have to be used, but they led to expressions such as "referendum on devolution", or "referendum on whether to have an Assembly in Edinburgh". But of course the referendum was on neither of those two questions. The Question was, and I spell it out again:
  "Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect?"
  That Question did gradually emerge for those who were determined to find out what it was. It was not a referendum on devolution in general, and it was not a referendum on having any kind of Assembly. But the problem for the conscientious elector then was to see a copy of the Scotland Act. It cost £1.75, and many would not have thought it worth making a purchase for that single referendum. Indeed, I am sure that very few of them were sold in Aberdeen! In my Question in this House on 23rd January, I therefore asked about copies in libraries.
  But, even if the elector achieved the sight of a copy, it was not easy reading, as we in this House know only too well. Schedule 10 on the subjects devolved was difficult to follow and was 25 pages long. That is just one Schedule. So I start by saying that mistakes about interpretations of the Act were made publicly by both the "Yes" and the "No" campaign groups. Some of the "No" campaign statements, in particular at the beginning, had to be admitted to be

  471
  mistakes by the "No" campaigners who had made them. Similarly, broadcast discussions and letters and articles from prominent people contained wrong assumptions. For example, it was said that agriculture was to be devolved, when we who dealt with it in this House knew that it was not.
  These were to be expected. Even the Government Front Bench here made mistakes in interpretation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I think never let us down and gave us full explanations, but there were cases when Members of the Government had to correct what they had said on a later day and apologise. I am thinking in particular of the special grants for museums and galleries where we were told one thing and later exactly the opposite. So the complexity of the Bill did make errors understandable.
  The Government had taken a deliberate decision not to produce a short, simple summary of the Act for cheap or free circulation. The reason given was that they felt they would be accused of slanting it however much they tried to make it neutral. So the result was that the electorate in Scotland was almost entirely dependent on the media and on hearsay. There were meetings, and of course those who attended them were better informed, but they could only be attended by a small fraction of the electorate. Anyone who attended meetings addressed by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, would I am sure have received accurate information. But the television and radio interviews that I saw and heard were sketchy, often wrong, and very seldom upon the Scotland Act, the subject of the referendum.
  Before I give examples of misinformation of a dangerous and divisive kind, the House might be entertained by the following example of just one incident of a kind which could happen only in a referendum and not at a General Election. In one Scottish newspaper, a journalist suggested that of former Moderators of the Church of Scotland six were "Yes" and only one "No". This immediately caused a Member of your Lordships' House, the noble Lord, Lord MacLeod of Fuinary, to telephone as many of the 16 other living ex-Moderators as he could, and he produced an opposite
  472
  result: at least 11 "No's". His letter recording this was published with a gracious apology from the journalist.
  Now I come to the most serious of the mis-statements, and I have included it in the Question on the Order Paper. Some of the "Yes" campaigners used the 40 per cent. provision as a pretext for saying and printing:
  "If you don't vote, you vote No",
  and words to that effect. That is the one I have with me. That was palpably untrue. We in Parliament knew that the final decision on the Act was to be taken by Parliament, the referendum being advisory, and that a comparison of the strengths of the "Yes" and "No" totals would be one of the crucial considerations. I hope that the Government will confirm in reply this evening what I assume to be their attitude to this slogan. It is important that everyone should know what the Government's view is. I assume that the noble and learned Lord will tell us that where several groups are on one side in a referendum campaign and one is the Government, the Government do not and cannot subscribe to all the slogans propagated by fraternal groups.
  But did the Government do anything to stop this slogan once it had started? For it was entirely incorrect and misleading. The Government must be the first to admit that. If it were true, then it means that 67 per cent. of the Scottish electorate—the sum of the "Noes" and the abstentions—have declared themselves opposed to the Scotland Act, and that is absurd, and it would not be giving the Prime Minister any trouble to decide what to do. I myself know of cases of people who could not vote on the day because of sudden illness, or unforeseen and essential absence. Some might have voted "Yes", and some might have voted "No". But this misleading slogan did undoubtedly in addition affect some who intended to vote "No" but could have done so only with some difficulty or with great difficulty. They knew about the 40 per cent. threshold. They should not have been misled by this propaganda into thinking that the comparison between the totals of "Yesses" and "Noes" would not also be important and matter.
