Lords Sitting of 14 April 1980

Preamble
Reassembling after the Easter Recess, the House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Chelmsford.

LORD KAGAN
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, it is my duty to read to your Lordships the following Statement from the Woolsack:
"My Lords, I have to acquaint the House that the Clerk of the Parliaments has received a letter from Mr. Peter Barnes, Deputy Director of Public Prosecutions, informing him that on 8th April 1980 Lord Kagan was arrested by the French police in Paris on the basis of a warrant for his arrest issued by the justices at Leeds Magistrates' Court on the 1st April 1980 in connection with offences under the Theft Act 1968."

CONTROL OF LOBBIES AT PARLIAMENT
2.37 p.m.
The Marquess of AILESBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why, when a lobby queue was formed outside the House of Lords on 27th March, more lateral space was allocated to the queue than to passers-by; and whether this state of affairs will continue during the main tourist season.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, as the noble Marquess is aware, arrangements for the control of lobbies of Parliament are an operational matter for the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis. I understand that the police allocate space on the pavement in proportion to the number of people lobbying: the 1,700 people who formed the lobby on 27th March required more lateral space on the pavement than did the passers-by at the time. However, the police are always careful to ensure that space is available for pedestrians to pass a lobby queue.

3
They will continue to allocate space on a suitable basis during the tourist season.
The Marquess of AILESBURY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for that reply. Does he appreciate that my concern is for the police constables whom I see standing out in the traffic for reasons which still seem to me inadequate? Does he appreciate that this is directly related to the excessive amount of space taken up by these queues? So long as there is such a wide queue there will be police constables standing in the traffic.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I am well aware that the noble Lord asked a Question on 25th February of this year in similar terms, and my noble friend Lord Belstead (at column 1004 of Hansard for that day) assured the noble Marquess when he said this—and I quote my noble friend's reply:
"No injuries have been sustained by officers because of any exposure of them to traffic in these circumstances".
I know that the Government much appreciate the concern expressed by the noble Marquess on behalf of both the police officers and the public; but circumstances must be taken into account and the judgment taken by the Commissioner of Police.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, while the interests of the police and the rights of pedestrians should be protected, is it not also important to make such facilities as are practicable available for the lobbying of Members of Parliament?
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, most certainly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is perfectly right. The matter of judgment concerns all three aspects and it is a matter of judgment on behalf of the police as to how they adjust it.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, arising out of the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend, do we have to wait until a policeman is run over before taking precautions? Surely prevention is better than cure.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, once again this is a matter for the Metropolitan Police and not for the Government. I am
4
well aware what the noble Earl is suggesting. The Metropolitan Police have great experience in this regard. I feel sure that this matter can be left in their very safe hands.

THE PALESTINIANS: UN DELIBERATIONS
2.40 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 conclusions were reached at the meeting of the United Nations Security Council on 31st March when Palestinian self-determination was discussed; and how the national representatives, including those of the United Kingdom, voted.
The SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS (Lord Carrington): My Lords, the Security Council's deliberations on Palestinian rights are continuing. We have made clear that we would regard a vote on a resolution at this stage as untimely and unlikely to contribute to the achievement of a comprehensive settlement.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is it not the case that the amended resolution would have guaranteed security, territorial integrity and political independence of all States in the area, which would have included Israel? Was not the addition an affirmation that the Palestinian people have the right to self-determination including, if they choose, an independent State? Is not security for Israel and Palestinian self-determination the policy of this country?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the noble Lord is quite right. The draft which we have seen would certainly cause the Government several difficulties.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether, if there is created next door to Israel a State which is controlled by the PLO—as it must be—he does not consider that there will be terriffic violence, and that Israel cannot possibly believe that it will be secure in

5
circumstances such as those? Will the noble Lord please tell the United Nations and our friends in the EEC that none of them would be prepared to have an enemy State, which was controlled by anarchists and murderers, right on their doorsteps?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord opposite is jumping to conclusions. I do not think that it necessarily follows that any State—if ever there were one—would necessarily be PLO or Moscow dominated.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I join the noble Lord in something he said in his reply? The settlement which he is seeking, and which was sought by previous Governments, must be comprehensive—otherwise it will neither be just nor durable. That brings in the fundamental question of relating the rights of the Palestinians to the undoubted rights of Israel.
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords, I agree with the noble Lord in every particular.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, can we be assured that our representative, unlike his American colleague, knows when not to vote?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, he had better!

DAY SURGERY
2.46 p.m.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will comment on the claim made as to the surgical day unit at Kingston Hospital, Surrey, that the five-year waiting list for minor surgery operations has been cut to five weeks since the day unit was opened last September to perform "one day surgery".
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, since the day surgery unit opened in September 1979, the increase in the
6
waiting list for non-urgent surgery at Kingston Hospital has slowed down. For minor surgery, some patients are now able to be treated within five weeks, whereas they may previously have had to wait for more than two years. As the noble Lord has said, the waiting list for hernia operations has been reduced from some five years.
Lord CROOK: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for that reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the Question was deliberately put to obtain comment to help the hospital authorities and surgeons? Is it possible that further information will be given generally on this matter?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, day surgery has been used increasingly by the Health Service for a number of years. Advances in anaesthetic technique, surgical method, and care in the community have made it practicable to discharge patients on the day of operation when home conditions are suitable. Ovbiously many conditions cannot be treated in this way. But with increasing experience it has become apparent that the range of operations that can be undertaken safely is considerable. The operations that can be handled are often medically non-urgent, although of considerable concern to the patient. My noble friend's department is well aware of this approach, which it supports and has indeed commended to authorities. We therefore welcome the initiative shown in this area.
Lord AUCKLAND: My Lords, in view of the satisfactory situation at Kingston Hospital, can my noble friend say whether there are other hospitals which are being encouraged to adopt this scheme, and particularly newer hospitals with a well equipped accident and casualty unit?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Yes, my Lords. There are a number of other hospitals which carry out day surgery, and day case attendances for surgical and related treatments have increased considerably between 1972 and 1977. I have figures here which I shall be very pleased to show to my noble friend. I doubt whether the House would be interested in all the details.
Lord SMITH: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will fully take into account one thing in particular? Patients who are sent straight home still have to be looked after properly. If they are not looked after by doctors in hospital they are looked after by the family doctor at home. This necessarily increases considerably the burden on the family doctors. It is a scheme which simply will not work at all unless there is a particularly good relationship between the hospital and the surrounding family doctors. For instance, the family doctor must be able to get a patient straight back into hospital without argument if there is a complication. There are a number of practicalities which show that there are disadvantages as well as advantages in this scheme.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I entirely concur with what the noble Lord has said.

THE PLO AND ISRAEL
2.47 p.m.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether, and if so when, the Palestine Liberation Organisation has resolved to withdraw from its expressed decision to seek the destruction of Israel by violence.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, the PLO remain formally committed to the terms of the Palestinian National Covenant, including rejection of the establishment of Israel, and to the objective of a secular democratic State in the whole of Palestine. However, there have been indications in recent years that the PLO may be prepared to accept a compromise in which Israel and a Palestinian homeland will co-exist in peace.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, will the noble Lord please tell us when and where the PLO have stated that they were withdrawing from this particular intention to destroy a sovereign State? Will he also let the House know why on earth,
8
when the PLO-inspired murderers went into a kibbutz the week before last with the intention of taking babies as hostages—killing one of them and at the same time violating the Declaration of the Rights of the Child, to which I believe we are all supposed to adhere—we did not condemn that, and why the United Nations did not object? Why was there not at least some outcry against this terrible, brutal and horrific action on the part of terrorists who were trained in and by the PLO?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, there have been a number of statements which indicate a realistic approach by the PLO leadership. For example, in December 1978 Yasser Arafat told the United States Congressmen that the PLO, in return for a State on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, would renounce all violent means to enlarge this territory and give de facto recognition to Israel. Khaled el Hassan of the PLO said something similar in London last year. There is, of course, evidence pointing in both directions. But I have made it clear, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, in this House on a number of occasions, that any policy not involving acceptance of Israel's right to exist is unacceptable to us. With regard to the last part of the noble Lord's question, we unreservedly condemn terrorism wherever it comes from.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether it is not the case that the PLO has recently modified its policy? Was not its representative at the United Nations largely responsible for the resolution to which I have already referred and which recognises the right of Palestine to exist?
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords. I think that the noble Lord is right. I also think that one sometimes gets conflicting evidence on this matter. But I believe that there has been a considerable shift of opinion in the PLO in recent years.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he will please have a look at the statements that have been made within the last few days by Arafat himself, and by others of his gangster group? Will he see to it that the PLO, who have killed Arabs and Jews as well as Christians, and have done

9
a lot of damage to a very large number of people in Lebanon itself, including murder, are not to be the deciding factor in the case of a settlement? How does he expect Israel to have any contacts with people who have definitely stated, time after time, that they are out to destroy Israel, and show it by their actions, such as the one to which I have referred?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if the noble Lord is referring to the interview given to a Venezuelan newspaper by Yasser Arafat, which I think is the interview that he is speaking of, there are some considerable doubts as to its authenticity. It has been described by Yasser Arafat himself as a complete fabrication. But, as I say, the fact remains that the PLO have to accept and recognise the State of Israel if we are to get a settlement. With regard to the second part of the noble Lord's question, I deplore these acts of terrorism and, indeed, I also deplore the incursion by Israel into Lebanon.

IRAN: AMERICAN HOSTAGES
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend the Foreign Secretary will be repeating a Statement that will be made in another place on Iran.

GIBRALTAR: ANGLO-SPANISH AGREEMENT
2.53 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I should like to make a Statement on Gibraltar. I am pleased to report that the Spanish Foreign Minister and I reached agreement on 10th April on the re-establishment of direct communications between Spain and Gibraltar. It is envisaged that the practical preparations will be completed not later than 1st June which will then allow the agreement to be speedily implemented. I have had a copy of the joint Anglo-Spanish Statement placed in your Lordships' Library.
This is a very important step, and one I am sure that your Lordships will wish to welcome, though I should emphasise that
10
this is only the beginning of what is likely to be a very long process. The Spanish decision represents another milestone for democratic Spain and I pay tribute to Senor Oreja's statesmanship and the goodwill which he has shown in his approach to this problem. Our agreement makes a significant contribution towards the strengthening of the United Kingdom's bilateral relations with Spain, to whose early membership of the European Community we look forward.
It is also a move of great significance for the people of Gibraltar, who have been cut off from Spain for 11 years. I discussed the implications with the Chief Minister and leader of the Opposition in Gibraltar in London earlier today. I should like to stress to your Lordships that the Anglo-Spanish Statement reaffirms the Government's commitment never to enter into arrangements under which the people of Gibraltar would pass under the sovereignty of another State against their freely and democratically expressed wishes.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, may I very warmly congratulate the noble Lord on the results of his efforts in reinforcing the age-old friendship between this country and Spain, and particularly on his success in getting a constructive dialogue resumed between us on a number of outstanding questions, including, of course, the important question of movement by land and air between Gibraltar and Spain? May I express to him our hope that, although this may be a long haul, there will be as speedy as possible a termination of these restrictions, which are vexatious and mutually damaging—damaging to trade and damaging to psychology, in that they postpone, rather than accelerate, the possibility of a larger settlement between us, the Gibraltarians and Spain? Finally, may I most warmly endorse what he said about the views of the Gibraltarians themselves being the final deciding factor in any possibility of a constitutional change in their status?
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these Benches should also like to congratulate the Foreign Secretary most warmly on arriving at this arrangement with his colleague from Spain, which is, after all, extremely satisfactory from every point of view. We also accept his view that the negotiations will go on for a con-

11
siderable time. I imagine that, from the Spanish point of view, they will wish to get them satisfactorily ended before Spain comes into the Common Market. I understand that that will be in about two or three years' time, so I suppose that during that period the negotiations will continue. I am not quite certain what the negotiations will be about, but I imagine that from the Spanish point of view the objective—with, of course, the consent of the inhabitants of Gibraltar; and we quite agree that nothing should be done against the wishes of the inhabitants of Gibraltar—will eventually be to achieve some kind of condominium, with joint responsibility for the future of Gibraltar. I ask that only as a hypothetical question.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, it is so hypothetical that I do not think I should care to answer it. It seems to me that the negotiations will naturally consist of anything that anybody wants to talk about. But it is all subject to that very important qualification and proviso which I made to your Lordships in the last sentence of the Statement. I am grateful to both noble Lords for the way in which they have received the Statement. I think it is an important step that the Spanish Government should be prepared to lift the restrictions and I hope very much that, as a result of this, we shall see some practical co-operation between Gibraltar and Spain.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if I may, with the indulgence of the House, intervene once more, may I ask whether the Foreign Secretary recalls the extremely useful and successful visit by a Parliamentary delegation from Spain, under the aegis of our own branch of the Inter-Parliamentary Union last December? It was led by His Excellency Senor Lavilla, Speaker of the Spanish National Congress, and the very strong good feeling between this country and Spain, especially democratic Spain, was made very evident. No doubt, he will look, concomitantly with his own efforts, to further contacts at the parliamentary level between the two Parliaments. That is very useful.
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords. I think that that is a good idea. I would also say that, in the two meetings that I had with Senor Oreja, he certainly
12
showed that spirit of goodwill which the noble Lord has said that the parliamentarians did.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether in the negotiations with the Spanish Government, there will be a place for Sir Joshua Hassan to look in?
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, indeed, my Lords. Any negotiations will include representatives of Gibraltar.
Lord MAYBRAY-KING: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that all friends of democratic Spain welcome the opening of the frontier between Gibraltar and Spain, congratulate the Foreign Secretary and also welcome his underlining of the importance of the decision of the Gibraltarians being their own decision in this matter?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, may I rather exceptionally invite myself to ask the Foreign Secretary whether he will accept warmest congratulations on this occasion from one who seems to have spent years in negotiating with the Spaniards, with less success than the Foreign Secretary?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, that is very nice of the noble Lord, but we have taken only one very short step along what I think will be a very long road.

CRIMINAL APPEAL (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time. The Bill is consolidation of the Criminal Appeal (Northern Ireland) Act 1968, the relevant parts of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 and the Criminal Justice (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. The need for this consolidation arises from the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, which made radical changes to the structure of the court system in Northern

13
Ireland. It is part of the programme of consolidation resulting from the passage of that Act.
This Bill deals with appeals against conviction and sentence on trial by indictment before the Crown Court and with appeals against certain sentences passed by the Crown Court otherwise than on trial by indictment. It is pure consolidation. It makes no changes in the existing law and, if given a Second Reading this afternoon, it will be referred in the usual way to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I wish to thank the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for the very concise and lucid way in which he has explained the provisions of this consolidation Bill. As well as the matters concerning criminal appeal, I understand that this Bill completes the principal provisions of the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978, which has effected the much-needed modernisation of the courts and the related procedures in Northern Ireland. This in turn has led to the more efficient working of the courts and the availability of justice. This consolidation Bill is warmly welcomed by this side of the House.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I am very grateful indeed to the noble Lord for his kind reception of this Bill. My attention was momentarily diverted at the moment when he was speaking part of his kind words. I will study them in Hansard and see whether there is anything that I ought to add to my words of introduction. But I heard the greater part of what the noble Lord had to say and I thought he had got it exactly right.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

CONSULAR FEES BILL
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a
14
manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BRITISH AEROSPACE BILL
3.3 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Vesting of property, etc., of British Aerospace in a company nominated by the Secretary of State]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 21, at end insert—
("() Without prejudice to subsection (3)(6) above, any proceedings on an application made by British Aerospace before the appointed day under section 31(3) of the Act of 1977 may be continued on and after that day by the successor company, and any order made under subsection (9) of that section with respect to any loss resulting to British Aerospace from the transaction to which the application relates shall be made in favour of the successor company.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. Under Section 31 of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Act 1977, British Aerospace has been enabled to seek compensation for so-called "onerous transactions" undertaken by any of the vesting companies before nationalisation. At the moment, arbitration proceedings under the section are in hand in respect of one alleged "onerous transaction". After the day appointed for the vesting of the undertaking in the successor company the right to continue those proceedings under Section 31 will vest, along with the other rights, in the successor company. However, Section 31(9), which enables the arbitration tribunal to make an order for compensation in respect of an "onerous transaction", provides that the order may only be made in favour of the corporation and not the successor company. Because Clause 1(3) (c) specifically exempts enactments from the general provisions of Clause 1(3) that references to the corporation are to be taken after the appointed day as references to the successor company, this would mean that, if proceedings were

15
still pending after the appointed day, they would be carried on by the successor company but any order for compensation could only be made in favour of the "shell corporation". An amendment to Section 31 is therefore necessary to ensure that, after the vesting, an order for compensation is made in favour of the successor company and not the corporation, so that the right to compensation will vest, with all other property rights, liabilities and obligations of the corporation, in the successor company.
This short amendment therefore proposes to add a new subsection to Clause 1 of the Bill. We believe that it is necessary because the arbitration proceedings to which I have referred are of uncertain duration, and there is a risk that an order for compensation would not be made until after the appointed day. What the amendment does is very simple. It makes clear that proceedings on an application made by British Aerospace before the appointed day under Section 31(3) of the 1977 Act may be continued on and after that day by the successor company, and provides that any order made under Section 31(9) with respect to any loss to British Aerospace shall be made in favour of the successor company.
I hope your Lordships will agree that this is a sensible and equitable amendment. As I have said, it is a technical one and is fully in accordance with the Government's overall policy. I beg to move.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, may I thank the noble Lord for explaining this amendment to the House. As he says, it is a technical amendment and we have no objection to it.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Target investment limit for Government shareholding under sections 3 and 5]:
3.8 p.m.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 6, line 47, leave out ("and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, for the convenience of the House I should like to speak to this amendment, which is a paving amendment, and to Amend-
16
ments Nos. 3 and 4 together. Although the subject matter of Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 is different, the reason behind these three amendments on the Marshalled List today is the same. The contents of Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 are Government policy.
Ministers in this House and in the other place have reiterated on more than one occasion that it is their intention that the Government shareholding in British Aerospace shall not fall below 25 per cent, and that foreign ownership in British Aerospace shall not be allowed to exceed 15 per cent. We believe that the Government shareholding should not drop below 51 per cent, and we proposed an amendment to that effect at the Committee stage, but it was rejected on a vote by the Committee. I am not pressing that amendment again today, but we are pressing that the undertaking which the Government have given concerning the 25 per cent, and the 15 per cent, should be included in the Bill.
Throughout our discussions on the Bill the Government have used the argument that British Aerospace should be a normal commercial enterprise and that it must make its way in the rigours of the market place. Let us examine for a second this thesis of the Government. If British Aerospace were to be a normal commercial enterprise, then there would not need to be any statement that there should be a Government shareholding of 25 per cent., and there would be no need for a limitation to be included in the articles of a maximum of 15 per cent, foreign ownership. By the very nature of its business, British Aerospace will not and never can be an ordinary, normal public company.
In these circumstances, I feel that it is only right that Parliament should be asked to approve any variation in these percentage figures. A future Government could well have different ideas from the present Government as to what should be a minimum or a maximum percentage of ownership, and I think it is essential that there should be parliamentary approval if there is to be any change in these particular percentages.
I should say that there is some public concern about this matter. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may have glanced at the pages of The Times of 24th March

