Lords Sitting of 22 January 1980

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.

MR. CARLOS REYES MANSO: REFUGEE
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why Mr. Carlos Reyes Manso, a refugee from Chile who had been detained in concentration camps there and was subsequently expelled from Panama, was held in custody at Harmondsworth detention centre following his arrival at London Heathrow Airport at 0700 on 27th November; and whether they consider that this action was consistent with the United Kingdom's obligation under the UN Convention on Refugees.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDERSECRETARY of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Belstead): My Lords, Mr. Reyes, a refugee from Chile accepted in Panama, was arrested by the Panamanian authorities and placed on a plane to the United Kingdom, with which country he has no connection, against his wishes and without proper documentation. This situation required, and still requires, careful inquiry. By 4th December sufficient information was available to justify Mr. Reyes' release from custody and temporary admission. The principal obligation under the United Nations Convention on Refugees is to protect refugees from "refoulement" and there is no question of our sending Mr. Reyes to Chile.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, while I am grateful to the noble Lord for that reply, is he aware that the information he gave at the beginning of his reply was all known to the Home Office on the
370
Friday after Mr. Reyes arrived here, when I first intervened and asked for his temporary release and was told that this was not possible pending further inquiries? Can the noble Lord say why it was necessary to detain Mr. Reyes for a whole week, bearing in mind that this gentleman had already suffered enormously from being in a concentration camp in Chile and from being detained prior to his departure from Panama for 48 hours without food or drink? Does not the noble Lord think this was a somewhat inhospitable reception from a country which is one of the foremost signatories of the UN Convention on Refugees?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, Mr. Reyes' expulsion from Panama had to be investigated before he could be admitted temporarily to this country. There was delay in handling one telex sent from London airport on the day that Mr. Reyes arrived, and during the period that Mr. Reyes was detained a weekend intervened, but as soon as we ascertained that Mr. Reyes' expulsion from Panama was not caused by any misconduct which should lead us to believe that he should not be in this country, he was granted temporary release.
Lord MORRIS: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that Mr. Reyes Manso abused his host country's hospitality by setting up a Chilean Communist cell? Furthermore, does he not agree that the United Kingdom should not be seen to be a haven for seditious political agitators?
Lord BELSTEAD: No, my Lords, I am not aware of what my noble friend said in the first part of his supplementary question. All I am aware of is that Mr. Reyes had been living in Panama for some four years and it was a matter of concern, and a matter which the immigration officer who received Mr. Reyes knew nothing about, as to why Mr. Reyes should have been sent first of all to Chile, which seemed certainly to be "refoulement" in the terms of the Convention, and then straight to this country, a country with which Mr. Reyes had no connection and was telling the immigration authorities he did not want to come to. It was for those reasons that the immigration authorities in this country felt they had to

371
look very closely into the case of Mr. Reyes.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this is not an isolated case? Is there not now enough evidence to require an inquiry into our whole treatment of these refugees who arrive at Heathrow and at ports? Some are sent to Pentonville for long periods. Would not an inquiry by the Government into these matters be desirable?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I believe that in this case the immigration officer and the port of entry authorities behaved absolutely correctly. If the noble Lord has in mind particular cases which are causing him concern, and he will be so good as to let me know, I will see that they are looked into immediately.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is not the noble Lord aware, pursuing the point made opposite, that it is unusual for your Lordships' House to be used for making defamatory allegations about persons who are not in a position to reply to them, particularly when those allegations emanate from dictatorial regimes, as that one did? But might I further ask the noble Lord whether it is an inflexible rule of his department that no one who is under investigation as to his status as a refugee can ever be released under the temporary admission procedure, even to a responsible organisation supported by the Home Office such as the Joint Working Group for Refugees? If that is so, can the rule be made known to the Joint Working Group and others so that they do not waste their time intervening on behalf of people who are held in custody at Harmondsworth claiming to be refugees?
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I understand the point which the noble Lord is putting to me, but we are not talking about an inflexible rule. Mr. Reyes arrived on 27th November; on 29th November the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, as the noble Lord knows, telephoned the refugee unit of the Home Office at Croydon. I think it is important that I should recall to the noble Lord that, as I understand it, during that telephone call it was agreed between the UNHCR and the Home Office that
372
further inquiries into Mr. Reyes' case were most necessary. During that telephone conversation an undertaking was freely given by the Home Office that Mr. Reyes would not be removed from this country until inquiries were complete. On those grounds, we are not talking about any inflexible rule; we are talking about sensible arrangements which were made on behalf of a man looking for asylum in this country.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, are the Government aware that a great many people are very pleased that they have decided to send an Ambassador back to Chile and to resume the full exercise of British influence there?