  I was aware of such electors—for example, some who were indisposed on

  473
  the day but who could have gone to the polling booths, others who had transport difficulties and would have had to ask a neighbour for a lift in a car and others who were at work all day and were without a baby-sitter in the evening. If this had been repeated over Scotland, there are many who would say that the 2 per cent. gap between the "Yesses" and "Noes" might have been bridged and that there might have been more "Noes" than "Yesses".
  I have with me the version of the slogan which the Scottish National Party put out. I have taken it from a weekly newspaper in my part of the country, the north of Scotland, called the Northern Scot and presumably it had the approval of the SNP MPs in the area. It said:
  "Yes, yes, yes. If you don't vote, you vote No."
  If the story in yesterday's Sunday Express in the Cross-Bencher column is correct, one of those SNP Members failed to vote because she made a muddle about her postal voting. According to that report, it could only have been Mrs. Ewing's own fault that she did not vote. If her Party's slogan in the newspapers in that area had any validity, she became a "No" voter by not voting, and I am sure that is not what she intended. In fact, it is a case of being hoist with her own canard.
  A referendum of this kind is a novelty in this country and the threshold is also a novelty. If we are to have more referenda and if they are to be on constitutional questions, again with a threshold, then the lessons from this referendum should be learned If there is a percentage threshold in any future referendum, any mis-statements of this kind about the effect of not voting must be shot down publicly at the beginning. While I am sure that the Government's intention was to encourage as many electors as possible of all views to exercise their vote—I am sure that is what the Government Front Bench opposite intended—I trust the noble and learned Lord will agree that this was the wrong way to do it.
  Some other mis-statements which were made during the period must be corrected, otherwise a false mythology will be created; divisive, anti-English and untrue. It is easy to work up grievances in Scotland
  474
  if you feel a neglected poor relation. It is tragic if such grievances are founded on fallacies. There was the mis-statement in the leading article of the Scotmsan on 23rd February which I corrected by a published letter. The editor was good enough later, in the correspondence columns, himself in an editorial note to agree that his newspaper was wrong. The mis-statement was the only comment made on the worrying and intractable problem known as the West Lothian question. It was:
  "Parliament for years has loaded Scottish Committees with English MPs so that they reflect the composition of the whole House".
  That statement was totally wrong and likely, if not shot down forever, to cause damage. It also showed an unfortunate unfamiliarity with the present system. I am not a defender of the present system but at least more should be known about how it works. Misunderstandings of this kind would then be less likely to occur.
  This particular misunderstanding arises out of the composition of the Scottish Grand Committee. Since 1907, over 70 years ago, the Scottish Grand Committee has consisted of all the 71 Members representing Scottish constituencies, plus at least 10 non-Scottish Members—I say that because they are Welsh and Irish as well as English—but not more than 15, so the Committee has always had to consist of 81 but not more than 86. That is under Standing Order 68, if anybody cares to look it up, and I am glad to see the noble Lord the Leader of the House in his place tonight because he was Leader in another place and will be familiar with these matters.
  Originally the purpose in 1907 must have been to have a watching brief over United Kingdom interests in that Grand Committee when it was first set up; in my opinion it is now anomalous and unnecessary. Those non-Scottish Members do not need to attend, though nominated, and one reason for that is that there is no voting in the Scottish Grand Committee on any of the subjects discussed. The only motion that can be voted on is the equivalent to "That the Committee do adjourn" and the average votes on that work out at about one Division every five years.
  Second Reading of Scottish Bills and six days in the year on Scottish Estimates

  475
  are taken, plus two general subjects in the Scottish Grand Committee. If a Bill is opposed and there is likely to be a Division, or even the possibility of a Division, then the Second Reading is taken on the Floor of the House and the voting happens there. Thus, it does not matter at all whether or not the Government have a majority and there is no question of loading the Committee with non-Scottish Members.
  For seven years—for part of them I was a Scottish Government Whip, so I am familiar with this—about half the time of Conservative Governments since 1945, the Government did not have a majority in the Scottish Grand Committee, even when the maximum of 15 non-Scottish Conservative Members were added. But it did not matter; the non-Scottish Members very seldom spoke and there was no voting. The 71 Scottish MPs did the talking. As for the Scottish Standing Committees which take the Committee stages of Bills, they are much smaller, and manned only by Members for Scottish constituencies. They are selected in proportion to the strengths of the parties, and Governments do have majorities there. I have explained that because it must be put on the record.