17
and seen a letter there from Squadron Leader Bedford concerning the future of British Aerospace. In his letter Squadron Leader Bedford said that
"as an employee (in fact, as a manager) of British Aerospace, and, hence, likely to be affected by the detailed application of the Bill as it stands, I wish to express my concern about the future of aerospace in Britain".
Then he continues:
"While I accept that denationalisation seems now to be inevitable, I am concerned about two major deficiencies in the Bill: (a) there is no defined minimum per cent, of Government shareholding; (b) there is nothing which prevents the possibility of foreign ownership (or dominance) of this vital national industry. Such omissions are potentially dangerous in that they do not protect the national interest. If the omissions are deliberate, then I ask why; if they are by default, then surely they must be rectified".
I hope that the noble Lord will give sympathetic consideration to this batch of three amendments and to including the subject matter within the Bill. I would not for one minute say that the wording of the amendments is absolutely correct in parliamentary terms. What I am seeking from the House this afternoon is a decision that the content of these two matters of vital importance shall be included within the Bill. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, the Question is that Amendment No. 2 be agreed to. The noble Lord has spoken also to Amendments Nos. 3 and 4, but I understood from him that he would wish to move them separately when the time comes. The Question is that Amendment No. 2 be agreed to.
3.12 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I certainly agree with the noble Lord that we should take these three amendments together because although, as he said, they are not precisely identical points they do hang together conveniently and I will speak to all three now.
By tabling the substantive amendment, Amendment No. 3, which is of course paved for by No. 2, the noble Lord is seeking, as he said, to make statutorily binding the Government's undertaking to maintain their shareholding of at least 25 per cent. But before coming on to the other points made by the noble Lord I want to say that his amendment would not achieve that purpose and, as I shall
18
explain in a moment, it is in any event not necessary.
It might help your Lordships if, first, I explain the workings of the target investment limit embodied in Clause 7. Any order made under Clause 7 will set a target investment limit, which is to say a limit that must not be exceeded, for the Government's proportionate shareholding in the successor company. The limit will therefore set a maximum but not a minimum level. A first limit will be required to be set by order as soon as the successor company ceases to be wholly owned by the Government and at the level of the Government's proportionate shareholding at that time. Thereafter, the Government's shareholding may be less than, or equal to, the limit but may not exceed it.
If the Government's proportionate shareholding in the company were to fall from the initial level—through, for example, a rights issue for which the Government chose not to subscribe—it would not require any change to the limit; there would be no necessity for a new and lower target investment limit to be set. All that Clause 7(4) does is to enable the Secretary of State to set a new limit, which must be lower than the last limit, if he so decides. If a lower limit is set, however, it will become the new ceiling on the Government's proportionate shareholding in the successor company. Since the Government's proportionate shareholding may never exceed the limit at any time in force, setting a new limit will either reduce the target level so that it equals or more nearly coincides with the actual proportionate shareholding at that time, or it will require a disposal of shares so that the shareholding conforms with it.
The vital point is that the limit is a maximum—not a minimum. Thus, even if by law the Government were required to maintain a target investment limit above 25 per cent., there would nevertheless be nothing in law to prevent the Government from reducing their shareholding below 25 per cent., even though the target investment limit in force was in fact higher than that. I hope that from this it is clear that the proposed amendment would not serve its purpose.
However, I wish now to move away from theory towards fact and to the

19
Government's undertaking to maintain a shareholding of at least 25 per cent. It is this which will prevent the shareholding from falling below that level—not an amendment such as that which is before us now. This undertaking, as I am sure your Lordships are aware, was given by my honourable friend the Minister of State for Industry, Mr. Butler, in another place during consideration of the Bill in Committee. The undertaking was given in the context of the Government's willingness to vote their shares to prevent the election to the board of the successor company of a director representing foreign interests or to prevent prejudicial changes to the articles of association of the company providing for United Kingdom control. I reaffirm that undertaking here and now. The Government have made it clear that they have set a minimum limit on their proportionate shareholding in the company and I have re-stated that also. Therefore, once more I ask your Lordships to accept that undertaking.
The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, questioned the efficacy of ministerial statements and thus deduced that it was necessary to write these requirements into the Bill. Even supposing that the amendments before us were effective—which I fear they are not—let us suppose that the Government were compelled by law, somehow, to hold 25 per cent, of the company's shares, there would be no guarantee that a future Government would use the voting powers attached to their shares in any particular way. In theory they might simply refuse to vote their shares. It is impossible to secure the ends that the noble Lord is advocating by means of legislation, since the use of the minimum shareholding that is desired cannot be determined by legislation. I must therefore put it to your Lordships that the amendments are doubly defective: first by reason of misunderstanding of Clause 7, and, secondly, and more importantly, by a misconception of what can be achieved by this means.
I wish now to make a reference to the last amendment in this group, Amendment No. 4. There is another, particular reason why this amendment could not be agreed to. It stems from the fact that the company is to be like any other private sector company—which is a point that I
20
have made from this Box several times during the passage of this Bill. The noble Lord said that it could not be argued of the successor company because the foreign ownership article would prevent it operating on all fours with other companies. That is really not so. Many companies have restrictions in their articles of association on the proportion of shares that may be foreign owned. Examples may be found in the articles of Cable and Wireless, P. & O. and Rolls-Royce Motors Limited.
What we propose is, therefore, entirely in line with precedent, which has been shown through long usage to be effective. On the other hand, the amendment before the House would prevent a company being treated on all fours with other private sector companies, for it presupposes that the Secretary of State should have the duty to set a statutory limit on the proportion of shares that could be owned by foreigners and to provide that any issue or transfer of shares which could cause the foreign investment limit to be breached, should be void. This would lead to an ability for the Secretary of State to intervene in the affairs of the company that is quite contrary to the Government's intention.
What the Government have done is to draft provisions in full consultation with the present board of British Aerospace that will ensure that the successor company will not fall under foreign control. The directors of the company will have duties to see that the provisions of the articles are enforced and will obtain declarations from people to whom shares are issued or transferred so that foreign-owned shares can be identified and registered separately. Where foreign-owned shares exceed the 15 per cent, limit, the excess shares will be disenfranchised and unless they are transferred to the United Kingdom ownership will be sold by the directors as necessary. These provisions of the articles cover the intention of the noble Lord's amendment, but they impose duties on the directors not upon the Secretary of State. The Government are clear that this is the right way. It is consistent with the Government's policies that the company should be like other companies and that the Government should not intervene in its day-to-day management. In view of this full and detailed reply, I hope that the

21
noble Lord will not press his amendments, but I confess I am not hopeful.
3.22 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has entertained us to one of those beautiful exhibitions at which he is becoming extremely skilled. One used to have the time when the scholiast would argue about how many angels could dance on the point of a needle. The noble Lord is trying to demonstrate to us how many needles on whose points he can dance at the same time without getting impaled. The noble Lord repeats the statement made previously in another place by the Minister; that it is not the Minister's intention to allow the percentage to fall below 25 per cent. The noble Lord repeats it himself and gives us his guarantee. But he knows perfectly well, as was pointed out to him repeatedly at Committee stage and at Second Reading, that no such ministerial statement or guarantee is worth anything at all, except for the Minister concerned; it does not bind anyone in the future at all. In other words, we are asked to accept the statement, made I have no doubt in good faith; I have not the slightest doubt that the noble Lord makes the statement in good faith. Will he also tell us if he is certain that he will be equally responsible for dealing with this subject in one, two, three or four years' time, because unless he can make such a guarantee to us this statement is of no significance at all? It does not tell us one little bit about what will happen to British Aerospace.
The reason why we are worried about the whole situation is that British Aerospace happens to be, as the noble Lord knows perfectly well, one of the most important industries in this country; it happens to be an industry with an enormous export sale. If our motorcar industry were as successful, then we should be jubilant about it. It so happens that British Aerospace is extremely successful, and it is successful because of the way in which it has been operated. It was operated originally as a number of private industries, but private industries with enormous Government support and with continued Government direction. They were not industries which acted absolutely on their own with no direction at all. Now the noble Lord comes along and
22
says, "Ah, but we have a better prescription. We have now got an infallible prescription which will guarantee that what has been done so successfully may continue to go on successfully, if it is lucky. What we are saying is that this industry is not to be treated any longer as it has been throughout its whole history, as an industry of a special character, but is to be left to be exactly like an industry that produces boots or shoes or slot machines, or anything else you like".
It is no longer to be an industry which is guaranteed to be an industry directed towards aerospace. I am able to show that perfectly clearly. If noble Lords would wish to go to the Library and get the memorandum and articles of association of the company—and there is not a word in the Bill as to what they are to do; it does not say in the Bill they are to produce aircraft—one finds that there are 28 purposes for this company. It starts by saying that the object is:
"… to invent, design, develop, manufacture, construct, assemble, test, repair, maintain, buy, sell, hire, let on hire, operate, import, export, and deal in aeroplanes et cetera".
That is one, and it goes on like that. But when we come towards the end we find that they may:
"… sell, lease, grant licences, easements and other rights over, and in any other manner deal with or dispose of the undertaking, property, assets, rights and effects of the company".
In other words, we reach the point where we find that this company by the memorandum and articles of association can get rid of itself. It is under no obligation to continue in existence, under no obligation at all. All this in order to preserve the grand myth that it would be done better under private control. Of course it will, because under public control it would not be disposed of like that. If one wants to dispose of it here we have a Bill which guarantees that they can do so under the very articles of association which I have here. They have these 28 articles and they are not bound to carry out any of them. Well, I am sorry; they are bound to carry out some of them, but they are so widely drawn that they include dissolving the company, getting rid of the assets of the company; they include, in other words, not manufacturing aircraft, not manufacturing anything concerned with aerospace. It is precisely because of

23
that that we ask for a degree of precision in the Bill which defines something.
I know the noble Lord has pleaded all the way through Committee stage that we should not put a single thing in the Bill which binds the company to do anything at all. Why? Because, he says, in that case it is no longer an independent free company. My Lords, this is a national asset. It is something which has been built up not only by people owning shares in the company; it has been built up by tremendous Government effort. You look round the country and you find Government research associations built up entirely by national money. Without those research associations there would be no aircraft industry today. Without Farnborough there would be no aircraft industry in this country. It is the contribution from the people of this country which has built up the industry. We are now asked to hand the thing over with no guarantee at all.
This is pure fantasy. If the Government want to do this sort of thing, why do they not come out frankly and say, "We don't care a damn about the people of this country or the industry of this country. We will fling it all away. Anyone else can take it; so long as they give us some money for it, they can have the whole industry"? That is not our idea of what an aerospace industry should be. We urge that this amendment is absolutely vital to preserve a little—only a minimum but a little—control over what happens to this industry in the future.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, that was an extraordinary speech, if I may say so, of the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones. First of all, I think it was better addressed to one of the later amendments standing in his name; I do not think it had too much to do with this amendment which relates to the percentage shareholding.
This is the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, has put. The other cornerstone of the noble Lord's speech was, as I understood it, that this enterprise, having been built up over all these years, should not now be returned to private ownership. But I would remind him that it has been a public corporation for only two years or a little more. It was a group of separate private companies for many, many years before that. I do not deny that it has been not unsuccessful under public ownership, but I firmly believe, as I said at length at Second Reading, that this process of "privatisation", as we have called it, is the right thing to do. The fundamental concepts advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, and supported here to a certain extent by the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, are quite contrary to Government policy and I hope your Lordships will not agree to these amendments.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, the noble Lord has reiterated, in his initial speech from the Dispatch Box, the undertakings which have previously been made elsewhere. He has also told us why it was unnecessary to include these undertakings within the Bill. But he has not given us a full reason as to why we could not give statutory force to these particular undertakings. I would have thought that the ingenuity of parliamentary counsel could have provided a means for giving a statutory force to these undertakings. In view of the noble Lord's attitude, I have no option but to force this particular amendment to a Division.
3.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 2) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 65; Not-Contents, 77.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Brockway, L.

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Amulree, L.

Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

David, B. [Teller.)

Aylestone, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Denington, B.

Balogh, L.

Byers, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Banks, L.

Clancarty, E.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Birk, B.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Blease, L.

Clwyd, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Blyton, L.

Collison, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Gosford, E.

Oram, L.

Stedman, B.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Hampton, L.

Peart, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Piercy, L.

Stone, L.

Henderson, L.

Plant, L.

Strauss, L.

Hunt, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Underhill, L.

Janner, L.

Porritt, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L. [Teller.)

Kearton, L.

Roberthall, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Walston, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Seear, B.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Listowel, E.

Segal, L.

Willis, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Shinwell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Mishcon, L.

Spens, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Adeane, L.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Ailesbury, M.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Faithfull, B.

Northchurch, B.

Alport, L.

Ferrers, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Auckland, L.

Fortescue, E.

Orkney, E.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Barnby, L.

Gainford, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Bellwin, L.

Galloway, E.

Reilly, L.

Belstead, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Richardson, L.

Birdwood, L.

Glasgow, E.

Rochdale, V.

Brock, L.

Greenway, L.

St. Just, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Gridley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Carrington, L. (A Principal Secretary of State.)

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Sharples, B.

Chesham, L.

Somers, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stamp, L.

Craigavon, V.

Hatherton, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Cromartie, E.

Henley, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hill Norton, L.

Strathspey, L.

Daventry, V.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Tenby, V.

de Clifford, L.

Kinross, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.)

Long, V.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lothian, M.

Vickers, B.

Ebbisham, L.

Loudoun, C.

Vivian, L.

Effingham, E.

Lyell, L.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Ellenborough, L.

McFadzean, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Merrivale, L.

On Question, Motion agreed to.

[Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 not moved.]

IRAN: AMERICAN HOSTAGES
3.42 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, and with the connivance of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack, I should like to make a Statement about Iran which the Prime Minister has made in another place. The Statement is as follows:
"President Carter has asked the friends and allies of the United States for their help and support in the serious situation over the continued illegal detention of the American hos
26
tages in Tehran. This illegal act by Iran is now in its sixth month.
"The United States' Administration and the American people have exercised remarkable patience and restraint in the face of the greatest provocation. Time and again their reasonable hopes of progress have been dashed. It has become clear that the prospects for the early release of the hostages through diplomatic action have markedly diminished.
"The United States' Administration have put up with the flouting of international law and established diplomatic practice by Iran for several months in the hope of securing the release of the hostages. But naturally they now feel obliged to demonstrate that the continued detention of their people will carry increasing penalties. They under-

27
standably expect solidarity from their allies and we, for our part, have been giving, and will continue to give, them our utmost support.
"At an early stage in the crisis we agreed on certain measures in the financial and commercial fields, on which we have been co-operating with the United States. These remain in force. No arms or defence equipment has been sent from this country to Iran since the hostage crisis arose in early November. In December we made a substantial reduction in the size of our Embassy in Tehran.
"The European Foreign Ministers met in Lisbon last week. The Foreign Ministers of the Nine expressed their solidarity with the United States and the American people and instructed their ambassadors to make an immediate approach to the President of Iran to urge the release of the hostages and to seek precise assurances about the dates and methods by which their release would take place and then to report back in person. Our Ambassador in Tehran, Sir John Graham, is due to arrive in London this afternoon.
"The Americans have asked us to consider a wide range of measures. These include applying the economic sanctions which the Russians vetoed at the United Nations in January. They also include an eventual break in relations with Iran if there is no progress. It is important that whatever we do should be effective and should be capable of commanding a broad measure of international support.
"We are now in close and urgent consultation with our European partners as well as with other friendly countries about how best we can together respond to President Carter's appeal to us to intensify our efforts. When the Foreign Ministers of the EEC meet on Monday of next week, I hope the necessary decisions will be taken. This therefore can only be an interim Statement and a further report will be made to the House after next week's meeting, or sooner if required".
3.46 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My
28
Lords, may I thank the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, for making this Statement to the House this afternoon. May I also join with him in reaffirming our own unreserved condemnation of the Iranian action in taking and holding these hostages. I want to make the position of the Opposition abundantly clear once more by saying that we regard this action as being contrary to international law, in defiance of the Security Council and the International Court, as well as a persistent cruelty to the hostages themselves and their families at home. We therefore support what the Government have so far done to help the Americans to get the peaceful return of their fellow nationals from Tehran.
As regards the proposals or suggestions lately made, I assume, by the American President to our own Government, the noble Lord has been more forthcoming than I thought he might be about that matter. I shall not press him any further about what the Americans have suggested to us, except to ask whether, in fact, a time-scale has been proposed to us and to other friends of America, about these proposals. There are various suggestions in the Press and on the media about this.
However, perhaps more importantly, may I refer to what, I think, is page 4 of the authorised version of the Statement—if that, in fact, is the final version—where the Foreign Secretary refers to the American request to us to consider "a wide range of measures". May I say on behalf of the Opposition that we fully agree with what he says, and I shall quote it again:
"It is important that whatever we do should be effective and should be capable of commanding a broad measure of international support".
For that reason discussions with our European partners as well as with other friendly countries, not necessarily confined to the West, would seem to us to be the right way to go about this. Indeed, may I ask the noble Lord to consider the possibility, which we would welcome, of a meeting of the Americans, their friends and allies, not only in the West and not only in Europe, with a view to concerted action to try to bring home to the Iranian Government and people the enormity of what they have done and what they persist in continuing with. Indeed, a meeting on that basis at the highest level would seem to us to be justified because this

29
strikes at the roots of international agreement at its most fundamental. What has been done—unless it is speedily put right—may lead to similar and even more serious action of the same sort in other parts of the world.
Finally, I should like to say—and I am sure that I speak for most people in this country without distinction of party—that we greatly admire the firmness and the forbearance of the American President, the American Administration and the American people in the way in which they have faced this extremely difficult, and indeed harrowing, experience. What a temptation it would be to take war-like action; but it is a matter of pride, not of weakness, on the part of the Americans—in which we join—that the American President has resolutely explored every possible avenue of peaceful negotiation and compromise. Even yesterday he said that he proposed to go along that road, exerting economic and diplomatic pressure, and only in the very last resort—and he emphasised this—would he consider other means of resolving this very serious issue.
I also wish to thank the noble Lord for indicating that he and the Prime Minister will report to the two Houses after the next meeting of our European partners, and will certainly report to Parliament before any decision as to the proposals made to us by the Americans is taken by Her Majesty's Government.
3.50 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we, too, should like to thank the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary for repeating this Statement. Broadly speaking, in principle I should like to associate myself with what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has said and, in addition, ask two further questions. First, do not the Government believe that while we shall—as I think that we, on these Benches, hope—now go along with the Americans in applying the measures of pressure laid down in the relevant United Nations' resolution, if anything further is contemplated, would it not be such a very grave decision that it should have to be agreed both by the European members of the alliance and the Americans jointly? Will the Government further agree that the real danger for the West—as we see it anyhow—is not so much that presented by the wretched
30
Government of Iran, which may collapse at any moment, but the possibility that—short, I suppose, of some occupation of the whole area by Western Forces—eventually the Gulf may be largely dominated by an Iran which is in friendly association with the Soviet Government?
3.52 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am not surprised that the two noble Lords who have spoken broadly agree with the Government and with each other about our attitude to this problem. I certainly agree with the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he speaks of the patience, the forbearance and the firmness of the Americans. I think that they have been more forbearing than one could have expected in the situation in which they find themselves; the treatment of the hostages is not only horrifying, but totally illegal and against international law. I am sure and know that the only object of the President of the United States' Administration is to secure the release of the hostages, and that is why they are proposing these measures.
Perhaps I could clear up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, about dates and ultimata, which has appeared in the Press this morning. The Americans have not set a date by which they want us to act. In their consultations with the allies, the United States have been bearing in mind the need to relate their actions to developments in Iran, including the programme on elections which lead to the formation of a new assembly. The likely date of this has been mentioned in our discussions. That is why the ambassadors of the Nine were instructed to ask President Bani-Sadr specifically about a date for the release of the hostages. But any discussion of dates has to be related to developments in Iran, not to actions by the United States' allies.
I shall certainly consider the proposal made by the noble Lord about a meeting. Certainly it will be necessary for us, in this country, to consult our eight partners in the Community before reaching any conclusions. I am also quite sure that we should consult with such countries as Australia, New Zealand and, above all, Japan, which of course has enormous interests in that part of the world. If I