THE ROYAL NAVY: NEW FRIGATE AND SUBMARINE DESIGNS
2.43 p.m.
Lord HILL-NORTON: 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 it has not proved possible to reach agreement between the Royal Navy and the Royal Netherlands Navy on a common design for a new light frigate and a new diesel electric submarine, as the separate designs produced are very closely similar in all leading dimensions.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of DEFENCE (Lord Strathcona and Mount Royal): My Lords, the Royal Navy has no requirement at present for a new type of frigate although we are exploring with the Dutch and other NATO allies the longer term possibilities. I have myself had discussions with my Dutch counterpart on the possibilities for collaboration.
There are separate British and Dutch designs for diesel electric submarines, and the Dutch design is already being built. However, despite the superficial similarity, RN conventional submarines are designed for a different task and have to complement our nuclear-powered fleet submarines with a high degree of commonality and interoperability. The Dutch design fails to meet this requirement in a number of important respects.
Lord HILL-NORTON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. May I put it to him that, as the numbers of our frigates and submarines in the Royal Navy have declined by no less than one-third in the last 10 years, it might be wise to seek to reinforce that strength as economically as possible?
Lord STRATHCONA and MOUNT ROYAL: My Lords, I could not disagree with the noble Lord on those aspirations: I would go along with them completely.

NATIONAL TRAFFIC FORECASTS
2.45 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the decline in public transport forecast in the Interim Memorandum on the National Traffic Forecasts is Government policy.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the Interim Memorandum sets out both the previous Administration's policy of encouraging bus availability and use, and their most realistic estimate of what is likely to happen. We support that aim, though we are proposing better methods of attaining it. We have endorsed the policy of using those forecasts as the basis for planning the trunk road system as they were compiled in the light of the findings of the Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment and we do not believe that planning should be based on unrealistic forecasts
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, the noble Lord has not answered my Question with a simple "Yes" or No", as I had hoped he might. Why are the forecasts of future traffic growth which the department uses, and has always used, treated as matters of public policy, when the decline forecast in public transport is apparently not public policy? Surely in logic the alterations in the level of traffic flows, whether public or private, must be of a similar nature.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords I take the noble Lord's point.
374
However, I must say that forecasts are bound, by their very nature, to be speculative. There is an array of factors which could affect bus patronage, not least the general economic situation and the price of oil. However, generally speaking, the falling trend seems likely to continue.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, can my noble friend assist the House by recalling any instance in modern history in which a traffic forecast in this country has later, in the event, proved to be even approximately correct?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I cannot answer for past history too much, but at present we seem to be approximately within the margins which we would have estimated.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, may I reply to the noble Lord with Mark Twain's observation: it is always dangerous to prophesy, especially about future events!
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the House is very grateful to the noble and learned Lord.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, following what the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has said—namely, that we have never been correct about traffic forecasts in the past—I should like to point out that it is wrong to treat them as public policy. As the noble Lord himself has said, they tend to be speculative. So, why is it that before trunk road and motorway inquiries these forecasts are treated as so sacrosanct that no witness or objector is entitled to question the department about how they were reached or to produce alternative evidence throwing doubt on the way that the forecasts have been derived?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, as the noble Lord is well aware, we have had the report from Sir George Leitch, who, as I am sure the noble Lord is also aware, is now chairman of the Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment. That committee has been set up just to monitor the department's forecasting methods. The application of the national traffic forecast to individual road schemes is open to

375
examination at public inquiries. However, what we cannot have at every public inquiry—and I think that this is the point which the noble Lord is getting at—is examination of the general overall picture of the country's policy. One can apply the Standing Committee's assessment of it to any local inquiry—that is perfectly admissible and is done.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can the noble Lord say something about the forecast by the Conservative Party at the last election as regards the present situation?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, my right honourable Leader in another place is a competent forecaster, as has been amply demonstrated.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, may I inquire whether the decline of the weather is Government policy?
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: No, my Lords, we do leave some things to God!