  Now we come to the West Lothian problem with which this was compared. It is illustrated in this way: on a sensitive domestic subject—for example, comprehensive education in England only—a majority of the MPs representing English constituencies might be against a Bill. With the 71 Scottish MPs voting too, the majority—and the decision—might be the opposite. But the Scottish MPs who had caused that result, voting on this English subject, would not have any say in Scottish education, which would be decided by other people in Edinburgh. That is the problem and without a solution it is most unsatisfactory, to say the least.
  But the vital point was voting and because there is no voting in the Scottish Grand Committee it could not be described as loaded with non-Scottish MPs without misleading the public. It is all the more important that this fallacy be killed off because, four days after that leading article appeared, the Prime Minister made the same mistake in the Panorama programme on 26th February. In reply to
  476
  Mr. Robin Day, the Prime Minister dismissed the West Lothian question by saying that we have had the Scottish and Welsh Grand Committees packed by English Members. He went on to say that English Conservatives have been added to the Welsh Grand Committee to make up numbers. It is in fact a Scottish question but naturally, as a Member for Cardiff, he is more familiar with the Welsh scene. I must point out in the case of the Welsh Grand Committee that it consists of the 35 Welsh Members together with a maximum of five non-Welsh Members, which is not very much, and the additions are optional—not like the Scottish Grand Committee where there have to be at least 10 additional Members. Again, there is no voting. That is the main point, and the Welsh Committee meets only three or four times a year because there are no Estimates and there is hardly ever a Welsh Bill for Second Reading. There can be no real comparison with the existing Scottish system and the West Lothian problem. Mr. Robin Day could not be expected to pursue this question about the Committee system, so discussion of this most serious problem ended there.
  I now appeal to all who aspire to prescribe or work out constitutional changes—and for myself I hope that they will begin with modest improvements of wide acceptability—at least to do their homework about the present machinery for dealing with Scottish Parliamentary business, and not to mislead the public. I add straight away that, in the cases I have mentioned regarding the newspaper and the broadcast, what occurred was clearly and certainly unintentional. It was simply a mistake. Yet no matter how such statements are made, damage can be done to amity between Scots and English when there are aroused false grievances based on fallacies of this kind.
  To keep within reasonable time I shall select only one other misconception which must be corrected before it becomes bogus modern history. Like my noble friend Lord Cromartie (who I am glad to see is here, and due to speak), I am, as many know. unhappy about the way in which the new form of local government has been operating in some parts of Scotland. As I have said in previous debates, I believe that this is largely because some councils were allowed to

  477
  build empires and appoint grandiose staffs of unnecessary size. My noble friend served in local government for many years and was a successful Convener of the Ross and Cromarty County Council. He certainly has not made any mis-statements on the subject, but, with his knowledge, he has been critical of the present system. Anyone reading the Scottish Press over the last two months would have formed the impression that the local government scheme for Scotland was hatched in London and imposed by England. Whether or not one likes the present organisation, the fact is that the two-tier system on the present lines—which included Strathclyde—was recommended unanimously by the Wheatley Royal Commission in 1969. The Commission was entirely composed of Scots. It included Members of Parliament from the principal political Parties in Scotland and it was presided over by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wheatley, who had been Lord Advocate in a Labour Government. It was equivalent to the Redcliffe-Maud Commission in England and Wales.
  At that time, in 1969·70, the system proposed was generally accepted in Scotland. I cannot remember any significant voices being raised against it. Some changes were made, but they were generally welcomed. There was, for example, the introduction of the Islands groups and a border region. There were two or three important controversies and differences of opinion about them within Scotland. But it must be recorded plainly and without any ambiguity that the structure was the product of a completely Scottish Commission with which there appeared to be general agreement when its recommendations were published. If such facts are not registered in order to correct mis-statements, now that the referendum dust has settled, agitators and demagogues will be provided with bogus grievances with which to cause mischief and discord within Britain. I for one am determined to do all I can to prevent that happening.
  9.4 p.m.
  The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, as a "Yes" voter, and having over a number of years given my views on the desirability of some devolution of Government to Scotland, I shall be very brief.