31
may, I should like to consider whether a top-level meeting would be possible or suitable.
The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said that he thought that if any further measures, other than those mentioned by the United States, were considered, it ought to be a matter for all of us because of the gravity of the situation. I would impress upon the House and upon the noble Lord, if it needs to be impressed upon him, that the measures now proposed by the United States are of considerable gravity. One does not want lightly to enter into this without acknowledging the seriousness of the situation in Iran, which has been brought about by the Ayatollah and others. Of course, if any further measures were proposed, we would expect—and I have no doubt it would happen—that the United States would consult her allies before any other decision was taken. I think that that answers the questions asked of me. If I have omitted one, I shall certainly try again.
3.56 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I should like to ask the noble Lord this question: Is he aware that it is not so essential to declare a specific date for any further action that may be required, but it is essential that this provides an opportunity to demonstrate the unity of the West? Unless we are capable of doing that, all this talk about the manufacture and deployment of destructive weapons is just a lot of phantasy. The question I want to ask the noble Lord, and which I think is most important—I say that although, no doubt, there are other important questions—is this: What I want to know, and what I think the general public will want to know, is what will be the action of Her Majesty's Government at the meeting of Foreign Ministers? What will they say? It is just possible—it could even be probable—that some of the representatives of the Council of Ministers may be somewhat difficult, even obstructive, and may not be in agreement. In those circumstances, what is to be the action of Her Majesty's Government? The noble Lord can take it from me that, as we have indicated in the past, some of us are anxious to co-operate with Her Majesty's Government in matters of defence in order to deter aggression; but
32
we may require to reconsider our position if Her Majesty's Government fail to associate themselves with our principal ally, upon whom we may have to depend in the event of an emergency.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, nobody would disagree with the noble Lord about the need for the unity of the West. That is why we believe it is right that we should consult with our allies in Europe. The position of Her Majesty's Government at that meeting will be to seek agreement by the allies for an adequate response to the request of the United States which will lead to the release of the hostages.
Lord ORR-EWING: My Lords, in an exceptionally busy Easter did my noble friend have an opportunity to see the admirable and most statesmanlike interview which President Carter gave on BBC television last night? If he did, will he not agree that there was no measure of suggestion of an ultimatum, and that the fact that my noble friend has cleared up that misunderstanding will give widespread satisfaction? Also, there was no mention of or haste to have a specific date, which again he cleared up, which will give satisfaction. By any chance did my noble friend notice that at the end it was announced that the BBC had edited the interview? Is it not a rather risky undertaking to edit an interview of such grave and sensitive matters as an announcement by the President of the United States at this very crucial moment?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for what he said about the interview and the ultimatum. I think that those of your Lordships who saw the programme will agree with him; I, myself, did not see it. although I read the transcript. With regard to the editing of the interview, I do not know exactly what took place and I am happy to say that I am not responsible for what the BBC does, but, no doubt, the authorities will take note of what my noble friend has said.
Baroness GAITSKELL: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that there has been an extraordinary and really an undeserved coolness towards President Carter in this whole matter, with people suggesting one thing as though war was

33
not to be considered in this situation? For that reason, would we do our best to show that we at least are 100 per cent, with him in all these matters?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I can assure the noble Baroness that Her Majesty's Government, and indeed the Opposition and the Liberal Party as evidenced by what they have said this afternoon, are by no means cool towards President Carter. Indeed, it seems to me that the reverse is true, and it is President Carter who sensibly has been very cool during the whole of this episode.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary has emphasised the gravity of the situation we face, and of course the gravity of the consequences of any action that might be taken. What will be the parliamentary opportunities for discussion of a governmental decision? Does the Statement of the Foreign Secretary mean that executive action by the Government could follow the meeting of the nine Ministers, or do the Government contemplate parliamentary discussion of a situation which is fraught with danger for the whole world?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think what probably would happen, depending of course on what decisions are reached on Monday or Tuesday in Brussels, is that the Government must come to a decision about what it is right they should do with their allies and then report to Parliament and have a debate if necessary.
Lord MISHCON: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one of the problems that may face those who wish otherwise to indulge in concerted action is that some countries may suffer a fatal blow if they are deprived of oil? In these circumstances, will concerted action mean a sacrifice by those countries who can manage to dispense some of their surplus, and thus aid those who are prepared to agree with this action and who might otherwise suffer the sacrifice I have mentioned?
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I have no doubt that these are the considerations which will be discussed not only in Brussels but with our other allies.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the whole American people are solidly behind President Carter in his action and in his contemplated actions towards freeing the hostages? In fact, he is rather behind the American people in the action he has taken. What is really needed now is an assurance that our country will stand solidly behind President Carter in his actions just as if 50 British hostages were being detained in Tehran instead of 50 American hostages.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I think that what I have sought to say during this short discussion is that Her Majesty's Government will not only stand solidly behind President Carter but will I seek ways and means of helping the United States to secure the release of the hostages.
Lord GORE-BOOTH: My Lords, the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary may get very bored hearing me pronounce about public relations, but I do it from former experience. Will the noble Lord assure us that he will remain sensitively aware of the reactions to quite small things in public opinion, and that what we must do is to avoid any impression at this time that we are in any way thinking of drawing back or hesitating? That would have a bad effect on a wide circle of people.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, I should not have thought that anybody who had listened to anything I have said this afternoon could have drawn that conclusion.
Lord GREENHILL of HARROW: My Lords, would the Foreign Secretary agree that one of the main objectives of the students is to prevent the emergence of an Iranian Government which could take a more or less normal and reasonable place in the society of nations? It is not only the welfare of the hostages that we have to consider but the fact that the terrorists are trying deliberately to prevent the emergence of a government which could settle the problem in a reasonable and satisfactory way.
Lord CARRINGTON: Yes, my Lords; I think that these again are the sort of considerations which both the United States and her allies have to take into account.

BRITISH AEROSPACE BILL
4.5 p.m.
Report stage resumed on Clause 7.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 7, line 20, leave out ("after that time as is reasonably practicable") and insert ("as it is appropriate to do so.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Amendment No. 5. At the Committee stage I had an amendment down to this clause which would have required the Secretary of State to obtain an adequate price for his shares. This amendment was rejected by the Government. However, it was in their rejection of it and the statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Cullen, at that time that more than ever convinced me that the present wording of this subsection is wrong. It may be, of course, that the noble Lord would like to look again at the off-the-cuff interpretation he gave at the end of his speech at the Committee stage, but perhaps first I could remind your Lordships of the arguments used then.
The noble Lord, Lord Cullen, said:
"It will, of course, be the Government's intention, in the arranging of any disposal of their shares, to obtain the best possible price consistent with fulfilling the obligation to ensure that the target investment limit is observed … The timing will obviously depend upon the particular situation".—[Official Report, 17/3/80, col. 114.]
He went on to say:
"Nothing in the clause would oblige the Government to dispose of shares in such a rush that they did not achieve their true value".—[Col. 115.]
At the end of his speech he said:
"As an ex-stockbroker, I know how extremely difficult it is when somebody rings up and says: 'I should like to sell so many shares. I leave it to you when to do it'. If you decide that you might get a better price tomorrow and say: 'I will wait until tomorrow', you are always wrong, and it is always an extremely difficult decision to take. All I would say is that 'a short period' might be one account or two accounts, but I doubt whether it would be more than that".—[col. 115.]
On pressing him he agreed that something like a month would be his interpretation of this particular clause.
What the noble Lord was saying, on the one hand, was that the Secretary of State would not dispose of his shares in a rush, and, on the other hand, he was saying
36
that he would dispose of them in about a month or so. I consider that to be a rush. One can well remember the Burmah Oil situation, which is still a matter for decision in the courts. The Government, through the Bank of England holding, suddenly found themselves in possession of a much higher percentage of shares than they in fact thought it was right and proper for the Government to hold, and it was necessary for the surplus Government shareholding to be disposed of. One can envisage that a similar situation—one hopes it does not happen—might happen with regard to British Aerospace. In that sort of situation, it would obviously be folly to tie the hands of the Secretary of State to such an extent that he had to dispose of a shareholding valued at many millions of pounds, which no doubt if disposed of quickly would depress the market.
It seems that if the interpretation of the present wording in the Bill is the interpretation the noble Lord gave on Committee stage then it is one which needs to be looked at again. I have proposed an amendment which may be faulty in its drafting but is intended to give the Secretary of State that degree of flexibility that he would have to dispose of his surplus shareholding quickly, but would not be forced in a rush to dispose of the surplus shareholding. I hope the Government will look at the wording of the clause again. I beg to move.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, in moving the amendment the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, returned to the point, as he mentioned, which we discussed in Committee. At that time he was concerned to ensure that the Secretary of State would not necessarily have to act immediately to sell surplus shares under the duty imposed on him by subsection (5) should the target investment limit be exceeded. I assured him that, while the clause obliged the Secretary of State to sell shares, it enabled him to defer their sale for a short period to take account of market factors. At that time the noble Lord appeared to accept that explanation and withdrew his amendment, but he has clearly since reconsidered the matter.
By the present amendment, the noble Lord is seeking to alter the wording of

37
subsection (6) again, as I understand it to introduce a degree of flexibility which he feels the present wording would not allow. I am afraid, however, that the amendment would be detrimental to the effectiveness of the subsection because it would introduce ambiguity. The difficulty lies in interpreting what
"as soon after that time as it is appropriate to do so"
would in fact mean. The phrase would undoubtedly introduce greater flexibility, but it would raise unanswered questions about what critieria should be taken into account in determining the "appropriate" time. There could be arguments that a wide range of factors should be taken as determinants of appropriateness, and the sole judge would be the Secretary of State. It would be possible that a determined Secretary of State could take a view of what was appropriate which would allow shares to be held for far longer than the present drafting would allow.
I must make clear that this is an interpretation which runs so starkly counter to the Government's policy that we could not agree to it. The amendment would also be quite contrary to the prime purpose of subsection (6), which is to ensure that if the target investment limit is breached, the surplus shares will be sold. As I have said, the present wording of the Bill will permit the Secretary of State to defer for a short period a sale of shares compelled by the duty imposed on him under Clause 7, while at the same time insisting on the obligation to sell shares if the target investment limit is breached. The Government are satisfied that the wording is right, and I hope noble Lords will accept that explanation.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I am sorry at that reply from the Minister. He is right that my amendment would introduce an element of doubt, but I regard it as an element of flexibility. I confess that I am disappointed at the reply of the noble Lord, and I would have hoped that at least he could give us a considered explanation of his interpretation of the clause as at present drafted. I do not propose to press the amendment to a Division; I do not think it would be profitable to do so. But I am concerned that if at a future time a sort of Burmah Oil situation arises, and there is a heavy batch of shares
38
to be disposed of quickly, somebody will refer back in Hansard to the statement of the noble Lord and will say, "These have to be sold in a month", but that might be quite inappropriate. Although the noble Lord is not prepared to accept the amendment as it stands, perhaps he could give a broad interpretation of his explanation of the clause.
Lord ROBBINS: My Lords, I confess that I feel very considerable sympathy with the doubts expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede. On the other hand, I cannot believe that it is in the minds of Members of the Government to do anything injudicious. But in between those points of view there is surely a degree of ambiguity which, if it could be surmounted, would be an advantage to the Bill. In the end, I would humbly submit that the word "appropriate" involves the securing of what is reasonably to be regarded as the maximum present value, and it seems to me to be desirable that in some way or other that should be hinted at in the Bill.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: My Lords, I wish to express sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Lords, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede and Lord Robbins. Of course, the difference between what is now in the Bill and what is proposed by Lord Ponsonby really relates to a difference between what is meant by "as is reasonably practicable" compared with "as it is appropriate to do so". The noble Lord, Lord Cullen of Ashbourne, indicated that if the amendment were acceded to, that would introduce certain parameters possibly as to what was meant by the word "appropriate". Surely the Government are in the same difficulty about what parameters must be associated with the words, "reasonably practicable". Does "reasonably practicable" mean as soon as somebody can get out of the Ministry and get in touch with his broker for the purposes of selling? If not, what does it mean? I suggest that it would be helpful if the Minister went a little further than he has as to the meaning of the words "reasonably practicable". The noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby, suggested that a Burmah Oil position might arise. I should have thought it would be helpful if the Government could go a stage further in explaining these matters.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My I Lords, with the leave of the House, I will try to go a little further. There may be some slight imperfection in the words "reasonably practicable", but as far as I am concerned I am not by any manner of means convinced that the alteration to "appropriate to do so" would be any better, and in my view it would be more ambiguous than conducive to flexibility. We have to consider in what instances we I shall run into any problem here. As I see it, it is only likely that it would be necessary to sell shares in any quantity—it would never be a very large quantity—if there had been a rights issue and shares had been taken up but not by everyone. You might then find yourself with a rather higher percentage of shares than you had before, and you would then have to dispose of those in order to get back to the previous position. I do not see any likelihood—perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Ponsonby of Shulbrede, can see how this might come about—of suddenly finding that a large number of shares needs to be disposed of.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that 15 years ago none of us would have thought that there was any conceivable likelihood of a Burmah Oil situation arising. I am fortified in the support for my amendment which I have received from the noble Lords, Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran and Lord Robbins. As I said, I do not intend to press the amendment to a Division, but in view of the doubts that have been expressed from all quarters of the House, I hope that the noble Lord will have another look at the question of whether the present wording is really the right wording.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I shall be very happy to consider the matter between now and Third Reading, though without giving any particular commitment.
Lord PONSONBY of SHULBREDE: My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Liability of the successor company for defaulting subsidiary where cause of action arose before appointed day]:
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 6:
40
Page 7, line 31, leave out ("by execution or (in Scotland) by diligence").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting amendment which in no way affects the purpose or effect of Clause 8 of the Bill. The need to make it arises because the inclusion of the words "by execution", while perfectly correct in English law, could lead to difficulties of interpretation under the law of Northern Ireland. The Government believe that the best way of avoiding this possibility is to remove the words from the Bill, together with the words "or (in Scotland) by diligence", which become redundant if the preceding words are taken out. As I have said, this amendment will not change the meaning of the clause; indeed by avoiding ambiguity, it will clarify it. I am sure that your Lordships will agree that this is a wholly desirable aim and that, because the amendment is not a controversial one, you will not oppose it. I am particularly happy that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, is not sitting on the Opposition Front Bench at the moment. I beg to move.
4.21 p.m.
Lord WYNNE-JONES Lord WYNNE-JONES moved Amendment No. 7:
After Clause 10, insert the following new clause:
"Research and Development programme
(The Secretary of State shall stipulate as a condition prior to its nomination under this Act that the successor company shall have included in its initial articles and memorandum the necessary provision to ensure that it shall be the duty of the successor company, to formulate at regular intervals a programme of research and development.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment, which I beg to move, proposes the insertion of a new clause after Clause 10. The purpose is to make quite clear what I tried to emphasise on a previous amendment; namely, that the real purpose of British Aerospace should be effectively carried out under the new company. When one looks at the articles of association of the company one finds that Article (4) states that it is a purpose of the company:
"To conduct research and development in connection with the operations of the Company,

41
to establish and maintain research stations, laboratories, workshops, ranges, testing and proving grounds, facilities and establishments and generally to act as researchers and developers".
However, as I previously pointed out, none of this is binding upon the company. This is one of the articles of association, and if the company found it expensive to carry out research, or decided, in view of the new way that they chose to operate, that research was less important, then they could drop it. It is made perfectly clear in the remaining articles of association that the company would be left quite free to do what they want. In my opinion this would be fatal to the future of British Aerospace. We must remember that research and development work in this field is extremely costly. I suppose that it can be about as costly as is research in the pharmaceutical field, where perhaps 20 per cent, of the annual expenditure of the company is devoted to research and development. The same is true in this field.
It has been the triumph of our British aerospace industry that they have carried out research on a very large scale, and much of this has been financed by Government. In regard to military aircraft a large amount of the expenditure comes from Government. We do not know how much because these details are never fully divulged. But in the civil field as well a very large amount of the cost of research has been borne by Government. As is well known, in regard to the RB211 development by Rolls-Royce a very large amount of money came from Government. We know, too, that in the development of Concorde practically all the money for research came from Government. Some of it went directly to the companies concerned, while other parts of the expenditure were in the form of supplying the facilities of the extensive research stations which are under Government control. Indeed, it was those facilities which enabled Concorde to be developed, and it is well known that without them it would have been impossible to develop it. In this regard one has only to go to Farnborough and see the very large sheds which were erected in order to test the whole problem of the distribution of fuel throughout the entire wing structure of Concorde, while the plane was in flight, under all kinds of different conditions, including conditions of extreme temperatures. All
42
that was done entirely inside the Government research establishment.
We are now setting up an independent company, and in fact we are boasting that the company are to be independent. The company will find the cost of research work enormous, and all the evidence of the past suggests that very often they will find it too large to maintain; and what will happen then? We shall find that our aerospace industry, which we have boasted about, will be able to obtain work as a sub-contractor of the big American firms. Boeing would be only too glad to use British Aerospace as a sub-contractor, and I have no doubt that Aerospatiale in France, too, would be prepared to engage I British Aerospace as a sub-contractor.
Of course as a sub-contractor the company would not be involved in the expensive research work in which the primary contractor would be involved. Consequently, the industry could easily become a second grade industry, concerned not with developing new aircraft or new engines, but with acting as a supplier to the main contractors in other countries. That is not what we have considered that our British aerospace industry should do, and not for a moment do I suppose that it is the Government's intention that this should happen, but I believe that that could very well result from the Bill unless we take steps in it to ensure that there is proper expenditure on research and development.
How are we to do this? If it were a nationalised industry, there would be some kind of corporate plan, as we had in the coal industry. We tried to write in that provision at the Committee stage, but the Government opposed it, and so a corporate plan is out. What we propose is that there should be an obligation on the part of the company at regular intervals to publish their plan for research and development, so that all can see what they are aiming at for the period ahead. If they do that, then there is a reasonable chance that we may have a good, active aerospace industry in this country. If not, I am afraid that it will become a subcontracting industry. I beg to move.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, has once more told us of his fears for British Aerospace Limited, and has also explained

43
why this duty (as he thinks it should be) ought to be laid upon the new company. I must begin by stating quite unequivocally that I hope, and indeed expect, that British Aerospace Limited will carry out research and development, and indeed have a programme for doing so. I say this with total confidence, since it is inconceivable that an aerospace company, operating, as the present statutory corporation does and as the future company will, at the extreme boundaries of knowledge and technology, could operate without substantial spending on research and development. The last published accounts for British Aerospace show research and continuing development costs of £11·6 million, excluding specific launching costs, and I am sure that the 1979 results, due this week, will show comparable expenditure. The constitution of the new company—its memorandum, and particularly its objects clause—will, indeed, enable it to do so; as the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, described when he read to us a passage from it.
The question between the noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, and the Government is therefore whether there should be imposed upon the company a requirement to do research; and I must make clear that the idea behind the amendment—that a company, like a statutory corporation, has duties to perform, set out in its memorandum—is not well founded. Indeed, the amendment rests upon the false proposition that the objects of a company, set out in its memorandum of association, are binding on the company. A memorandum of association does not impose duties: it confers powers. A company does not have to do everything mentioned in its memorandum, but it may not do anything that is not mentioned.
There is, therefore, no question, by including research and development among the objects of the company, of making it do these things; it would only allow the company to do so. I have already made clear that the company will be, and indeed is, so allowed; and I have made clear that the company, like the present statutory corporation and the other companies which came before it, will do research and development. But there, rather than by seeking to impose a duty which runs contrary to the concept
44
and constitution of a private sector company, is where matters should rest. I hope the noble Lord will accept that explanation and will not press his amendment.
On Question, amendment negatived.

LOCATION OF OFFICES BUREAU (REVOCATION) ORDER 1980
4.34 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON rose to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Location of Offices Bureau (Revocation) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 6th March. The noble Lord said: My Lords, in a general statement about Quangos last September, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment announced that the Location of Offices Bureau would be abolished. The purpose of this short order would be to secure the formal dissolution of the bureau. It would revoke the 1963 order, under which the bureau was established, and the 1977 order, which amended its original terms of reference.
Back in 1963, congestion in Central London was seen as a major problem, and when the bureau was then set up it was given a general duty
"to encourage decentralisation and diversion of office employment from congested areas in Central London to suitable centres elsewhere".
My Lords, there is no doubt that, in discharge of this remit, the bureau played a pioneering and successful role. Through its free advisory services and by its distinctive advertising, particularly on the London Underground, it did much to persuade firms to move suitable office operations out of Central London. But, like all things, times change, and in 1977 the emphasis on London decentralisation was dropped from the bureau's terms of reference. Instead, the 1977 amending order gave it the general duty
"to promote the better distribution of office employment in England and Wales".
It was also given two specific new tasks: to promote office employment in the inner urban areas and to attract international firms to locate offices in this country. However, in July 1978 the Department of the Environment dis-

45
covered that there were serious limitations on the bureau's powers to attract overseas firms, or, for that matter, to help the assisted areas in Scotland and Northern Ireland. In the light of this advice, the bureau immediately halted the overseas promotions on which it had embarked.
This, then, my Lords, was the situation we found when taking office last year. With the revision of the decentralisation strategy in 1977, the bureau's previous clearly recognisable objectives had been replaced by wide and vaguely defined terms of reference; its powers to discharge some of the new tasks it had been given had proved to be inadequate; and the requirement that it should promote specific areas did not sit easily with the bureau's traditional practice of providing impartial information to its clients.
Furthermore, the Government were not convinced that a publicly-financed body was any longer necessary to assist firms who might be seeking new offices. There is a general awareness, which the bureau has itself done much to foster, of the significant business costs which are attributable to location; and there are firms of consultants, estate agents, surveyors, and so on who are to some extent already providing, on commercial terms, the advisory service offered by the bureau. Altogether, my Lords, the Government concluded that the time had come for the field to be left to the private sector.
As regards the possible overseas role of the bureau, the Government acknowledge the value of attracting office investment from abroad, and are concerned that the United Kingdom's locational advantages should continue to be promoted. Accordingly, the Invest in Britain Bureau, which already exists within the Department of Industry, has taken over from the Location of Offices Bureau the function of supplying information to overseas companies seeking to set up offices in this country. Finally, arrangements have been made to complete the four research projects which the bureau had in hand. The bureau's research library has been transferred to University College, London, and will continue to be available to researchers.
My Lords, the order would provide for the bureau to be dissolved on 1st May. This would mean that four members of the bureau would have their appointments pre-
46
maturely terminated. They would then be compensated on the usual basis for loss of office. Of the former staff of 18, only the secretary now remains in post. They are being compensated in accordance with the redundancy provisions of their superannuation scheme. The bureau's expenses, which had been at a level of around £400,000 a year, had been met out of grants from central Government, and at the date of dissolution there will be no assets or outstanding liabilities.
In conclusion, I would wish to record our appreciation of the work of the bureau, among whose able members, I may say, is the noble Lord, Lord Plant. Over the 17 years of its existence, the Location of Offices Bureau—"LOB", as it has widely and not unaffectionately become known—has both helped many individual firms and generally stimulated interest and ideas on the proper choice of office locations. The last three years have been somewhat testing. The revision of the London decentralisation strategy in 1977 led to popular misunderstandings of the role of the bureau. It took up its new overseas task with energy and enthusiasm, only to be stopped short. And, since the change of Government last year, it inevitably faced a period of uncertainly over its future. But until its intended abolition was made known it continued unfailingly to provide advice and to promote research. I can understand that Councillor Prendergast, who was chairman from 1971 until his term of appointment ran out at the end of last month, his fellow members of the bureau and the staff will all feel disappointment. I hope noble Lords will agree that it is right for the bureau now to be abolished; but, at the same time, the bureau should receive the credit it deserves for the dedicated public service it has provided since it was first set up in 1963.
Moved, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty praying that the Location of Offices Bureau (Revocation) Order 1980 be made in the form of the draft laid before the House on 6th March.—(Lord Mowbray and Stourton.)
4.41 p.m.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, I should like to thank the Minister for explaining so carefully why the Government are revoking this order. I thought that the

47
tribute—the "memorial service" if I may call it so—towards the end of his speech made out a good case for the retention of LOB as it is affectionately known, as the noble Lord put it. I find it a great pity. I was Minister at the department when the change in terms of reference came in 1977 and I should certainly not describe that as a change to something wide and vague, as the Minister has said.
It is true, I agree, that the conditions of 1963 when LOB was set up have changed considerably. But the change in 1977 to give the bureau a general duty to promote better distribution of office employment in England and Wales, with special emphasis on inner urban areas and areas of expansion, and also to attract international concerns to set up offices in the United Kingdom, seemed to me to be quite precise, quite specific and entirely the way that the bureau should have been moving. It was a great pity that somehow the wording went wrong, in that the international side of it was not able to be promoted; although, as the noble Lord himself said, in fact a great deal of work was done there and numbers of firms were attracted to this country. If the last Government had been returned in the general election, we would have brought in the necessary legislation to make it possible for the bureau to continue and expand its international work.
I was glad to hear, as the Minister in another place also pointed out, that the four research projects are to be completed. I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me where they are going to and who will use them; or whether they are to be put in a pigeon-hole marked "research"? He mentioned, as did the Minister in another place, that the Invest In Britain Bureau in the Department of Industry will be taking over a great deal of the attraction of foreign investment to this country. How is this going to come about? I do not think we have much information about the Invest In Britain Bureau. Most people in business knew about LOB, but they did not know about the Invest In Britain Bureau. Is it to be enlarged? Will some of the expertise that has been gained in people, in its reports and in the monitoring that has gone on, be inte-
48
grated in the Department of Industry? Perhaps the Minister could answer that.
I should like also to know how the inner areas of London and other cities will be helped now. I agree that there was a certain confusion at one time between the words "inner" and "central"; but when we are talking about inner city areas (whether of London or other cities) we now all know what we are talking about and we know about the great problems of decay and the importance of bringing commerce and industry to these areas. How are they going to be helped? The noble Lord and the Minister in another place have both stressed that there is now a general awareness which the role of the bureau did much to foster; and the Minister in another place said:
"Furthermore, there are firms of consultants, estate agents and so on that are to some extent already providing the advisory services offered by the bureau, and the Government have concluded that the time has come for the field to be left to private enterprise."—[House of Commons, Second Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c. Col. 5;25/3/80].
I wonder whether the Government—even one so tied up as this Government with expanding private enterprise and exchanging public enterprise for private enterprise—are doing a wise thing over this. The bureau did not do merely what the average estate office or surveyor did. The bureau provided details of vacant office accommodation all over England and Wales, information about rents, information about planning policies of the local authorities, availability of staff, of housing, of transport, whether there were schools there for the workers' children and Post Office communications—and this was a comprehensive service available in no other sphere of commercial or industrial activity in this country. I do not see how these small areas of private enterprise, individual estate agents there, can provide this.
The Government also ended the whole system of economic planning councils. We have interest rates higher than ever before in this country and rents are high, particularly in the South-East. What it seems to me that we need today more than ever—although its function would be changed from 1963—is an authoritative advisory body to encourage movement from the South-East where the rents are

49
very high to the Midlands and North where the rents are lower and unemployment much higher.
In the last year's annual report of the bureau, the chairman in his introduction said:
"We have to recognise in this country that the office and service sector of our economy now predominate in terms of employment…".
In 1978–79, there were 385 inquiries, which is an increase on previous years. The only year higher recently was 1973–74. These 385 inquiries involved 21,408 potential jobs.
During the year, the report goes on, there were some 46 moves between the main economic planning regions, involving the redistribution of 5,005 office jobs by 36 of the bureau counts. I think that those noble Lords who have read the report would feel rather uneasy about what the Government are going to do. However much one is wedded to private enterprise—and in this country, I think we all agree, we live in a mixed economy—the thing is to get the right mix. In this area I would feel strongly that there is still need for a public body for such public advice as the bureau has provided in the past. It is with really great disquiet and concern that I listened to what has been said and the Government's action in putting before the House a draft to revoke the order.
4.50 p.m.
Lord HOWIE of TROON: My Lords, I rise to speak in this matter with a great deal of diffidence and a certain amount of confusion. My confusion arises from the fact that it seems to me that if we are inclinded to make changes in any way in the structure of society, these changes ought to lead to improvement or at any rate they ought to be believed to be likely to lead to improvement. I do not have any strong feeling about LOB—as it is affectionately known—or whether it would be better under private enterprise or public enterprise; but I should like to be told by the Minister just why he thinks improvement would arise from the proposition he puts before us.
With the greatest respect, I do not think that the Minister's speech in supporting the proposition today made the slightest attempt to show that the change would lead to any kind of improvement at all.
50
He was so kind and laudatory towards LOB that it seemed to me extremely unlikely that any change would lead to any improvement at all. If he thinks that LOB was doing such a good job, why is he changing it? He may have excellent reasons—and I see that he looks up sharply at me as I say that. He may well be able to convince me and other noble Lords present that he has those excellent reasons. He must attempt to do so. He has not yet made the slightest effort to show that this change would lead to any improvement. Before we pass this measure the Minister should try to convince us that the change is necessary.
4.52 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Birk, and the noble Lord, Lord Plant, for being kind about me in my kind words about LOB. Because, in the view of a Government, something loses its usefulness, it does not mean that one is not appreciative of what it has done. As I tried to explain, we feel that the time has come when the job for which it was set up originally in 1963 is no longer necessary. The job does not need that type of organisation. As noble Lords are aware, we are trying to decentralise and pass to the private sector, which does not cost central Government money, as many things as can be done.
The noble Baroness, Lady Birk, asked one or two direct questions. I do not like attending memorial services any more than she does. The work of various Ministries, departments and committees often goes on under another hat and in another place. It is not that the work is not going to be done. We must not get too upset because LOB is being put to rest. The Bureau was a source of free advice, but it had no power to steer firms and nor did it seek to do so. Financial assistance will continue to be available to firms which are prepared to move to the assisted areas. We are also continuing our initiatives in the deprived inner urban areas, which the noble Baroness was asking about. Development can be controlled adequately through the normal planning system. Within the safeguards that this provides, we believe that firms should be encouraged to pursue their own investigations and exercise their judgment about their locational requirements.

51
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for the Environment is to continue to receive advice from the Property Advisory Group; and, in addition, there are contacts through the PSA and dealings with local authorities, notably through consideration of their structure plans and development proposals. There is involvement with the inner city programmes and the setting up of the urban development corporations. I do not think that we now also need the bureau on these points. We should in any case consider how far it is sensible, as I have just said, for central Government to try to intervene in detail in the office market.
The noble Baroness inquired: Would not inner urban areas suffer from the loss of the bureau? We believe that office employment has an important contribution to make in inner city areas where the traditional, largely industrial, job market has declined sharply in recent years. I do not believe that the bureau would be likely to be an effective instrument for promoting such employment. The local authorities in those areas are free to promote them for office development where they regard this as appropriate. I very much hope they will do so. In London and Merseyside docklands the urban development corporations will be able to do the same. These are the bodies whose agreement will be essential if schemes are to go ahead, and they can give prospective developers more specific advice than the bureau were able to do. This is not a criticism of the bureau, but a belief that the task in the inner cities is one which needs a method of working which the bureau could not easily adopt.
The noble Baroness also inquired about the IBB. It already works to attract both service and manufacturing industry to the United Kingdom, and has a network of contracts in overseas diplomatic posts and elsewhere. It is likely to be more economical and also more effective to build on an existing organisation rather than to establish another overseas promotional body. Seeking office investment is an integral part of the IBB's work. The IBB staff and the FCO staff in posts overseas are continually on the lookout for opportunities in this field. The IBB is presently studying the report on the
52
location of offices of multinational companies which was commissioned by the Location of Offices Bureau and published earlier this year. In due course, the IBB will make available the results of this research to those within Government, including posts overseas which are engaged on inward investment work. The IBB is also studying European corporate structures and the strategies of major United States corporations. Opportunities for encouraging such companies to establish regional headquarters and other office facilities in the United Kingdom which emerge in the course of study will naturally be followed up.
This is a sad occasion. Nobody likes having to say, "Thank you" in these circumstances to good and trusted friends who have done well. But there comes a moment in everybody's life when we think that we can do something better in another way. We are saying, "Thank you very much" very gratefully to LOB. From what I have said in my original speech and now, the case is made for this order to be revoked.
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I point out to him that he did not answer one, at least, of my questions. I have given my notes to Hansard and I think there were more that he did not answer, but I cannot now remember them! Where are the four research projects which are to be continued going to find their home? Will they go to University College, the library, or IBB. Who is going to get the benefit of this research?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, just off the cuff, I cannot answer the noble Baroness. I will see that she is informed. The noble Baroness may like to see the answer in Hansard. If she will put down a Question for Written Answer all noble Lords will see it.
4.59 p.m.
Lord PLANT: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Howie of Troon spoke a little while ago and the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, thought it was me. I want to thank the noble Lord for the generous tribute that he has paid to LOB. Like the noble Baroness, I felt

53
that he was making out a very good case indeed for the retention of LOB which was set up by the last Conservative Government. The speed with which the present Conservative Administration has abolished an organisation which was set up by the previous Conservative Administration, and was felt to be so necessary in the life of the country, is somewhat bewildering.
I am sorry that there will be a loss of stimulus in equalising office employment throughout the country. This can only be done by one agency. It cannot be left to scores of different authorities pulling in different directions. I am sorry, too, that there will be a loss in one place of a centralised index of living information and of office accommodation at a new location. I regret very much that, because of the mix-up in the terms of reference and the legal setting up of the bureau, it was not clear about the bureau being able to extend its influence overseas.
A visit was made to America by the chairman and secretary of the Location of Offices Bureau, and they were having some success in attracting oil companies to open offices in this country. Some money was spent—apparently unauthorised—but I regret very much the loss of impetus in attracting multinational companies to open offices in this country. I do not believe that any other Government agency has the independence and freedom to go out and attract such companies to open offices in the United Kingdom. It is extraordinary that the terms of reference were so narrowly drawn that the writ of the Location of Offices Bureau ran only to England and Wales. We found to our great distress that we could not influence office employment in Scotland and Northern Ireland.
I believe that much of the work done by the bureau will go on, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, has said; but I believe it will go on in various parts of Government at greater expense than the £400,000 that was spent on the bureau. I believe it is right and proper that I should place on record thanks to the staff and officers of the bureau, who worked tremendously hard and gave impartial advice to many employers who sought it. I am sure it is the employers—people who perhaps want to change their location and do not quite know where to go to get impartial
54
advice—who will suffer. I regret very much indeed that the bureau has been one of the tragedies of attacks by the media in this perhaps fashionable way: "Get rid of the Quangos".
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I think we are thoroughly out of order. Although the noble Lord said it was right and proper that he should speak, technically it is not right and proper that he should have spoken in fact after I had spoken. If, with the leave of your Lordships, I may speak again, I should like just to answer questions put by the noble Baroness, Lady Birk. Some answers have now come to hand and it might be as well to give them now rather than later. She asked where the four projects were to go. The study of the impact of and potential for office development in inner city areas with particular regard to their identified economic and social problems, which is a project by Mr. Peter Damesick, now of Birkbeck College in London, is virtually complete. Follow-up work will be taken over by the Department of the Environment and will be submitted to them shortly.
The second study of the factors influencing the location of offices of multinational firms has been published and is being promoted by the Economists Advisory Group, which produced it. The third study is of job prospects in the office sector of the economy, both nationally and spatially, over the next decade or so. Miss Diana Morris, the bureau's senior research officer, has been given the opportunity to complete this work and she will be promoting it herself.
The fourth study, relating to business services and regional office employment, is looking at the demand for and the supply of business services; for example, insurance, banking, market research, accounting and legal services, research and development services. It is assessing the extent to which possible shortages of these services may restrict future office development. This study is being carried out by Professor John Goddard at Newcastle University, and financial responsibility for the project is being assumed from 1st May by the Department of Industry.
On Question, Motion agreed to: the said Address to be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.

BANKRUPTCY (NORTHERN IRELAND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) ORDER 1980
5.6 p.m.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton)The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Elton) rose to move, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if, together with this order, which is the draft Bankruptcy (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before the House on 11th March, we consider the draft Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, which also was laid before the House on the same day. Owing to an administrative oversight, these two orders have become transposed on the Order Paper and I shall therefore be moving the consequential order formally before the order upon which it is consequential; but as your Lordships will have heard the Government's proposals on each and will have discussed them before deciding on the merits of either, that ought not to present any difficulty—although, of course, I apologise to the House for the apparent lack of logic of the sequence in which the orders have been presented on the Order Paper.
Turning to the draft Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, a copy of which was laid before this House on 11th March, I would make the following observations. The law in Northern Ireland on the insolvency of limited companies was amended in 1978 to bring it into line with that in Great Britain, but the legislation on the insolvency of individuals dates back as far as the middle of the last century and, despite amending enactments, still differs in some important aspects from the law in England and Wales. Notwithstanding these differences, the general principles are similar and the law can be readily adapted so as to incorporate alterations based on existing English legislation.
Ultimately, consideration will have to be given to the question of modernisation of the law on bankruptcy and to achieving more complete uniformity between Northern Ireland and England and Wales. A major exercise of this nature would
56
take considerable time, and in view of the fact that there is a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Cork at present considering the law of insolvency both of individuals and of companies in England and Wales, it would be inappropriate to embark on such major legislation until that committee's report has been received and considered by the Government. This is reinforced by the fact that a draft EEC Convention on bankruptcy is also under negotiation at the moment. For these reasons, the order has been limited to matters requiring immediate consideration and to some general tidying-up provisions to facilitate consolidation of the existing law as soon as practicably possible.
The Department of Trade has responsibility for the Official Receiver's service, but it was only in 1978 that the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order made provision for the establishment of a similar service in respect of company liquidation by the Northern Ireland Department of Commerce. The order will now complete the service by transferring the Official Assignee service from the Northern Ireland Supreme Court to the Department of Commerce. A committee under the chairmanship of the late Lord MacDermott recommended this transfer and the Judicature (Northern Ireland) Act 1978 transferred the office to the Secretary of State, who delegated responsibility to the Department. The order now formally completes the transfer. It is hoped that the facility to provide a co-ordinated insolvency service will be of assistance to the public and to the legal profession.
The order co-ordinates management of the estates and funds of insolvent companies and bankruptcies, and provides for the control and audit of those funds.
The most pressing matter of general interest dealt with by the order is the important changes in the law governing discharge from bankruptcy. Under the present law in Northern Ireland most bankrupts remain permanently undischarged. This order now seeks to remedy this by adopting the provisions operating in England and Wales, including the changes made there by the Insolvency Act 1976. Many existing bankrupts will be discharged immediately the order comes into force or within five years thereafter. A debtor adjudged bankrupt after the order