  478
  There were three main reasons why the number of the abstentions was so large. The first was that those—perhaps not a great number—who had read the Bill realised that it was not a good Bill and that it gave the proposed Assembly too little power. It might have been better if more of the Amendments proposed by your Lordships had been accepted in another place. Secondly, there was the very valid fear of gross over-government, and if the Government had had the courage to ensure that the disaster of regionalisation was abolished and that Scotland could return to some form of single-tier local government—which, incidentally, is working well in the Outer Isles—many prospective voters would have been reassured on this matter. Not only would local government have become again more truly local and far less expensive to both the ratepayer and the taxpayer, but the staffing of the Assembly could have been found from among the late regions.
  Thirdly, there was the fear that the greatest area of Scotland would, because of its smaller population, have been dominated by Glasgow and Strathclyde, whose way of life and ideas are often at variance with those of the people of Scotland outwith this heavily populated area. Personally I think that this fear was overstressed; nevertheless, it was there. Would not proportional representation, as so clearly recommended by your Lordships' House, have gone a long way to mitigate this danger? As we all know, this was turned down in another place where many people think that this reform is long overdue. However, the fear of losing seats makes the idea unpopular. Finally, my Lords, let us not delude ourselves that the issue of self-government within the framework of the Kingdom is dead; it is not.
  9.7 p.m.
  Lord TORPHICHEN: My Lords, I wish to confirm the main point on which my noble friend Lord Campbell of Croy started this short debate. There was indeed a very persistent campaign to persuade doubtful "No" voters that they did not need to go out to the polls on the day. If they abstained, the Act, or devolution, or whatever it was that the electorate thought was being offered, would fall if the 40 per cent. target was not met. From asking around among the people

  479
  with whom I live and work in Scotland I am certain that a substantial number of people—even right up to the day—did not really believe that they had to vote "No" in order to register their opinion. Certainly, I persuaded those whom I know and whom I was able to reach that they should, but I could reach only people around me, and there must have been others elsewhere.
  I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, whether, in the light of the way in which this referendum campaign was conducted, the Government will give some attention to laying down the principles under which referendums should be held, or will be held, in future. I would say here that I would prefer that there were no further referendums held in this country, but I am sure there will be; now that the practice has been started it is likely to continue. I would ask whether they would debate the laying down of some framework within which referendums should be held in future, in order that, before another referendum takes place, the electorate are aware of the ground rules and know that they will not be changed after the event, and know that when the referendum has taken place the result will be accepted.
  The rules of this referendum were made up after the question had been put on the Table, as the Bill progressed through Parliament. That is obviously unsatisfactory, because it enables the two sides, not only to debate the referendum but to pull the rules apart as they go, and argue about them after the referendum. If the rules are understood before the referendum and are made to stick after the referendum, it makes it more likely that those whose views do not prevail at the ballot box will accept the referendum and not cause trouble and violence thereafter.
  9.10 p.m.
  Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I think the House is indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for asking this Question, and I am concerned only to express the hope that the Government will give due and proper regard to everything that he has said, and will answer the questions which have been put to them. I hope they will have regard to what he has said in relation to
  480
  their consideration of what future action they are going to take as a result of this referendum, and also with regard to any future referendums which it may be considered appropriate to hold.
  Beyond that, I would say only this. I suppose that in political warfare, as in other forms of warfare, truth is a not infrequent casualty; and the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to a mis-statement by the "No" campaign, with which I was closely involved during the course of the referendum. There was, of course, a small mistake in one of our pamphlets, which we readily admitted; and we said we would withdraw all the other copies of the pamphlet if those involved on the other side of the battle would stop saying that an abstention was equal to a "No". This offer was not taken up. I myself gave this pamphlet 99 per cent. Discount 5 per cent. for my prejudices, and it was still substantially accurate. But this assertion throughout the campaign, repeated to a mounting crescendo until the eve of the poll, was the really big untruth of the campaign.
  Indeed, an argument could be presented for the proposition that the result of the referendum was very largely vitiated by the way in which this assertion was repeated and officially endorsed, not just by people like the National Union of Students but by the Labour Party in Scotland itself. I have a very full and lengthy brief which would support such a case, though it might not carry such a case. I am happy to inform your Lordships that at this hour on this particular night I have no intention of using that brief. I shall keep it and, in the unlikely event of Her Majesty's Government seeking to persuade your Lordships not to repeal the Scotland Act, I shall use it then.
  9.13 p.m.
  The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I shall endeavour to be as brief as I can, but I must make a proper reply to the speeches which have been made, and particularly to that of the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. If I may take a small point first of all, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the fact that this particular referendum—I refer to the Scottish referendum—was different from the referendum on the EEC, and he pointed

  481
  to some particular differences, specifying that in the campaign in Scotland the Ministers campaigned on only one side, whereas in the EEC referendum they campaigned on both sides. That is true. But as the noble Lord and the House will be aware, in the manifesto prepared for the 1974 October election, in the case of the EEC, the commitment of the Labour Party in that manifesto was to the holding of a referendum. It was not a commitment to asking for a "Yes" or "No" in relation to the terms which were to be renegotiated. The commitment was only to the holding of a referendum. In relation to devolution the Party was committed to the establishment of a legislative Assembly, an elected Assembly, for Scotland and no mention was made of a referendum.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble and learned Lord so early in his speech but I want to make this clear. I was merely stating the differences, which I accept. I was not being critical. I stated that this was a novelty because it is different in many respects. But that was not a criticism.
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I did not intend to sound defensive. I was trying to explain why this difference had arisen in case those noble Lords who do not know the history of this as well as does the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, might misunderstand the position. In relation to another matter he mentioned, the question of people's understanding in Scotland, he drew our attention particularly to the fact that many people, he said, were vague about what the question was but gradually it emerged. Of course, the question was advertised; it appeared on the ballot paper; and those who were able to read newspapers and were able to read advertisements in newspapers, and, I think, on television, would know what the question was. I accept that the Scotland Act is not bedtime reading although it often put Members of this House to sleep. But the Government did plan to issue a leaflet, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has rightly said.
  The Government took the view, based on what the opponents of devolution were saying, that they would certainly come to assert that any leaflet or even White
  482
  Paper produced by the Government was biased and that, whatever was said in such a leaflet, the opponents of devolution would say that it was biased in favour of a "Yes" vote. If I may refer to the proceedings in another place on 18th July 1978, when the Minister of State, as he then was, Mr. John Smith, was speaking in the presence of Mr. Edward Taylor about this matter, he commented on something that apparently Mr. Taylor had said, and the passage reads:
  "The honourable Member for Glasgow (Cathcart) says, 'We do not trust you.' I think that that argument is without any foundation."
  But that was the attitude at the time. And when Mr. Brittan, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition, came to reply to what Mr. Smith had said, he indicated that Mr. Smith had been right to say that the Government were not to issue an independent leaflet or an authoritative objective leaflet and said that Mr. Smith was wise to eschew that course.
  Of course, a lucid, unbiased account of the provisions of the Act could have been produced; and we were in the course of preparing such a document before the Government were forced into this position by the critics of devolution. Undoubtedly, it would have been characterised as tendentious whatever it said. It would have been accused of significant omissions and of misleading emphasis and of optimistic tone and so on. The Government wanted to avoid any such accusations and, accordingly, no such document appeared.
  If, as was certainly the case, in the course of the campaign there were misleading statements about what was devolved and what was not and what the powers were and so on, there was then no official guidance to which anyone could turn to resolve his uncertainties unless he could read and understand the Act. We must simply draw our own conclusions from the fact that it was the opponents of the Scotland Act who opposed the provision of an official guide to its contents.
  The Earl of CROMARTIE: My Lords, if the Minister will allow me, is this not one of the occasions when it would have been for the benefit of the country as a whole, and of Scotland in

  483
  particular, if the two parties or the three parties—there is no representative of the other one present at the moment—had been able to get together and discuss this instead of keeping it divided by these party lines?
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not know. That was a long time ago. No one suggested that. I cannot see how Mr. Teddy Taylor, on the one hand, and Mr. Smith, on the other, could have sat down and emerged at the end of a meeting with an agreed statement of what the Scotland Act said and meant. If the noble Earl can imagine that happening then he can imagine anything.