57
is in operation will be automatically discharged five years after his adjudication, if the court, when concluding or dispensing with his public examination, so orders. All bankrupts adjudicated in the future or within the past five years will have their cases reviewed by the court, with a view to discharge during the sixth year after their adjudication.
In addition, any bankrupt will be able to apply to the court for discharge and on such an application the court will have a wide discretion to grant or withhold discharge, suspend the operation of a discharge or make it conditional on the bankrupt agreeing to make payments to his creditors. The order also gives the court the power to dispense with the public examination of a bankrupt.
A large portion of the order is concerned with the proving and ranking of debts and the distribution of a bankrupt's estate and, in general, it brings Northern Ireland law into line with that in England and Wales. It simplifies the existing law on claims and provides for the manner of proving debts. It also deals with the set off of mutual credits, mutual debts and other mutual dealings in the same way as in England and Wales. The law on preferential debts in bankruptcy is at present spread throughout the statute book, and one very useful purpose of this order is to collect together and consolidate those provisions in the order.
I now turn formally to the draft Bankruptcy (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order 1980, which was laid before the House on 11th March. In moving that it be approved, I would say that this order is within the provisions of Section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973, which empowers amendments of the law of any part of the United Kingdom to be made in consequence of a provision made by or under a measure of the Northern Ireland Assembly. By virtue of the Northern Ireland Act 1974, a reference to "a measure" also includes an Order in Council. Such is the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order, which we are also considering this afternoon. The order to which I am now speaking contains only provisions consequential to the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March, be approved.—Lord Elton.)
5.13 p.m.
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his very comprehensive explanation of the two orders. There is no doubt that the new provisions which are contained in the main order are long overdue, and in the context of business and commercial life in Northern Ireland should have a most useful and beneficial effect. The order greatly assists in tidying up the law governing bankruptcy matters, making it more simple to understand. I accept that this amending order brings the legislation in Northern Ireland considerably into line with similar legislation in Great Britain. However, there are three points which I hope the Minister will be able to clarify.
I understand that under paragraph 3 the Official Assignee now becomes an officer of the Department of Commerce, and that the whole department, with its staff and officers, will become a corporate section of the Department of Commerce. It appears to me that if the order is fully implemented additional administrative and monitoring arrangements will be required, involving considerable clerical work and other legal approaches. I should like to ask the Minister whether the present staff will be able to cope adequately with this additional workload.
Paragraphs 19, 20 and 21 deal with preferential payments, and the noble Lord has already referred to the fact that there will be considerable tidying up, bringing together provisions which have been scattered throughout other Northern Ireland Acts. Can the Minister confirm that wages and salaries, and related matters such as holiday entitlements and pension rights, will rank equally with rates and taxes as preferential payments in the distribution of the property of a bankrupt?
I understand that that position pertains in Great Britain at the present time, but I would add the caveat that it is not the way that I think it should operate. I consider that wages and salaries and related matters should have first preference, but as the law stands in Great Britain they rank equally. Will the

59
Minister confirm that that will be the position? I should also like to ask, because some consideration has been given to this matter in respect of the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, whether this order will continue to provide an additional and necessary safeguard for employees in respect of a bankrupt employer.
Thirdly, paragraph 33, which deals with bankruptcy rules, mentions that a review committee will deal with procedures and the making of rules relevant to this order. I understand that some accountants and academics have given consideration to paragraph 33, and there appears to be some confusion about the role and functions of the review committee. Will the review committee operate independently of the Lord Chancellor's Committee on Insolvency, which was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Kenneth Cork? Also, if the Cork Committee subsequently propose the introduction of legislation dealing with bankruptcy matters, will additional legislation require to be passed in Northern Ireland? In other words, will the review committee be dealing with rules arising from this order, whereas the Cork Committee will be dealing with more fundamental matters arising out of bankruptcy?
Finally—and I am sorry that I was not able to give the noble Lord notice—I should like to ask him this question. I came into possession of the Twenty-Third Report from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments only within the last couple of hours, and paragraph 3 states that further elucidation is required of the draft Bankruptcy (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order, which does not appear in the instrument or in the explanatory note. I hope that the noble Lord may be able to give a further explanation. Was there a difference of opinion between the drafters of the order, or was their point of view upheld by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments? In conclusion, may I say that both of these orders are warmly welcomed from this side. We believe that they are in the best interests of industry and of the Northern Ireland community, and we naturally support their adoption.
5.19 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I am obliged to the noble Lord, Lord Blease, for his reception of these orders and for his constructive approach to the questions. The first point that he raised was the question whether administration in the new form would involve an increase in the load on the staff of the Department of Commerce. I can assure him that, with the transfer of the Office of the Official Assignee from the Court Service to the Department of Commerce, the staff became subject to Civil Service terms and conditions of employment which included, among other things, increased working hours. It is therefore considered that the existing staff will be able to undertake the additional work in view of the additional working hours and improved office procedures.
The noble Lord asked me whether wages and salaries would rank equally with other preferential debts under the provisions of the order. I should like to emphasise in reply, referring to Articles 18 to 21, that the preferential provisions contained in the order are only a form of consolidation of the existing legislation on preferential payments in bankruptcy and that they equate with the law on the subject in England. Under the Industrial Relations (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, arrears of wages due, holiday pay, payments in lieu of notice and amounts due for unfair dismissal are all paid direct to employees by the Northern Ireland Department of Manpower Services. That department in turn claims from the bankrupt's estate and payment is on the same preferential basis. The claim by the Department of Manpower Services ranks equally with the other preferential payments, but the situation is better than the noble Lord supposes. Because of the effect of the employment protection legislation in Northern Ireland, the people who are entitled to receipt of these payments will get them, whatever the result of the proceedings with regard to the individual bankrupt.
The third point which the noble Lord raised was a difficulty with which I entirely sympathise. It was the difficulty of identifying the review committee referred to in Article 33. The Insolvency Law Review Committee is a body appointed specially by the Secretary of State for

61
Trade to examine generally the law on insolvency, whereas the review committee referred to in Article 33 of the order is a body appointed by the Lord Chancellor solely to review the winding up and bankruptcy rules made under this order and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978. In other words, the Cork Committee to which I referred when I introduced these orders are looking at the whole position of equating the law and bringing it up to date, whereas the committee mentioned in Article 33 is charged specifically with the rules under this order and the Companies (Northern Ireland) Order 1978.
I should like at this stage to thank the noble Lord for giving me notice of those three questions, which has ensured that he gets a coherent and, I hope, a helpful answer. Of the next question he did not give me notice, but I hope that I can do very nearly as well. I am aware of the difficulty and of the remarks made by the Joint Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments. I read their report with interest. The Bankruptcy (Northern Ireland Consequential Amendments) Order which is partly consequential upon the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order, which we are just taking, is to be made simultaneously with the latter order. The Joint Committee has said that this order's purport calls for elucidation and they suggest that the order or the explanatory note should contain an indication of the date upon which the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order, upon which the order we are now talking about is partly consequential, is to be made.
We have submitted to the committee that it would not be proper to anticipate the decision of Parliament by including in the text of an order or in its explanatory note the date upon which another order, still to be considered by Parliament, is to be made, since parliamentary business may get the date changed at the last moment. We further submitted that the explanatory note as it now stands makes it clear that this order is consequential upon the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order, and that also from footnote (c) to the principal order—that is, to Article 1(2)—it can be inferred by the reader that the Bankruptcy Amendment (Northern Ireland) Order has yet to
62
be made. If the noble Lord cares to look, he will see that the date has been left blank, which makes it clear that the amendment has not been made.
As I have said, the orders are to be made simultaneously, just as we are discussing them simultaneously. It may appear at first sight to be paradoxical that an order consequential upon another is to be made simultaneously with that order. However, it is the provisions of one order which are consequential upon the other and there is no logical reason why the two cannot be made together. I should like, none the less, having made those defensive noises, to assure the House that in the light of the report of the Joint Committee we are again considering whether there is any more satisfactory way in which to meet the Joint Committee's point in the general drafting of future consequential orders laid before this House.

BANKRUPTCY AMENDMENT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1980
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 11th March, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)

DOMESTIC PROCEEDINGS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1980
5.26 p.m.
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I beg to move that the Domestic Proceedings (Northern Ireland) Order 1980, a draft of which was laid before this House on 24th March, be approved. The purpose of this order is to make fresh provision for matrimonial proceedings in courts of summary jurisdiction. Although drafted in terms of the male gender, it applies equally and throughout to the female gender. Generally, the order follows Part I of the Domestic Proceedings and Magistrates' Courts Act 1978 which implemented for England and Wales recommendations

63
made in a Law Commission Report on Matrimonial Proceedings in Magistrates' Courts, and brings the law in Northern Ireland relating to matrimonial proceedings in summary courts into line with the law being administered by the divorce court. To a great extent the order is a tidying-up measure following the reform of divorce law in the Province which the House approved nearly two years ago and which has been operating for exactly one year.
The order is aimed at conferring on magistrates' courts something of the broad powers exercisable by the divorce court, suitably adapted to a situation where the marriage may not yet have irretrievably broken down and may, hopefully, never do so. The order contains proposals therefore which, while operating consistently with the permanent remedies available in the divorce court when the marriage has irretrievably broken down, nevertheless give full effect to the rather different objectives of the magistrates' matrimonial jurisdiction. The divorce court exercises its powers to make orders in respect of a party to a marriage principally on the basis that it has terminated the marriage. The jurisdiction of the magistrates is to grant matrimonial relief and deal with family relations during a period of breakdown, which is not necessarily permanent or irretrievable. The divergence of the underlying principles operating in the courts has led to many anomalies concerning the welfare of children and in the various types of financial provision which may be ordered by the court as well as in the circumstances allowing the court to exercise its powers in these and other respects.
The Domestic Proceedings Order repeals and replaces in its entirety the Summary Jurisdiction (Separation and Maintenance) Act (Northern Ireland) 1945, which has hitherto been the main legislative provision on this subject. That Act allows application to be made to the court by a wife where a husband has been guilty of certain offences against her such as adultery, persistent cruelty, desertion, neglect to maintain and so on. An application can be made by a husband whose wife has committed any of a more limited list of offences.
The order proposes that there should be
64
five grounds (instead of the present nine for a wife and four for a husband) on which either spouse may apply for a maintenance order against the other—the four grounds recommended by the Law Commission, together with adultery. The Law Commmission's four grounds are failure to maintain the applicant, failure to maintain a child of the family, desertion and unreasonable behaviour. The last of these subsumes a number of offences under the present legislation, including persistent cruelty, habitual drunkenness, habitually taking dangerous drugs and compelling a wife to submit herself to prostitution.
It may be asked why adultery is included as a ground on which the court can make an order when it is not separately mentioned in the English legislation. The reason lies in the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order. This order was made in 1978 and sets out a revised law for divorce in Northern Ireland. In the matter of adultery, it follows Scottish rather than English law and adultery by itself is stated to be one of five specified facts which give rise to an inference that the marriage has irretrievably broken down. It seems to us that if adultery is a ground on which a spouse can seek a dissolution of marriage, there is an even stronger case for saying that it should also be a ground on which a spouse can decide to live apart from the other party to the marriage and apply for financial provision.
The draft order is the result of a long period of consultation in Northern Ireland which began in March 1979 with the publication of a proposal for a draft Order in Council, together with an explanatory document. The normal consultation period was extended to three months. We received many helpful comments. The draft order now before the House has, I believe, been improved as a result of these suggestions, which have been very welcome. This is particularly so in relation to those provisions dealing with domestic violence. I shall explain these particular changes in a moment. I am also grateful to those who took the trouble to make their views known on such items as the welfare of children, reconciliation, jurisdiction and residential qualifications, and I am pleased to say that we have been able to meet many of the points made. In other cases, where we have not, for instance, revised the wording or extended the subject matter

65
of the order, full account has nevertheless been taken of the opinions expressed before bringing draft legislation before this House.
The majority of the articles in the order are self-explanatory and I do not think, they give rise to any particular comment. There are, however, a number of provisions which I think I should draw to the attention of the House. Article 4 gives the magistrates' court a new power to order a lump sum payment not exceeding £500 for the applicant or a child of the family. This is in addition to the power to order periodical payments. The criteria for making orders, whether for periodical payments or a lump sum, are laid down in Article 5. They follow those in the divorce legislation. This provision replaces the present law under which an applicant to a magistrates' court is unable to obtain maintenance if she has committed adultery. As in divorce law, the court should now take the parties' conduct into account only to the extent that it is just so to do.
Article 8 empowers magistrates to make financial provisions orders in terms which have been agreed by the parties. The introduction of the consent order is based on the Law Commission's recommendation that what is required is,
"an effective means by which, where a marriage has temporarily broken down, the parties to the marriage can obtain the assistance of the court in regulating the financial arrangements between themselves without having to parade before the court their marital difficulties".
The article contains safeguards, notably one favouring children; where the agreement includes or consists of financial provision for a child of the family, the court must be satisfied that it provides for, or makes a proper contribution towards, the financial needs of the child. An additional provision has been inserted to make it clear that if the amount the husband has agreed to pay under the article proves inadequate the wife has the option of proceeding under Article 4 in the normal way. I would remind your Lordships that the whole of this legislation provides for husbands and wives equally.
Article 10 makes provision for the court, on an application for an order under Article 4, 8 or 9, to make an order for the custody of the children of the
66
family. The article places a duty on the court to consider whether or not to exercise this power before dismissing or making a final order on the application. Articles 11 and 12 enable the court, in an exceptional case, to place a child under supervision or to commit him to the care of the Department of Health and Social Services if the home circumstances are unsuitable. In exercising the powers conferred by Articles 10, 11 and 12, the court will be guided by the principle embodied in Article 17 that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration. Article 28 places a duty on the court to bear in mind the possibility of reconciliation at all stages of a hearing and sets out certain procedures to assist this important aim.
I now come to some of the most important innovations in the order. These are the provisions (contained in Articles 18, 19 and 21) allowing magistrates for the first time in Northern Ireland to make orders for the protection from violence of a party to a marriage or a child of the family. The powers are wide. If there has been personal violence within the family, or the threat of it, the court can not only make a personal protection order forbidding molestation but, if satisfied that it is necessary to do so in order to protect the applicant or a child, the court can also make an order (described as an "exclusion order") requiring the respondent to allow the applicant the exclusive use of the home. An exclusion order may also require the respondent to keep away from any other premises (for example, a refuge) where the applicant or a child of the family is living. And it may exclude him from any area in which the home or any such other premises are situated. The maximum duration of such an order is, initially, six months, but this can be extended, if necessary.
A number of statutory consequences flow from the making of an exclusion order. The respondent must forthwith leave the matrimonial home; he must remove no goods from it unless the court expressly allows him to do so; he must not damage the home or its furnishings; he must not interfere with any services in it; and he is restrained from disposing of any estate he has in it. Again I should say that the order applies equally to husband and wife. Power is also given

67
to impose conditions in an exclusion order. These might relate to such matters as the payment of rent, rates, hire-purchase payments for furniture and other outgoings.
Article 19 attaches a statutory power of arrest to all personal protection orders and exclusion orders. A constable may arrest without warrant anyone whom he has reasonable cause for suspecting of being in breach of the order. Where a person so arrested is brought to a police station, the officer in charge of the station must inquire into the case. If he is satisfied that the offender can safely be released, he may release him either unconditionally or subject to his undertaking to return to the police station at a specified time or to appear before a magistrates' court at a specified time and place. If the offender is not released at this stage he must be brought before a justice of the peace within 24 hours, a period which may be lengthened at weekends or holidays. Article 21 allows an interim personal protection order or an interim exclusion order to be made pending a decision on an application.
The remainder of the order may loosely be described as procedural. There are provisions relating to jurisdiction and enforcement and there are increases in the penalties for disobeying magistrates' orders other than for payment of money. Such orders will include the new personal protection and exclusion orders provided by the order. These are in line with penalties imposed in England. This is an extremely important order, which reforms family law in magistrates' courts. I believe that those who use the magistrates' courts for matrimonial matters will benefit from it. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th March, be approved.—(Lord Elton.)
Lord BLEASE: My Lords, I again wish to thank the noble Lord, Lord Elton, for his explanation of this order. I should like also to indicate that the measure has a warm welcome from this side of the House, and indeed I think it will be well received by the Northern Ireland community. I believe that the order helps considerably (so far as law can) to ease hardship and to lessen strain and anxiety
68
arising out of domestic problems. The Minister has mentioned that the measures in the main bring the domestic law in Northern Ireland into line with that existing in this country and he has dealt with that matter in some detail.
There is only one point that I should like to deal with, briefly, and that is matters arising from Articles 18, 19 and 21 dealing with violence and threatened violence of the party to a marriage or a child of the family. The Minister has gone into considerable detail and it would be wrong if I were to repeat what he has said, but the whole of these four articles raise the dilemma of the battered wives; the great problem that we are faced with in a situation where there has been domestic strife, where the wife has to flee, perhaps with a family, in what she would hope would be an interim situation and probably would go to relatives, but many wives have nowhere to go and are left wandering in the streets.
In Northern Ireland there is a group of women called the Women's Aid Northern Ireland group, and in Coleraine, Londonderry and Belfast as the Minister will probably know they have set up refugee homes, similar to arrangements which have been made in parts of Great Britain. These are set up to help to rescue the victims of such circumstances. I am probably exceeding the terms of reference of this particular order, but perhaps I can say that this is consequential and arises from the three articles mentioned. I should like the noble Lord to use his good offices to ensure that this part of the order is supported in real terms as well as legislative measures, by seeing that adequate and suitable social and welfare facilities can be provided in such circumstances. I should like to give a warm welcome to this order from this side of the House.
Lord HAMPTON: My Lords, I wonder if I might ask the noble Lord, Lord Elton, one question about Article 38 which is headed "Restriction on removal of a child from Northern Ireland". This starts:
"Where the court makes:

(a) an order under Article 10(2) regarding the legal custody of a child, or

(b) an interim custody order under Article 20 in respect of a child …"—

and it goes on—

69
"the court may … by order direct that no person shall take the child out of Northern Ireland while the order made under this Article is in force, except with the leave of the court".
I wonder if the noble Lord could clarify whether this is similar to the provision in Great Britain or whether it is something special to Northern Ireland, and, if so, what is its significance?
Lord ELTON: My Lords, I would welcome the way the House has received this important order. The noble Lord, Lord Blease, referred specifically to the operation of Articles 18 to 21 and the work of voluntary agencies providing what he described as refugee houses. He will have noted from my introduction that there is provision for orders which will secure a person under threat of assault or molestation from that threat either in the home or in a place of refuge. I am confident that that description would apply to the sort of home he is speaking of. I will certainly draw his concern on this specific matter to the attention of my honourable friend with care over the operation of this, and I do not doubt that he will respond in exactly the way the noble Lord hopes he will.
The noble Lord, Lord Hampton, asked me a specific question about the operation of the English law on what amounts to the power of the court to see that a person to whom it has extended its protection shall remain within its jurisdiction. The power that he referred to was the power of the court to see that no person shall take a person under an order out of Northern Ireland. I would refer him to Section 34 of the Domestic Proceedings in Magistrates Courts Act 1978, which operates in England and Wales; there is provision that where orders or interim orders regarding the custody of a child are in force the court may by order direct that no person shall take him out of England and Wales except by leave of the court. I will not read out the whole section, but the provision is mirrored in the provision of the English and Welsh law.
On Question, Motion agreed.

MAINTENANCE ORDERS (NORTHERN IRELAND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS) ORDER 1980
Lord ELTON Lord ELTON rose to move, That the
70
draft order laid before the House on 24th March be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, as this is a consequential order, I beg to move it formally. The draft was laid before the House on 24th March. The order is consequential upon the Domestic Proceedings Order which makes fresh provision for matrimonial proceedings in magistrates' courts in Northern Ireland, which we have just discussed. It will be made under Section 38(2) of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973 and provides for the making or enforcement of maintenance orders where different parts of the United Kingdom are involved or where some other country or territory is involved. In other words, it is a cross-border provision for orders which apply to people who have moved. It will ensure that when proceedings are taken in certain circumstances under the principal order effect will be given to them. For this reason the order is both necessary and worthwhile. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order laid before the House on 24th March be approved.—(Lord Elton.)

ZIMBABWE INDEPENDENCE PREPARATIONS
5.45 p.m.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY Lord HATCH of LUSBY rose to ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on their preparations for the independence of Zimbabwe. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. Those of us who have been in any way involved in the events of the last few months in Rhodesia, soon to become Zimbabwe, feel that it is a privilege, indeed a privilege unique in human history, to have participated in what is nothing less than a peaceful social revolution in that country. Indeed, with apologies to Mr. Reed, one might describe it as "Ten Weeks that Shook the World".
I want to repeat the congratulations that I made to the Government for that part of their policy in which they re-assumed British authority over Rhodesia.
I also want to take this opportunity of adding my congratulations to the numerous individuals and groups who participated in this extraordinary exercise. I would mention in particular the election supervisors, the British policemen, the election directorate, the observers who came from all over the world, above all the observers from the Commonwealth.
It seems to me to be a great pity that one has to make this kind of occasion the only parliamentary discussion of these events before independence takes place on Friday of this week. We have been told by Administrations of both parties, continually for the past 20 years, that what the future of Rhodesia should be is a British responsibility, that that responsibility lies essentially with Parliament, that only Parliament here in Westminster can grant independence, and that it is our parliamentary responsibility to supervise what happens in that country. And yet independence is to be granted on Friday of this week without a major debate in either House of our Parliament. This is something which I deeply regret. I also regret the fact that from what I can see from the list there would appear to be no Members supporting the Government participating in this discussion this evening. It really says very little for the Government's policy that none of their supporters appear to have come to cheer them on tonight.
Despite the historic importance of the events of these last few weeks, nobody would deny that we are leaving the new Zimbabwe State with massive problems that will take many years to solve. I need only outline them briefly: unemployment, with at least 1 million Africans unemployed out of a total population of 7 million; hunger, where it is estimated that at least 20 per cent, of the population is suffering from acute malnutrition; the land issue, which has got to be resettled after a long period in which the white population was granted 50 per cent, of the land area of the country, despite the fact that it never rose above at the very most 5 per cent, of the population; the education issue, the contrast between the luxury educational provision for white children and complete absence of educational provision for a very large number of African children.
Then there is the health situation. As I mentioned before in this House, what I think concerns me more deeply than any other issue residual on our handing over of independence is the fact that the medical experts will tell you that it must be that 20 per cent, of the present generation of African children are permanently mentally retarded and damaged simply through malnutrition in their infant years.
I should mention, too, perhaps, one of the most pressing and immediate problems: the overblown army which, when the five component parts come together, will number something like 50,000 to 60,000 in a country where an army of perhaps 10,000 to 15,000 would be more appropriate. Those of us who have had any dealings with Africa know what a tremendous danger this has been in a country like Nigeria since the end of the civil war 10 years ago.
The problem left to the new Government of how to reduce the numbers of that army, how to integrate that army, how to govern in a country where it has become commonplace, particularly for the Europeans, to carry guns as they would carry handbags or umbrellas—this is indeed a tremendous menace to the stability of the new government. In a country which has one of the highest birthrates in the world, where the population is increasing at 3.6 per cent, per annum, these are really massive problems for the new State of Zimbabwe to face. They are facing them after a period of 90 years which has been dominated by racism, by tribalism, by a whole set of divisive influences. They are facing them and now having to start to build a new nation.
It is my contention—and I suggested to the Government that this would be the thread of my remarks—that over the past 12 months Conservative policy, first in Opposition and then in Government, has exacerbated these problems and left the situation much worse than it need have been. I would start from the undermining of the plan put forward by David Owen and Cyrus Vance, the undermining by the cold water thrown on it by the then Opposition, the Conservative Party, and by many of its members who were quite blatantly telling the whites under Ian Smith 12 months ago, "Just hold on. We shall be coming to power after the next

73
election. We shall see that things change in your favour." That influence in the year in which there was bound to be a general election in this country sabotaged the Owen-Vance plan.
I come secondly to the Conservative Party manifesto on which it fought the last election. The manifesto included this phrase:
"If the Six Principles, which all British governments have supported for the last 15 years, are fully satisfied following the present Rhodesian Election"—
that is, that of April last year—
"the next government will have the duty to return Rhodesia to a state of legality, move to lift sanctions, and do its utmost to ensure that the new independent state gains international recognition".
To the Rhodesians, and indeed most of our electorate, that meant that the Conservative Party was first promising recognition of the Smith-Muzorewa regime, if it was elected, and the lifting of sanctions. But when I asked repeatedly in this House after the election whether the new Government considered that the Six Principles had been met, I was then referred to the report of the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd and his team of observers who went to Rhodesia during that April election. When I referred to the Boyd Report I found that the only relevant phrase in it was the following:
"The people expressed their own view, in numbers which demonstrate a significant judgment on the constitutional basis of the election itself".
In other words, according to the Government and the Boyd Report the Six Principles had been satisfied. That was then followed, you will remember, by the disastrous Press conference given by the Prime Minister in Canberra, in which she said it was unlikely that the British Parliament would renew sanctions in November.
When you put these factors together, it is not surprising that the people of Rhodesia believed that when the Conservative Government were elected last May they would do their utmost to recognise the existing Smith-Muzorewa regime and to lift sanctions. They banked on that, and they were justified in so doing. Indeed, that was what the Government wanted to do. They were prevented from doing so by the Commonwealth. If anybody comes out of this whole story with credit it is the Commonwealth, because it was
74
only in Lusaka, following the investigations that had been made by representatives sent out by the Government, that the new Conservative Government discovered that, if it went ahead with its policy of recognising the Smith-Muzorewa regime and lifting sanctions, it would be isolated.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I appreciate that the noble Lord is speaking for the first time, and I am perhaps stretching the indulgence of the House a little by intervening now, but I really must tell him that he is quite mistaken in this view. When we debated Rhodesia first in this session of Parliament on 10th July, I said from this Box quite clearly that we could not and would not recognise Bishop Muzorewa's Government at that time. That was before the conference at Lusaka.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, that was on 10th July, two months after the election. During those two months Lord Harlech had been sent on his mission. Other missions, other investigations had been made, and by that time the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary was already holding on to the skirts of the Prime Minister. He did so successfully with the vital assistance of people like Malcolm Fraser of Australia, a Conservative, and Michael Manley of Jamaica, a Socialist, along with President Nyerere, President Kaunda and President Seretse Khama from the front-line States. The Commonwealth had shown the British Government that they faced virtually total isolation if they carried forward the policy which their party had persuaded both the Rhodesians and the British electorate would be their actions if they became the Government.
Lusaka laid the basis for the Lancaster House Conference, which, as we now know, lasted for 13 weeks. All I have to say about the Lancaster House Conference is that the criticisms that we made during the debates that took place while that conference was in session have, every one of them, been substantiated since. We suggested that the Owen-Vance plan was much more realistic in its mobilisation of a peace-keeping force because a peace-keeping force would be needed if an election was to be held in Rhodesia without a great deal of intimidation. We suggested that during the

75
interim period before the election the various forces should be integrated into a national army. It was the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary who said at his party conference in Blackpool that integration of the forces during the interim period was neither possible nor desirable.
We said that it was unfair that the Ministers in the Muzorewa/Smith Government should be allowed to keep their perquisites, their houses, their cars and their status during the election—but so it was. It was favourable to the Bishop's party, to the UANC. We said that the election period should be longer because the Bishop already had an electoral machine, whereas the two external guerrilla parties had no machine at all. We were proved right. It was only two weeks before the election actually took place that either of those parties had a single telephone in their offices, and I went round personally in order to investigate the situation. One of the parties had to use a telephone from a shop underneath its office.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think that this is quite the most extraordinary speech that I have ever heard on this subject. The noble Lord is complaining that Bishop Muzorewa had all the advantages. Did the noble Lord not hear that the Bishop won only three of the total seats on offer?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, the Bishop won only three seats despite the assistance that he was given from this country—read the Financial Times and see who was assisting him financially—despite the assistance he was receiving from American business, despite the assistance he was receiving from the South Africans, and he must be unique in history—he should go into the Guinness Book of Records—as the only leader of a party who has finished up with more helicopters than he has seats!
Finally, as regards the Lancaster House Conference, we pleaded from this side of the House to get rid of the concept of racial representation. We believed that the 20 white seats would perpetuate racialism and racial consciousness—and they did so. The election, as it took place for the white seats, was seen to be an election that would persuade the whites
76
that nothing was going to change, that "Smithy" would get them out of it again. Certain statements were made during that election—public statements from political platforms—which would have warranted a charge of treason because they were suggesting, and clearly suggesting, that if the Mugabe party were to win the election then the Security Forces would organise a military coup. Nothing was done about those speeches.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, talking of speeches during the election campaign, perhaps the noble Lord would tell the House what he said at his Press conference in Lusaka?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, at my Press Conference in Lusaka I said that I believed that the election should be postponed to give a longer period, which I have just explained I still believe would have been a much fairer way of conducting that election.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, what about the noble Lord's remark that the elections would not be free and fair and that the noble Lord, Lord Soames, was too closely associated with the Conservative Party?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, it was simply a repetition in Lusaka of what I had already said in this House. I considered that the appointment of Lord Soames as the Governor was a mistake, not because I have any personal anomosity towards Lord Soames as a person, but because Lord Soames was a prominent member of the Conservative Party that had fought the election on the policy of recognising the Muzorewa/Smith régime. What I was advocating in this House, and what I advocated in Lusaka, was that the Governor should be an impartial person not drawn from either side of the House, as had already been done under the Owen/Vance plan.
During the course of the election there were a number of important breaches of the Lancaster House Agreement. The first important one occurred on 6th January. We had been assured here that the Security Forces would be confined to the vicinity of their bases while at the same time the guerrillas were assembling at their assembly points. Instead of that

77
happening, on 6th January the Security Forces were deployed all over the country and, according to the Rhodesia Herald, with the consent of the Governor—in other words, with the consent of the British Government. But is it not strange that at the same time the Governor had fixed the date of the election? Again, I am not making any personal attacks on the Governor whatsoever: I am talking about the policy of the British Government. The date of the election had been fixed. According to the Lancaster House Agreement that election was to be fixed eight to nine weeks after the cease-fire had become effective. If the cease-fire had become effective so that the election date could be fixed, why was not martial law lifted? We were told—again Lancaster House was told—that, once the ceasefire was effective, there would be no need for martial law.
However, martial law continued throughout the election and that meant that the police, the auxiliary forces and the security forces could arrest anyone and detain anyone for 30 days without charge or trial. Indeed, they did so, and they did so among such notable people as Enos Nkala, who is now the Minister of Finance, and Nathan Shamuyarira, who was an internationally known figure and who was picked up and put in prison only three days before polling day. Yet, throughout this period we were constantly being told through the Press in Rhodesia and here that the intimidation that was souring the election was coming from Mr. Mugabe's forces and to a lesser extent from those of Mr. Nkomo.
However, it does not need my words to make the point. Let us take the opinion of The Times newspaper which had this to say during February as a result of what had occurred between the arrival of the Governor and 15th February, only two weeks before the election. This is a quotation from The Times of that date. It reads as follows:
"The impression among independent observers in Salisbury is that Lord Soames's claim to be acting even-handedly is beginning to wear thin. In particular, it is felt that his over-reliance on the existing Rhodesian administration, particularly for information about what is happening around the country, is mainly responsible for his apparent one-sidedness".
That is not me: that is The Times.
Every observer I met—and I am talking
78
here about observers from Australia, America, Canada, Denmark, Holland and Scandinavia—indeed, the whole population that one spoke to, recognised the fact that the British administration wanted to see its original policy put into practice. It wanted the Bishop to win so that it could recognise the Bishop's Government, or, as it began to get closer to the election date and was advised that perhaps the Bishop was not going to win, it took an action that was even more dangerous: it tried to divide the Patriotic Front—which unfortunately had already divided itself electorally—deeper and deeper by suggesting that, if Mr. Nkomo and the Bishop would get together, then there was an opportunity to exclude Mr. Mugabe. I am not talking here about hearsay; I am talking about personal knowledge only a few days before the election. The trouble is—
Earl FORTESCUE: My Lords, will the noble Lord give way? May I say that I was fortunte enough to be in Rhodesia as an observer and what the noble Lord has said was not—and I repeat "not"—the impression that we had. The noble Lord has been speaking for 24 minutes and I would suggest that he has been speaking with very little relevance to the Question which he put down. The Question reads:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a further statement on their preparations for the independence of Zimbabwe".
To my way of thinking, almost everything that the noble Lord has said is totally irrelevant and unhelpful. The elections have taken place and the consensus is that they expressed the will of the people. I would suggest that his speech is totally unhelpful.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, I would remind the noble Earl that I have now been interrupted four or five times, so he might like to take that off the clock. As to the relevance of what I am saying, what I have been describing are the preparations of the British Government for the independence of Zimbabwe. Briefly, I shall outline their direct relevance not only to the independence of Zimbabwe but to the problems which Zimbabweans now face. I would mention in passing what can be read in the report of the Commonwealth observers regarding the censorship that was maintained during the

79
election and the propaganda of all aspects of the media—the newspapers, radio and television—all of which were slanted almost horizontally in favour of the Bishop's party.
What is the relevance of this to the legacy that we are handing over? It is three-fold. First, I charge the Government with having misled the white population of Rhodesia into believing that there would be no substantial change. I believe—and I have said this in this House before the election—that it was the responsibility of the British Government to prepare the white population for the changes that were bound to take place, whoever won the election. Secondly, I charge the British Government with having made it much more difficult for the leading administrators in the Rhodesian administration, through whom they were working, to work with their new political masters, because of what was allowed to go on during that election conducted by certain members of the administration.
Finally—and this is the point I was on when I was interrupted—I charge the Government with having deepened the very dangerous forms—and I specifically put that in the plural—of tribalism which are to be found in that country. The attempt to divide the Patriotic Front and the attempt to divide Nkomo from Mugabe was a very dangerous influence, not just in the election but in what happens after the election in holding together a national Government which is essential for the future peace of Zimbabwe. I believe that the only serious factor which prevented this policy ending in disaster was the presence of Commonwealth observers. Indeed it was a member of Mr. Mugabe's own party—a successful candidate who is now a Minister—who said to me on the day the election results were announced: "If the Commonwealth observers had not been here, we would not have won."
I simply refer your Lordships to the report now published by the Commonwealth observers to see at least the credibility of what I am saying; the fact that it was seen in much the same way by 11 members from different countries, all with their different experiences and their different perspectives—Commonwealth ob-
80
servers and their staff whom I cannot praise too highly; and Commonwealth observers—I do not know whether the Government know this—some of whom were grossly insulted during the performance of their duties. Prejudice was shown to some of the coloured Commonwealth observers which in this country would have been material for criminal charges. I should like to ask the noble Lord who is to reply whether or not the Government intend to answer those parts of the Commonwealth observers' report which are critical of British policy. However, what is perhaps much more important is that the sterling work that was done by these men and women has created a new perspective, a new hope, a new resilience and a new vigour in the Commonwealth itself, and bodes well for the future.
Very briefly, what is the future for Zimbabwe? Have we learned the lesson? Apparently not. Let us think back. Among all Administrations of Britain over the last 40 to 50 years let us think of our treatment of Nehru, Nasser, Nkrumah, Kenyatta, Makarios, Kaunda and Seretse Khama. Now we have Mugabe. What I suggest to the Government is that there are many more Mugabes in Southern Africa. In facing this new situation and in facing it as a British Government who are responsible and who have always claimed responsibility for the independence of Zimbabwe, we cannot simply brush aside the past and forget what has happened, because it affects the present and the future. Mr. Mugabe has shown remarkable tolerance, but Mr. Mugabe is pledged to change; radical change compared with the last 90 years must come in Zimbabwe if Mr. Mugabe is to remain the leader of that country. The change is demanded by the people of Zimbabwe.
We also have a responsibility to those countries which have suffered as a result of the rebellion against British authority: to Zambia, Mozambique and Botswana. But, above all, we have a responsibility to see the new Southern African scene with this new State as one of its keystones. I should like the Government to say tonight that they recognise that there must be radical social, economic and political change; there must be change in the Civil Service, in land division, in education and in health, and in every social, economic and political aspect; and that their

81
support, their economic aid and their technical aid to the new Government will not depend on whether or not they approve of the policies of that Government.
I was somewhat alarmed to hear the Lord Privy Seal, Sir Ian Gilmour, in another place say that future aid would be determined after the new Government have set their priorities. I hope that does not mean that aid will depend upon whether the British Government approve of the actions of the new Zimbabwean Government; because we have a responsibility to undo what has been done in our name for over 14 years and what has been done partially in our name for the last 90 years. That is a responsibility of the British Parliament, the British Government and the British people.
6.19 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I have listened with interest and attention to the rather long statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby; but having done so, and in spite of the short talk I had with him earlier in the afternoon, I confess that, apart from his apparent desire to have a full debate on the Rhodesian question before the noble Lord, Lord Soames, returns to this country, I am still rather at a loss to know what he is getting at. Perhaps—and this may conceivably be unfair—he is trying to show that a Conservative Government do not deserve much credit for a settlement which, as he believes, ought only to have been achieved by a Socialist Government which might, among other things, have backed Mr. Mugabe to the hilt from the start, though I am not sure they would have. In any case, though it was not necessarily their fault that over many years the Labour Government were not successful in this matter, the fact remains that they were not successful and that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, admittedly with the help of the Commonwealth, was.
Anyhow, what is otherwise the point of raking up the past and endeavouring to prove that things might have been better if some other kind of policy had been pursued than the policy that was pursued? What is the point of it? Perhaps it might have been better, though I rather doubt it. But what matter? The fact is that elections have been held; they have been declared by independent Com-
82
monwealth observers to be as free and as fair as might be expected; and the important thing now is surely to see to it that the new régime actually works once independence is declared, as it will be in a few days from now. I do not myself see how the Government can now prepare for independence by doing anything more than they are doing at the present, other, that is, than pulling down the flag and sending Prince Charles out in a few days' time. How else can they "prepare for independence"? What therefore is the actual point of the noble Lord's Question? I fail to see it.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to intervene? There is a very simple answer to that. What I suggest is that unless we learn the dimension of the problems which are the legacy that we are leaving to the new Zimbabwe State and give our pledge to assist in the solution of those problems then we are leaving the people of Zimbabwe virtually helpless.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, I am sure that the Government are going to do what they can to help the new regime in Zimbabwe. There is no reason to suppose that they will not. They are going to give aid, and so on. What else can they do? Heaven knows! all this will be difficult enough; and it is still, unfortunately, possible that a considerable number of Zimbabwe citizens of white complexion may decide to leave, believing that a country ruled by blacks is not one in which they would still enjoy a satisfactory life. I am afraid that that is still possible. Nobody can actually blame them if they decide to get out. Many no doubt were not responsible for the quite deplorable policies which ended in a civil war and in the destruction of much of the economy and the whole countryside of Zimbabwe. Indeed, I would say that there is even a case for compensating some who may come out with little or no means of support, more especially if part or all of their holdings in the country have been nationalised or seized.
There will of course be many other causes of friction. Undoubtedly there will be. What is to happen to the whole system of education, and more particularly to the white-dominated schools, for instance? Will sporting links be main-

83
tained with the Republic of South Africa? How will taxes be apportioned? How will labour relations be organised? What exactly will be the functions of the police? Let us hope that this all goes smoothly, as these sort of things have gone in Kenya more or less over the years. But no one can be sure. The civil war must have left appalling scars, and it is astonishing that things have gone as well as they have gone up to now.
However, if we are to look back at recent events, let us not, for heaven's sake, look back in anger. No doubt there were highly regrettable incidents on all sides. I would not dispute that for a moment. Bishop Muzorewa's private army, for instance, if we may believe some reports, often behaved like a gang of thugs. Mugabe's troops were certainly not always under control, and were probably responsible for most of the breaches of the cease-fire. Perhaps it was not all their fault because they were by far the largest forces in the field. The Rhodesian Army itself, although it seems that on the whole it was well controlled by General Walls, contained elements such as the Selous Scouts who may have been responsible for some very unfortunate incidents. Only Mr. Joshua Nkomo's forces seem to have been largely without reproach, but then they were more disciplined and considerably less numerous.
Of course there are all kinds of horrors possibly in store for the country, some of which were mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. The state of the country itself is frightful. Malnutrition is formidable. The countryside is largely ruined and will have to be repaired. All that of course was the result of the civil war, for which some of us may think that certain people were more responsible than others. The overblown army will naturally have to be reduced. Civilians may still have to carry guns; but I would point out that in America nearly every citizen has a gun. It is not as bad as all that. You will have to restore order even if the citizens do carry guns. There is the high birth rate; well, you cannot do anything about that. It is deplorable, and that is a thing which is with us. Tribalism, which the noble Lord thinks was encouraged by the Government—well, I do not think it really was—seems to be a less potent
84
force than many people suspected it would be. Mr. Nkomo at the moment shows signs of co-operating with Mr. Mugabe. The Matabele and the Shonas do not show signs of being at each other's throats, as many people thought. All that does not seem to be as bad as many suggested.
I imagine that we shall have a formal debate—I hope the noble Lord will assure us that that is so—on the whole question when the Governor returns at the end of the month. We shall then be in a better position than we are at present to judge how things are going to turn out. Certainly if there should be a minimum of good will the future of the new State should, over the years, be assured. There is no reason why, given its resources, it should not become one of the most prosperous of the new African States. It may well not be as efficient as it was when it was ruled by the whites. I think there is every reason to suppose that it will not be as efficient, but on the other hand efficiency is not everything. Happiness is perhaps more important still. The recent decision of the President of Maputo to abandon strict Marxist dogma and to go in for some kind of fairly free economy is also an excellent portent. Things may go sadly wrong, but at least there is now reasonable hope for the future. And I certainly should not like to blame the Government for anything that has happened up to now.
6.28 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I intervene briefly and start with an apology. I have already explained to the Minister and to my noble friend who initiated this debate that, unfortunately, I shall not be able to stay for the rest of this extremely fascinating debate. It contains debates within the debate which I found equally diverting. Like my noble friend Lord Gladwyn, we all look forward to a more expansive occasion on which we can have a good look at how things have gone in Zimbabwe, and how we should all seek to assist that country in the future when the Governor-General has returned and takes his place and makes his statement from that Dispatch Box. In the meantime, I think that my noble friend is entirely justified in raising the points that he has done just in case there is no other opportunity.