  Let me turn to the other point on which I want to comment; the point that the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, made about committees. Of course, the position is exactly as he stated it to be in relation to his long-running battle with the Scotsman newspaper. He was right and the Scotsman was wrong. I have this recommendation to make to the editor of the Scotsman: that he buy an up-to-date edition of Erskine May. He is working on the 18th edition published in 1971 and the rule that we are concerned with was changed in November 1971. If he were to buy the 19th edition, an expensive document but worth purchasing in that office, he would find the up-to-date position made clear. It is as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said it to be in relation to both the Standing Committees and indeed the Scottish Grand Committee as well.
  The substantial point is this—and I do not think there is any contradiction between what I say and what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has been saying—Scottish legislation is from time to time passed at Westminster, contrary to the wishes of the majority of Scottish Members. But that result is achieved because of the composition of the House of Commons itself, not because the Committees are packed with English Members. So I think that we are in agreement about that.
  There is one point of detail I might just pick up, and that is in relation to local government reform in 1973. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy,
  484
  connected that with his general matter in relation to the West Lothian question and these allegations about packed Scottish Standing Committees or packed Scottish Grand Committees. He is quite right in saying that the Wheatley recommendations were widely greeted with approval when they first appeared. Indeed, that approval continued until one saw what the result was. When one comes to the particular detail, the noble Lord will recall that my noble friend Lord Hughes in this House proposed that the Strathclyde Region, which is the biggest monster in the current machinery of Government mythology in Scotland, should be split into four separate Regions: Greater Glasgow, Lanarkshire, Argyll and Clyde, Ayr and Arran. That proposal was carried. The noble Baroness, Lady Elliot of Harwood, agreed with that proposal and I can see her nodding. That proposal was carried in this House and taken back to the other place. In the other place, the Lords' Amendment was defeated by a substantial majority; but if one counted the Scottish Members' votes they would have been in favour of retaining that Amendment. So the substantial point on which there is no disagreement is that it is the composition of the House of Commons that counts. If the House of Commons has a different political complexion from that which would be given if one looks solely at the Scottish Members, then one finds imposed upon Scotland legislation of a kind the majority of Scottish Members would not want.
  Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lord because I am well aware of that. The Bill had gone through the Commons. The Standing Committee in the Commons had agreed to Strathclyde which was one of the exceedingly controversial subjects. It was difficult to know how to deal with that area. My recollection is that of the Scottish Members who voted on the Lords' Amendment, there was a majority of one or two in favour of Strathclyde. That was an example of the whole House operating as it has before in another place, and all Members being the same and being able to vote on all the Bills, whereas the West Lothian question raised this very difficult point which I outlined and I shall not repeat now.
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, on a point of information, the voting was 28 votes to 24 in relation to the acceptance or rejection of the Lords' Amendment—that is to say, 28 of the Scottish Members were in favour of the Lords' Amendment and 24 were against. So had it been left to the Scots, they would have split Strathclyde into four Regions. The fact that Strathclyde survived as one region derived from the circumstances that the Scots were not able to determine their own affairs in relation to that matter of local government.
  May I go on to deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, thought was the most serious of the misstatements: that is, the statements in relation to the 40 per cent. I agree with him that the 40 per cent. provision was novel. He will recall that it was introduced into the Act by the opponents of devolution. It was, in my view, bound to introduce misunderstanding, and it did; it was bound to divert attention from the real issues, and it did. Let me remind your Lordships of what it said. I read the relevant parts of Section 85(2) of the Scotland Act:
  "If it appears to the Secretary of State that less than 40 per cent. of the persons entitled to vote in the referendum have voted "Yes".… he shall lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of this Act".
  The only legal effect of that is to impose upon the Secretary of State a duty to lay before Parliament the draft of an Order in Council for the repeal of the Scotland Act, provided that less than 40 per cent. of persons entitled to vote have voted "Yes". It sets a target for the "Yes" vote. The number voting "No" is irrelevant, as is the number not voting at all. If 60·5 per cent. of those entitled to vote either abstained or voted "No" the result upon the Secretary of State's statutory duty would have been the same. Even if 1,495,000 Scots had voted "Yes", the same statutory duty would have arisen, even if the other 2,252,112 had abstained. In the circumstances, it is hardly surprising that those who did not want such a draft order to be placed before Parliament stressed that a favourable majority was not enough. To put it another way, the legal effect upon that particular provision of an abstention was the same as the legal effect of a "No" vote. Either an
  486
  abstention or a "No" would contribute, in other words, towards a failure to reach the 40 per cent.