85
I am sure that the Government will examine with great care everything my noble friend has said. I am sure that he did not say what he did without a personal feeling of justification as one who has spent a good deal of his time in Africa and is a responsible student of, and indeed political consultant on, African affairs. I am sure that he did not speak as he did in any tone of sterile recrimination. I know him well enough to know that he wishes to see this new departure in Southern Africa, the credit for which a great many people and organisations are entitled to, to go ahead with the advantages of having learned the lessons of the past, and of the recent past.
In that sense I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and I, speaking from the two Opposition Benches, would support the desire of my noble friend Lord Hatch that we should learn the lessons. I hope the Government will learn the big lesson, namely, that it is just as well to examine the policy of their predecessors carefully before they commit themselves during or immediately after an election to resist them. In essence, the policy followed successfully by the present Government in Rhodesia was that of the preceding Government; that is to say, to call to conference everybody concerned with the future of Zimbabwe. At times, if I may say so, I said that it had to include the leaders of the Patriotic Front as well as the front-line Presidents. I was assailed and criticised—I was at the receiving end—but mercifully a U-turn was effected; somewhere between Canberra and Lusaka there was a U-turn, for which we are all very grateful indeed. Thank goodness it happened. That is the first major lesson to be learned. I insist on that.
When I was defending exactly the kind of policy which has been implemented successfully by the present Foreign Secretary, I was constantly being criticised from this side of the House when the party opposite were in Opposition. They resisted all along the very idea of including in the constitutional negotiations the leaders of the Patriotic Front. As if you could do anything in Rhodesia without them, or as if you can do anything in the future without continuing to consult and assist them. So it is no good having recriminatory rumbles today, but I will
86
not pursue that further. I am heartily glad that there emerged a consensus on both sides of the House, and we in Opposition, as we found ourselves, strongly supported the present Foreign Secretary and Lord Soames and indeed the Government when they adopted the only possible policy for a solution of the Zimbabwe question. That is the big lesson to learn, that there must be continuity and consensus in foreign policy and in defence. That is the specific gravity of responsibility which all parties, all Members, must keep in mind, whether or not they are in Government. If we do that in this country then we shall solve similar difficult problems in future.
That brings me to the other point I wish to make, which springs from what my noble friend said. Even more important to this country and the West is a solution of the problem of Namibia, of German South-West Africa. I agree entirely with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, said about the potential wealth of Rhodesia. It is there to be developed, I hope very much in a major way by British capital and expertise. But more urgent—and essential perhaps to the survival of the West—is a solution of the question of Namibia so that a successor State emerges there which co-operates as an independent State, politically and commercially, with this country and the West; and it is right, therefore, to examine our experience in Rhodesia to realise the undoubted achievements that the Government and others (certainly the Commonwealth and the Commonwealth Secretary-General) were able to reach in Rhodesia, and to learn the lessons of what we must avoid in Namibia.
I hope the Government are doing two things. I hope they are addressing themselves very carefully to the Namibian question. It seems to be in a kind of lull. I may be wrong about that, but it is urgent that there should emerge in that part of South Africa an agreed, peaceful, democratically-oriented development, and we can learn a lot about how to do it from what has been done in Rhodesia. We can eqully, as my noble friend pointed out, learn what to avoid when we approach that problem. I will not go into detail about Namibia, except to say what I have said before, that I think this question is even more difficult than Rhodesia, and

87
that it is certainly more important to this country and the West that it should be successfully solved.
In my final point I echo what was said by the two speakers who preceded me. I have no doubt that the Government are examining how best to come to the aid of the new Rhodesia, or Zambabwe. A few weeks ago we had an excellent debate on the Brandt Commission Report. Everybody agreed—there was inter-party consensus—that the developed countries must make a major effort to assist in bringing up the developing countries. This is the first test case; here is an African country poised between a number of options as to its future. If we in the developed West grasp the opportunity—it is not a question of sacrifice but of opportunity—of helping this strategically important part of Africa and the world to get on its feet again, so that the option it has so far exercised in favour of democracy is sustained and fortified, then we shall have served ourselves as well as we shall have served Zimbabwe.
Let us not niggle at the cost of this. It will be an investment in democracy and peace, and incidentally in British employment, if we go about it in a wholehearted way. It is not a question of generosity only or of obligation. As Mr. Edward Heath said in a recent speech on the Brandt Commission Report, which he helped to write, it is not only a matter of generosity and obligation; it is a matter of cold commonsense. I therefore hope very much that the Government are addressing themselves to the question of how much they can provide in resources, money, manpower and machines, to help Zimbabwe to implement in its new life the option it has so far expressed in its political life.
It is cheering to read reports of remarks made by the American President yesterday about the United States attitude to this matter. They have said they will help, and help substantially, and I hope they will be joined not only by us but by other developed countries in the West and North, and in that way, perhaps starting with Rhodesia and certainly going on swiftly with Namibia, we may in Africa be giving effect to the purposes of the Brandt Commission Report, which all parties have welcomed and which I
88
hope the Government, with the support of the Opposition, will help to implement.
6.40 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, the Question which we are discussing this evening relates to the preparations for the independence of Zimbabwe and I shall be devoting most of my remarks to this; but perhaps the House will forgive me if first I refer to another aspect of the matter, because during the proceedings which have resulted in the early independence of Zimbabwe I refrained from criticism. I did so because I did not want to prejudice the development of the proceedings.
Over the years I have been concerned in the negotiations concerning independence of many countries in Africa and Asia. Strangely, it was under a Conservative Colonial Secretary that I was most often consulted. I pay my tribute to Iain Macleod. On this occasion I did not take part in the negotiations, partly because I was ill and partly because there were younger and abler men to act as advisers. However, I am compelled to say that there was a quite extraordinary difference between the negotiations which have led to the independence of other African and Asian nations and the negotiations that have taken place on this occasion. At Lancaster House there were no real negotiations. The attitude of the Government was ultimatum—take it or leave it.
Anyone who watched those proceedings must have been extraordinarily impressed by the attitude of the Patriotic Front Leaders, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo. At the very beginning they decided that, whatever the provocation, they would not walk out during those discussions. They had one aim in view; namely, the settlement in Zimbabwe by elections which they knew they would win. Because they had that attitude at Lancaster House, they made their strong protests, but they were prepared to compromise if they gained the right to hold the elections.
One has to acknowledge this fact—and I think that the Government must do so: they did not want the Patriotic Front to win in Zimbabwe. I do not complain. They are a capitalist Government; they are the most capitalist Government that this country has ever had. Therefore

89
they wanted the system of capitalism and of feudalism to remain in Zimbabwe.
Just as they wished the Bishop Muzorewa and Ian Smith coalition to win, so I wanted Joshua Nkomo and Robert Mugabe to win. I do not complain; but the Government cannot resist the fact that both at the Lancaster House negotiations and in the administration under the noble Lord, Lord Soames, before the election took place, all their pressure and influence were on the side of a victory for Bishop Muzerewa and Ian Smith, and every influence was exerted against a victory by the Patriotic Front, Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo—
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene? It is quite clear both that he was not at Lancaster House and that he has not been in Rhodesia recently. What he says is wholly wrong.
Lord BROCKWAY: It is quite true, my Lords, I was not there: One need not have been at Lancaster House, and one need not have been in Rhodesia. One had very full reports and very detailed information from those concerned—very detailed.
Lord TREFGARNE: All wrong.
Lord BROCKWAY: Not so. The Government cannot avoid the fact that not only did they desire a victory for the Bishop Muzerewa and Ian Smith coalition, but that their actions were exerted against a victory for the Patriotic Front. For example, the Lancaster House agreement was that the troops on both sides should go to assembly points or be in barracks. Instead of that, even the private army of the bishop was used extensively in security operations.
My Lords, I had to express that view this evening because I have refrained from doing so previously, but I want to return to the Question which is before us about preparations for the independence of Zimbabwe. I hope that the Minister and the Government will pay very great attention to the article which appeared in The Times on 31st March. It depicted the appalling conditions in Zimbabwe after the war following which independence begins. Three-quarters of all the schools have been destroyed. Medical
90
services outside the urban areas have collapsed. More than a million people are still to be resettled. One-third of the national agricultural herd has been lost. There is a desperate transport shortage. There is malnutrition and even starvation, not only because of the war, but also because of the drought that has followed. The maize crop this year is one-third below normal. Two million people will need emergency food supplies. More than 1 million people have to be resettled, including 250,000 families of refugees. There is also the question of the re-accommodation of 225,000 persons from the insanitary "protected villages" set up by Ian Smith. Furthermore, there is the redistribution of the population from the towns to the country. Salisbury's population is now three times that of pre-war years. Irrigation schemes have collapsed throughout the country. Five-hundred thousand young people have missed years of education and now have no work.
That is a description of Zimbabwe as it starts its independence. Britain should not escape its responsibility for that situation—
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I do not think that I can allow the noble Lord to get away with that. He is describing, quite accurately I think, the results of the war that so tragically ravaged Rhodesia for all those years. Is he saying that the British Government were responsible for that war? And if it was so evil, as indeed it was, why, then, did the Patriotic Front not agree to a ceasefire at the beginning of the Lancaster House Conference, as Bishop Muzorewa did?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I always appreciate interruptions from the noble Lord because they help me so much. Britain has the main responsibility. Southern Rhodesia was a British colony. There was a rebellion there by Ian Smith. What action did we take? If it had been a black rebellion, we would have intervened at once. We allowed it to occur. We applied sanctions; and there is the revelation that, even with the knowledge of members of the Government—
Lord GLADWYN: A Labour Government
Lord BROCKWAY: Yes, of a Labour Government—oil sanctions were broken and oil poured into Southern Rhodesia. They were able to maintain their rebellion by reason of British failure in those respects. I say emphatically that the present condition in Rhodesia is the result mainly of the failure of—yes—the previous Labour Government and this Government to deal with the rebellion by the whites.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that there is hope. The highly-developed infrastructure and the great agricultural and economic potential of Zimbabwe give promise for the future. I want to pay a tribute to the whites who have remained. I pay a tribute to the Civil Service, which has prepared a £50 million scheme to restore the basic rural amenities even before the Mugabe Government has given authority. There is hope because in Zimbabwe there are 19,000 black graduates who can take part in the restoration of that country.
My Lords, I hope that the British Government, despite our financial position, will give every possible aid to Zimbabwe as it embarks upon independence, and will use their influence in the European Community, which has already done very much, to do even more; because the whole future of what happens in southern Africa will depend largely on whether, in these appalling conditions, Zimbabwe can recover to the extent of achieving stability and bringing about reconciliation between the races of that territory.
6.54 p.m.
Lord CHITNIS: My Lords, however the occasion has arisen, I think it is probably a good thing that in this House we can spend a short time discussing Zimbabwe at the start of this most exciting week in that country's history, and after the rather extraordinary year through which that country has passed. Co-incidentally, it was exactly a year ago today that I was in Salisbury at a party held by Bishop Muzorewa's United African National Congress when the general election in this country was in progress and the Labour Government were quite clearly under threat from the Conservative Opposition. Much of my time at that party was spent listening to, and I hope prudently being somewhat dis-
92
couraging to, white Rhodesians who were expressing the earnest hope that the Conservatives would win because the immediate result, they somewhat naively thought, would be that Bishop Muzorewa's Government would be recognised and sanctions lifted and so forth. Who would have thought then—and I certainly did not—that twelve months later we in this House would be celebrating or noting the independence of Zimbabwe under the prime ministership of a man who most of those white Rhodesians considered to be a "Communist terrorist", Robert Mugabe?
My Lords, it is surely somewhat unfair to assume that this remarkable change has taken place unintentionally or accidentally, or that the Foreign Office, under the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, did not from the start recognise that this was likely to be the result of the procedures which they initiated on taking office. Not to have realised this would have been monstrously incompetent, because it was reasonably clear last year in Rhodesia that there was considerable latent support for the two wings of the then united Patriotic Front; and their absence from the lists was one of the main reasons for my view that the 1979 election was invalid. This was contained in a report which the Foreign Office has been notably less keen to put about than that of the noble Viscount, Lord Boyd, but it is just possible that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, may have seen a copy of it.
This year it was absolutely clear to me, and surely to others, from the time of my arrival in Rhodesia in mid-January, that ZANU PF and the PF together commanded the majority support of the people of that country, though I admit that the extent to which they did surprised me and, I suspect, all other observers. It must have been equally clear to anybody who considered the political situation there objectively. One can only assume, therefore, that the Foreign Office and the Governor's staff realised this, too, and recognised that the conclusion of the processes begun at the Commonwealth Conference was likely to be the sort of Government which has in the event emerged. This being so, all that remains for me to do is to withdraw any suggestion I have made in previous speeches on Rhodesia that the Government were

93
trying to do Mr. Mugabe and, to a lesser extent, Mr. Nkomo down; to recognise that the rumours of senior British civil servants going round Salisbury trying to create a split between the PF and ZANU PF were as exaggerated and misleading as the Commonwealth observers say the reports of intimidation by the Patriotic Front were; to join with President Machel and other world leaders in congratulating the Foreign Secretary and the Governor on their success—because, whatever else happens during the lifetime of this Parliament, this will surely rank as one of their most outstanding triumphs in foreign policy; to recognise, as of course the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, has said so often in the House over the past few weeks, that things have changed in Rhodesia, and wish him a happy trip to that country to celebrate this great success; to wish the independent State of Zimbabwe well; and, as this country is one of the five-member contact group, to hope indeed that we can have a similar success in Namibia.
6.57 p.m.
Lord AYLESTONE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby for initiating this debate by means of an Unstarred Question; but, frankly, I would have preferred that we were debating it on a Government Motion, and also a Government Motion in another place, with perhaps a full House, rather than in a thinly-attended House of Lords, so that on Friday of this week, on the morning when independence is acclaimed, a message from this country would have gone out from both Houses of Parliament wishing "Bon voyage!" and good luck to the new State of Zimbabwe as they move into the future. I know it would be contrary to what is normally done on independence occasions, but this is not an ordinary independence occasion. It is the end of many years of illegality; the end of many years during which successive British Governments have tried unsuccessfully to reach a conclusion there; and it would have been a great thing if a message of that sort had been received in Salisbury on Friday morning of this week.
However, tonight we have the opportunity to say a few words, and I shall certainly be brief, but I felt I should like to add a personal word as one (and I
94
repeat, "one") of the many who tried unsuccessfully to make some sort of contribution to a solution of the problem created in the unhappy country of Southern Rhodesia by the actions of the illegal regime. We sometimes forget (and I think we ought to remember now, even if we forget it on Friday) that for many years that régime was rebelling against the British Government and the Crown—and they showed it very clearly. It was a very unhappy country. Some of those who attempted to do something in those years functioned from Government level, some were parliamentary colleagues sent out by successive British Governments, and there were many individuals who travelled out on their own volition seeking to find a way to restore legality and some form of democratic government to Southern Rhodesia. I could go on for a long time recounting personal experiences, most of which were not very rewarding or were fruitless; but I regard all that as now behind us. So far as I am concerned, it is all behind me and there seems to be no point in resurrecting it.
I should like to make clear one point in case there is any misunderstanding—and I speak only from my own experience—and it is that not all white Rhodesians were behind the Rhodesian Front and Ian Smith. I met many who then thought, something like 14 years ago, that a multiracial State was the only possible and lasting solution. In that context, may I remind the House that there is another minority in Southern Rhodesia (for such it is until Friday) about which we seldom speak. That is the coloured minority; not the whites, not the blacks, but the people of Asian origin who always seem to be squeezed in between the whites and the blacks. They made representations to me and they must have done so to many others. I am sure in my mind that they will not be forgotten by the new Government.
However, my main function in speaking at all is to congratulate very sincerely the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary on his courageous, patient and painstaking handling of the problem which had previously proved so intractable and without solution. I am sure he will not take it unkindly from me when I say that he has shown considerable political courage as well—political courage which it is not always appreciated that one may