  Apart from the purely legal effect that I have described, it was also obvious that the opponents of devolution would claim the support of those who did not vote "Yes", just as politicians all over the world are wont to claim the support of the so-called "silent majority"—in this case simply those who were silent. One aspect of that is this: Those who support the repeal draft order when it is brought before the House would undoubtedly point with satisfaction to the non-voters as well as to the "No" voters. That is already happening. The opponents of devolution are already doing just that in order to justify the non-implementation of an Act which a clear majority of Scottish voters supported.
  In that context, predictions by some "Yes" campaigners of how abstentions would be regarded and prayed in aid for repealing the Act are understandable, even if the wording of some of their warnings and utterances lack the precision and fullness that would be looked for from a lawyer or a Parliamentary draftsman. It is not for me to comment upon individual utterances, particularly those which came from the Scottish National Party or other bodies which happened to range themselves on the side of the "Yes" voters. In any event, each of the utterances has to be looked at in its own context and in the context of this regrettable and unprecedented 40 per cent. rule.
  It is regrettable for many reasons, but one of them certainly was this: It was likely to produce and indeed did produce confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding. I am not in the least surprised to hear it said that it did, in fact, produce confusion, uncertainty and misunderstanding. So it is not for me to condemn out of context asserted or assorted statements which were designed to explain in simple—perhaps over-simple—terms the effects of a very complicated subsection, being the one to which I have referred.
  I have also been asked whether the Government would make some general comment about the principles upon which referenda should be held in the future. That is not a matter arising out of this Question, and I do not propose to make any such comment at all. In fact, of

  487
  course, if the instrument of a referendum is to be considered again in the future, no doubt the circumstances in which it is proposed to be used will have some bearing upon the form a particular referendum will take. No doubt this is a matter which ought to be discussed, but it is certainly not a matter to be discussed in the context of this particular Question which has been put before the House tonight.
  There has been reference both in the Question and in the debate to mis-statements and misinformation. There were a good many, and I am happy that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, has acknowledged that his particular organisation was responsible for at least one error. I think that he is being unduly modest about the number of errors to which one could point.
  Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord cares to let me have a note of others, I shall be very glad to consider them. But I think that is very disingenuous of him—will he not admit it?—to make this assertion about relatively minor errors, which were admitted to be errors as opposed to outright mis-statements and falsehoods, which is what the assertion that an abstention is the same as a "No" vote was. That was a mis-statement and a falsehood and all his ingenious advocacy does not alter that.
  Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord can point to one word of error in anything I have said, I shall be delighted that he should do so. What I find astonishing is that the noble and learned Lord should, when addressing the House say, "We made a mistake and we were willing to withdraw it, provided that they withdrew their mistake" and to say that truth must be a casualty in a particular campaign in this country. I find this an astonishing assertion to come from a former Lord Advocate, and one who played a substantial part in this campaign.
  488
  However, it certainly serves no great purpose to hash over the entrails of this campaign, and I shall not waste time doing it now. But the noble and learned Lord is well aware that his folding pamphlet contained a number of errors, and indeed his campaign tried to mislead the Scots into thinking that devolution was tantamount to separation. The campaign conducted in these terms was certainly not edifying. There were far too many errors and far too many half truths, and perhaps far too many personal attacks in the course of the campaign. One regrets that, and one hopes that the next time, if there is to be a next time, people will be more responsible.
  I do not believe that the Government could have done any more than they did, or that Ministers who took part in the campaign could have done any more than they did, in order to try to bring the issues before the country, given the limitation that they had to accept in relation to the publication of a leaflet, and the limitation that was placed upon the Government in relation to expending public money in any way in relation to the campaign. There is no doubt bound to be some misinformation and misunderstanding in relation to a difficult constitutional matter, but I feel, at the end of the day, that the substantial character of the Scotland Act and the substantial nature of the opposition to it were well understood by those who took the trouble to vote. Indeed, when one looks at the figures of those who voted, one sees that the turn-out in Scotland was certainly larger than the turn-out at the EEC referendum, and also was respectable in relation to the turn-out at a General Election. I do not believe that the result has been substantially, if at all, influenced by this misinformation, but, none the less, one regrets that there has been misinformation on both sides.
  House adjourned at twenty-seven minutes before ten o'clock.