95
need to show. Those views in the Conservative Party opposing any form of solution which gave a black majority Government are well known. One watches television; one sees what comes out of Conservative Party conferences; one speaks to Conservative colleagues. I have done so; it is there and it is clear. It was made very clear when the present Foreign Secretary's predecessor, Dr. Owen, tried to involve the Patriotic Front in the discussions to find a solution and when he met the antagonism which must have faced the noble Lord the Foreign Secretary from his own Party during and subsequent to the difficult negotiations at Lancaster House.
I am not unaware of some of those things myself. It is a long time ago, but I remember the talks on HMS "Tiger" when both the then-Prime Minister and myself thought we had reached something—and what a something it was in the light of today's happenings! It would have been black majority rule in time, in a long time. "The calendar and not the clock" was the expression used at the time. Maybe it was as well from my point of view and from that of my Prime Minister that those proposals were rejected in Salisbury; because we would have had (and we both knew it) a great deal of difficulty in selling that solution to many, if not all, or our colleagues in the Parliamentary Labour Party. But that, again, is behind us.
My Lords, following the Lancaster House agreement—and I pay tribute here to a masterly act of chairmanship—some fears were expressed about who would be appointed as Governor of Rhodesia to take that country through the difficult days of elections, a democratically-elected Government and, finally, independence. I heard many suggestions, many names from various part of this House as to who should not be appointed—and I did not disagree—but I heard no worthwhile or responsible criticism at all of the appointment of the noble Lord, Lord Soames, as Governor until such time as independence came. How right we were! One must accept that immediately he arrived in Salisbury he must have been faced with hundreds of difficult problems, all of which needed tactful handling. Maybe he made a mistake in some of them. If one does not try and if one does not make mistakes, one does not often make any-
96
thing at all. But I am sure that the general agreement now is that he has done a very worthwhile job there. He has shown the wisdom of a Solomon and the patience of a Job. I think that the new Zimbabwe owes him a great deal. In fact, the new Prime Minister of Zimbabwe has said so. I think that Zimbabwe appreciates it. I cannot refer to the present Governor without once again referring to the former Governor, Sir Humphrey Gibbs. It is sometimes forgotten what he and his good lady went through and how they served Britain and the Crown in those early difficult years of the illegal régime with fortitude and courage, despite many hardships and the many indignities that were piled upon them.
Finally, I should like to add my good wishes to the new State and the Government and hope to see them soon (as I believe we shall) as good colleagues within the commonwealth of nations.
I would say to anyone who is fearful for the future of that country that they perhaps might think back some 17 years, to the situation after Mau-Mau and to what happened in Kenya. There were a lot of fears expressed. We were all shocked at the Mau-Mau atrocities. How wrong we were to be fearful of the result! Those fears were unfounded; as I think they will be in Zimbabwe. It is gratifying that the years of illegality are ended, and I hope that all of us on either side of the House, despite our different views, will join in wishing Zimbabwe a very happy and prosperous future, and in doing so will give them a firm promise of every possible assistance in dealing with the many problems which they have inherited from the illegal régime.
7.8 p.m.
Lord UNDERHILL: My Lords, I could support many of the criticisms and apprehensions of my noble friend Lord Hatch of Lusby in his opening speech, but I shall not do so, primarily because I think we ought to be looking at the present position in Zimbabwe and to the future. Also, as I made no comments on the elections except to their success, I will not make a criticism of what took place on many sides during the period of the election. However, I should like to make one comment. Reference has been

97
made to the elections being free and fair. I would remind the House of what I said in an earlier speech dealing with the Rhodesia order: that the parliamentary delegation decided not to use those words but to say that the elections provided an opportunity to reflect the general wish of the people of Zimbabwe, particularly in the light of the provincial voting and the list system.
I commented previously on the achievements and the excellent work of the British Commissioner and his staff of provincial and district commissioners and I shall not refer to those again. However, despite the presence of hundreds of observers, the Press and other media representatives, who looked at the election more closely than anyone ever looked at an election before, no one forecast a clear majority for ZANU-PF and Mr. Robert Mugabe. If they did, they kept quiet about it. Even the Sunday Times, in its issue before polling day, said that most estimates gave Robert Mugabe 32 seats. He achieved 57. Many of the forecasts about the Patriotic Front and Joshua Nkomo were about right. But there was general overestimation by all those observers, Press and media representatives about the possible support of Bishop Muzorewa.
It is clear to those of us who were there—and I was with the parliamentary delegation—that most of the whites were apprehensive about Mr. Robert Mugabe. He had been built up as the bogeyman. Until the election period, the Press and media hardly referred to him, except to do so unfavourably. During the election, for the greater part of the period references to him were critical, emphasising his communist nature and also bringing in the question of anti-religion. Because of the censorship, very few whites in Rhodesia had heard or seen Mr. Robert Mugabe until his very notable radio and television appearance on the night of the day that the results were announced.
For years the whites had had their eyes closed. With a little common sense they could have avoided the tragic situation of the last few years; but misguidedly they thought that UDI would solve all their problems. My noble friend Lord Brock-way has referred to many of them; he listed the miseries that have taken place as given in The Times of 31st March,
98
which have been endorsed by other statements. It must be said that most of these tragedies have affected the blacks. In fact the article in The Times said:
"It is not the consequence of an orgy of destruction inflicted by black upon black, nor is it the result of a black revolt against a white colonial régime which history decreed would have to go home one day anyway. It is the aftermath of a struggle for power between land-hungry blacks and a white settler community which presumed against all logic to try to reverse the tide of history in Africa. It is a heavy responsibility".
That was the leading article in The Times of 31st March this year.
Regarding the figures that were given, many of the relief workers regarded them as very conservative. We have a situation that the struggle between the forces of the Patriotic Front ZIPRA and ZANLA, and the Rhodesian security forces, have blighted the lives of a vast number of families in Rhodesia. Figures have been given that the effect has been on one in four of the population.
Let us look at the problems. We had the opportunity to meet Mr. Robert Mugabe privately as a delegation on three occasions. Here are some of the points he listed as being the problems. First, achieving a secure and peaceful situation. It appears that that will be a possible achievement. The creation of one army. That integration is also proceeding. For myself, I will never forget the visit we made to the Foxtrot assembly point the day after the first small contingent of the Rhodesian Army had gone into the Foxtrot camp, when we saw the two generals of the Rhodesian and of the ZANLA armies shaking hands on the parade ground for the integration and development of a single army in Zimbabwe. That was a notable historic moment which I shall keep in my memory for ever.
Mr. Mugabe also said that there was need to resettle something like 1 million people, and this will be mainly resettlement on the land. As my noble friend Lord Brockway has said, another point that Mr. Robert Mugabe stressed to us was the urgent necessity of restoring administration which had broken down during the war in many areas. I said in an earlier speech that some of our British provincial election supervisors had themselves started this work of re-establishing administration in order to get ahead with their election organisation.

99
Also, Mr. Mugabe stressed that there will be vast efforts needed to ensure the rehabilitation of the economy.
Reference has been made also to the breakdown of health and education services. I, too, should like to refer to this in connection with our visit to the Foxtrot assembly point. There we saw the work of a small contingent of British soldiers with the Commonwealth monitoring forces who had converted a brokendown building into a civilian medical centre which had been opened on 10th February. When we were there they were handling weekly 1,600 civilians who were coming into the camp. That is an indication of the complete breakdown of health services in many parts of the rural areas. Reference has been made also to the serious effect the war has had on agriculture, with a third of the national herd lost by disease, neglect or destruction. We were able to see a number of the cattle dips which have been destroyed.
The problem will be—and Mr. Mugabe recognises this—that the people will want to have their hopes fulfilled. They want jobs—there is a massive problem of unemployment. They will want redistribution of land and higher wages. We have already seen some of the first strikes taking place in Salisbury recently. They will want the provision of education, medical and other services.
On the day before we left, we had the opportunity to meet and talk with the secretary of the Federated Chambers of Commerce, which represents all mining, commercial, industrial and agricultural interests in Rhodesia. It was interesting to learn from him that on the day when the results had been announced he had been in touch with all 17 chairmen of the local chambers of commerce to urge that the white population should stay there in order to work through whatever Government was taking over. This secretary of the Federated Chambers of Commerce was a young, forward-looking man with a pragmatic outlook. He also listed the main problems to us: unemployment—a problem which is going to be accentuated when the refugees come back and when some members of the three forces are demobilised. Again, he emphasised—as have other people—the need for land to be provided for resettlement.
100
One point he made to us was very important: there are already schemes put away for large irrigation projects, which are essential to revitalise the agricultural economy. He made the point—and I would emphasise this to the Government spokesman—that any aid to be given should be given on practical schemes, not on schemes that are going to require long feasibility studies and may be a waste of considerable extra money in these feasibility studies. He emphasised to us—and this is a man who is in touch with all commercial industrial life—that the new Government have invested a budget deficit of about £370 million, which is 21 per cent, of their GDP. On the other hand, from his own knowledge he emphasised the great possibilities of mining development. As has alrady been mentioned, Zimbabwe is potentially a very rich country. The hopes have already been stressed by my noble friend Lord Brockway: the fact that there are already so many black graduates; the fact that whites are being encouraged to stay.
I can assure your Lordships that before the results were out they were apprehensive and those to whom we spoke—and we spoke to quite a number—were really fearful; but after Mr. Mugabe's TV speech and radio broadcast there was a change of attitude and I think what he has done since has encouraged it. The very fact of the appointment of two whites—one as Minister of Commerce and the other as Minister of Agriculture—bodes well for the possible development of Zimbabwe.
I should like to mention a point which has not been mentioned but which I think should be brought to notice. That is the incredible fact that from Mr. Robert Mugabe there has been no crowing over victory, which could easily have been understood—he seems to have recognised the serious problems inherited by his Government. There has also been no display of bitterness—and remember that he spent 10 years in the jails of Ian Smith's Government. Also there is the fact, the tragedy, that he was not allowed to see his young son who died at the age of three. Yet his statements and actions so far have been encouraging.
May I in a few concluding words say that there are those who may feel, "This won't last and therefore we ought to be apprehensive". Criticism has been made

101
of the actions of the Governor, Lord Soames, over certain things. Praise has also been given. One thing is obvious: he has built up a good personal relationship with Mr. Robert Mugabe, despite possible earlier attitudes on both sides. That, and the fact that the elections were carried through in a manner which has enhanced Britain's position in Zimbabwe itself, and maybe in other parts of Africa, are matters upon which we must build. May I also say to the noble Lord who is to reply—I do not expect him to make any particular comments—that I am certain that the person to be appointed as Britain's High Commissioner will be of the utmost importance to our future relationships and to the help we might be able to give to the independent Zimbabwe.
Mr. Robert Mugabe has said that his country will need financial and technical aid and, as my noble friends have done |I urge that Britain must try to do all she possibly can to assist in this direction. It may be too much to ask that Britain does it all alone. I was looking at previous speeches during our debates on Zimbabwean matters since I have been a Member of this House. The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, said during one of our discussions that he did not think Britain necessarily ought to take the responsibility of forming an international group to help an independent Zimbabwe. I hope that Britain will take the lead. On the last occasion when we discussed Zimbabwe we were also told that there was no firm information as to what aid might be given by the European Community. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, will be able to give us some information about that tonight.
We all know that technical aid will be given, that military training is required, and training will be needed for radio, TV and other things. I would emphasise again that a good deal of aid will be needed for large-scale irrigation if malnutrition is to be avoided and if agriculture can be developed. There must not be any tendency—I do not believe there will be on the ministerial side—on the part of any Members on the opposite Benches to take the view that, because no one knows precisely where Mr. Robert Mugabe's Government will go in the future, we should therefore wash our hands of the country after independence, having got rid of a very awkward problem.
102
As my noble friend Lord Brockway said, there will be changes but that fact must not make us apprehensive about giving all the help we possibly can.
During our debate on the economy just before the Easter Recess, I referred to the Brandt Commission and I am glad that my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts has referred to that tonight. It is not much use Members in this House paying lip-service to the proposals in the Brandt Report if we do nothing about them. The opportunity is there, staring at us, in the new independent Zimbabwe. I therefore hope that we shall give all the help we possibly can, and that we shall take the lead internationally to ensure that other help is given, recognising of course that help can only be given if requested by the Zimbabwe Government. We must obviously wait for their request, but we are pretty certain from Mr. Robert Mugabe's comments that the request will be made. There are immense opportunities in Zimbabwe, not only for that country but for other parts of Africa, and therefore we should be thinking not only of helping Zimbabwe but of the effect that any developments there may have on the rest of Africa.
7.25 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, it is customary on these occasions for those noble Lords participating in a debate to rise and express their thanks to the Peer who has asked the Question. I must confess that my own gratitude this evening is a bit stretched: indeed it is with some considerable surprise that I find myself rising to answer the Unstarred Question of the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, this evening. First, I am puzzled as to what additional information the noble Lord imagines the Government are able to give him. Secondly, I cannot understand what useful purpose the noble Lord thinks he is serving by making the mischievous and unfounded allegations which were contained in his speech. Of course he is entitled to express his opinion of Government policies but, as Rhodesia moves to indepencence in conditions of peace and stability that only a few months ago seemed unattainable, I am doubtful whether any useful purpose is served by a further raking over of policies which the noble Lord thinks the Government should have followed.

103
At the end of this week, when independence is granted, we shall have achieved a negotiated settlement of the tragic problems which have beset Rhodesia for so many years. Many people have sought a solution and the settlement which has emerged from Lusaka and Lancaster House owes much to the Commonwealth and other interested parties. For its part, the British Government have for the first time assumed direct responsibility for the country's administration in order to end the war and to organise and supervise the independence elections. Our constitutional responsibility has now been discharged, and Zimbabwe will be starting its international life at peace within itself and with its neighbours, enjoying wide international recognition and, above all, with a government representing the people's considered choice.
I do not propose to make a detailed rebuttal of all the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, but I wish to emphasise that the Government do not accept his interpretation of events. The noble Lord's views, indeed, are not supported by the evidence or opinions of the multitude of international observers who witnessed the elections, and I must confess that I cannot but wonder at his motives in bringing these discredited and mistaken views once more before your Lordships tonight. Indeed, the noble Lord might have better served the cause of impartiality had he not acted and spoken as he did during the election campaign.
Our aim throughout has been to achieve a settlement under which the people of Rhodesia would decide for themselves who should govern them, and thus resolve by negotiation and through the ballot box the political differences which caused a disastrous war—a war that resulted in the loss of over 20,000 lives and the injury, maiming and bereavement of at least as many again.
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, the noble Lord has accused me of making unfounded allegations. May I ask him two related questions: first, has he read the report of the Commonwealth observers appointed by the Commonwealth in order to report on the conduct of the elections? Secondly, can he give any instance during my speech connected with the conduct of
104
the elections which is not supported by the report of the Commonwealth observers?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me more than two minutes, he will hear some more things which I have to say: I have by no means finished my remarks.
We are naturally much encouraged by events in Rhodesia since the elections and we are doing all in our power to assist the newly independent Zimbabwe. My noble friend the Foreign Secretary will announce tomorrow a substantial British aid programme for Zimbabwe over the next three years. We shall continue to provide advice and assistance in certain areas where Mr. Mugabe and his colleagues have requested such assistance, as, for example, with the armed forces, the police, broadcasting and the public service.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, spoke of the need, as he saw it, for a peace-keeping force during the pre-election period. I am surprised that the noble Lord has inflicted these arguments once more upon your Lordships. What was agreed at Lancaster House was a monitoring force, whose job was to observe the maintenance of the ceasefire and to supervise the process of assembling the Patriotic Front forces. The monitoring force contingents excelled themselves in that role, and I believe that, even with hindsight, the decision not to involve them as an intervention force has been patently justified by events.
The ceasefire was, despite a few incidents, a success over the major part of the country and, indeed, was maintained only because of the political will of all concerned to make it stick. No amount of force could have maintained it without that political will. As Rhodesia has moved from war, through the ceasefire and, finally, to peace, we have seen that same political will to achieve a negotiated settlement continuing. I am glad to say that it is still so doing and there are heartening moves now under way to amalgamate the various forces in the country into a new integrated Zimbabwean army.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, and I think the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, as well, are mistaken about the provisions of the Lancaster House agreement relating to the disposition of the Rhodesian forces. These forces were required to remain in

105
the close vicinity of their bases, but could be deployed by the Governor if the security situation made this necessary. In the event, they were deployed with the Governor's authority to support the civil police in the maintenance of law and order. In the western part of the country, the Rhodesian forces were deployed on only a very minor scale. It is unfortunate that there was a need in the East, where the majority of the cease-fire breaches occurred, for their deployment; but the responsibility lay with those in breach of the cease-fire agreement in the first place.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, has also misunderstood the provisions of the Lancaster House agreement concerning the timing of the elections and the lifting of martial law. It was agreed that elections were to be held eight or nine weeks after the cease-fire came into effect on 28th December—and so they were. Martial law could clearly not be lifted until the security situation allowed, and violations of the cease-fire had ceased or sufficiently diminished. This position had not been reached at the date of the election, but martial law was lifted on 21st March. The Lancaster House agreement did not tie the lifting of martial law to the date of the election, but referred to the cease-fire "becoming effective". May I say, in parenthesis, that all martial law detainees have now been released.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, made a number of other points which I do not think I will inflict upon your Lordships. I referred to the fact that my noble friend Lord Carrington will be making a Statement tomorrow about aid. The noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, in a helpful and realistic speech, was broadly accurate in what he said. He asked for a formal debate on Rhodesia in due course and that, I am sure, can be considered through the usual channels. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who is not now in his place, was, I thought, disappointing in his measure of support for some of the extraordinary assertions produced by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch. There most certainly has been no U-turn in Government policy on this matter, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, suggested.
The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, referred to ultimatums being delivered at Lancaster House and elsewhere. The noble Lord is wholly wrong. That
106
conference lasted for 15 weeks—no less. There was no question of ultimata. Concessions were made not only by the Patriotic Front, as he suggested, but also by Bishop Muzorewa and his colleagues; and, indeed, the British Government made some amendment to their proposals as the conference continued. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, went on to describe the results of the war in Rhodesia. Indeed, the results of all wars are invariably awful, but that war was not the responsibility of Her Majesty's Government and we are now doing what we can to repair the damage.
The noble Lord, Lord Chitnis, I must confess, surprised me. I was not expecting to hear that speech from the noble Lord, but it was none the less welcome for being in the terms that it was, and I thank him for the kind words that he said. The noble Lord, Lord Aylestone, expressed regret that there would be no message from this Parliament at the end of this week. I would, however, tell him that His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will be in Salisbury for independence; so will my noble friend the Secretary of State and, indeed, a very large number of world leaders. I do not think that the people of Rhodesia and the new Zimbabwe will be disappointed at the good wishes and the turn-out at their independence celebrations. Finally, it is clear that the visit which the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made to Rhodesia during the election period made a deep impression upon him. The noble Lord was a distinguished and effective member of the parliamentary observer group, and we thank him for the helpful words that he said.
In conclusion, I wish to reject, with all the vigour that I can muster, the suggestion that the Government supported Bishop Muzorewa's party, or any other. I have lost count of the number of times I have said from this Box that our policy was directed towards providing the people of Rhodesia with a chance to choose for themselves the Government which they wanted. The Bishop does not think that we supported his party, nor is that assertion borne out by the results. As for the decision of the two wings of the Patriotic Front to fight the election separately, our advice was neither sought nor offered. The decision did, however, mean that the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, was not, after all, invited into the new Cabinet. It is not

107
for me to speculate on the nature of the advice tendered by the noble Lord when he was in Rhodesia, nor on the effect of that advice upon the outcome of the election. I can, however, say that the Conservative Party have no plans to retain the noble Lord's services for the next general election here.
So far as the work of the Commonwealth observers is concerned, the noble Lord's criticisms are, again, without foundation. The observers' report has recently been published and it pays tribute to the assistance which they received from the British Election Commissioner and his staff. Furthermore, the report clearly demonstrates the efforts made by the Governor and his advisers to meet the group's requirements. The report was just that—a report—and I do not think that a reply is asked for, as the noble Lord suggested.
I now come to the end of what I have to say. We are content to be judged by the fruits of our labours and our policies. In less than a year we have ended the war, secured agreement to a new constitution, organised and supervised an election and, in a few days, His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales will hand over the instruments of power to the new President. We have thus honoured our commitment to the Commonwealth made at Lusaka and, at the same time, have discharged our duty to the people of Rhodesia. Are we not now entitled, therefore, to ask for your Lordships' approval and support?
Lord HATCH of LUSBY: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he answer the question which I put during my intervention? Can he cite any criticism that I made of the British Administration, under Governor Soames during the election period, that is not supported in the report of the Commonwealth observers?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I can tell the noble Lord that all his criticisms are without foundation.