UNSTARRED QUESTIONS: POSSIBLE TIME LIMIT
2.50 p.m.
Lord DERWENT: 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 the Leader of the House whether he would refer to the Procedure Committee the question of imposing a time limit for Unstarred Questions similar to that for Short Debates.
The MINISTER of STATE, MINISTRY of AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES and FOOD (Earl Ferrers): My Lords, I am not convinced that any change in the procedure governing Unstarred Questions is necessary, but I certainly would not wish to stand in the way of a reference of the matter to the Procedure Committee. Should my noble friend wish to pursue the question, the appropriate course would be for him to ask the Chairman of Committees to place it on the agenda for that committee.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, does my noble friend mean that if I ask the committee to do something, it will have greater effect than if he asks them?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it depends what the question is.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, does the noble Earl realise that many of us believe that Unstarred Questions make up some of the most interesting proceedings of your Lordships' House, and that they certainly appear so to the people visiting this House?
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, that a number of people take that view.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, when the matter was raised in your Lordships' House a very short time ago—a matter of a week or two ago—I asked the Minister who was then replying whether he would ask the acting Leader of the House if this matter could be referred to the Procedure Committee. It is a matter which concerns a large number of your Lordships because of the length of time now devoted to Unstarred Questions, and the number of speakers on them, quite contrary to the practice in this House a few years ago. I ask the acting Leader of the House whether he will refer this matter to the committee.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I rather think that the question to which the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, refers in fact relates to the length of speeches as opposed to the actual Unstarred Question. I would only put this thought in the noble Lord's mind: it is not the duty of the Government, though I accept that it would be the duty of the Leader if he felt that there was sufficient reason for this to be brought before the committee. I have done a little ferreting into this matter, and the noble Lord might like to know that over the last three years the average length of time of an Unstarred Question has been only 1½ hours, and only on 12 occasions has an Unstarred Question exceeded the 2½ hours which is the time limit of a short debate. Therefore, on the face of it, I would not have thought that that was a cause for suggesting to your Lordships that there should be a strict curtailment.

377
However, if any noble Lord feels that he wishes it to be brought before the Procedure Committee, he can do so.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I cannot quite make out what my noble friend wants me to do. Does he want me to ask the Chairman of Committees, through him now, to put the matter before the committee? If that is what he wants, that is what I now do.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I think that that might be a trifle unparliamentary. The correct procedure would be for my noble friend to write to the Chairman of Committees asking him to put this before the Procedure Committee. If the Chairman of Committees were to do so—and I have no reason to suspect that he would not—then the Procedure Committee could discuss it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, I do not know whether your Lordships would be interested to know that in 40 years of parliamentary experience, whenever I have found a variation in parliamentary procedure to prove popular, someone has tried to stop it.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, that is a very interesting question to which I am not quite certain how I should reply.

THE STEEL STRIKE
2.54 p.m.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVI ES of HASTOE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton, I beg to ask Her Majesty's Government a Question of which he has given Private Notice. The Question is as follows:
"To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will make a statement on the result of the Secretary of State for Industry's discussions with the leaders of the steel unions and the chairman of the British Steel Corporation."
Lord DENHAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, my noble friend Lord Trenchard will answer this Question in the form of a Statement at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I beg to move the Motion which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That leave be given to the Lord Cockfield to advance the Second Reading of the Petroleum Revenue Tax Bill from Thursday the 31st to Monday the 28th of January.—(Earl Ferrers.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

RESERVE FORCES BILL [H.L.]
2.55 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): 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 manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Recommitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Recommitment be discharged.—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PAPUA NEW GUINEA, WESTERN SAMOA AND NAURU (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) BILL
2.56 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. In these few very brief words I should like first to express my gratitude to your Lordships for your reception of this Bill and for the swift passage which you have accorded it through this House. For, while I believe that your Lordships will agree with me when I say that this Bill must be one of the less controversial with which we have had to deal, none the less its provisions are important. For example, they will allow the citizens of Papua New Guinea, Western Samoa and Nauru to enjoy the same status as other members of the Commonwealth in United Kingdom law, and at the same time remove the few remaining anomalies in our own legislation which might still affect the citizens

379
of these countries or British citizens resident there. Fortunately, this does not appear to have happened so far. However, clearly, this legislation, which is long overdue, should be passed without further delay. Accordingly, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a—(Lord Trefgarne.)
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION OF ZIMBABWE) (ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS) ORDER 1979
2.57 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I rise to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper; namely, that the Southern Rhodesia (Constitution of Zimbabwe) (Elections and Appointments) Order 1979 be approved. With your Lordships' permission, at the same time I shall speak to the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper and then move the latter only formally when we come to it. In my speech I shall deal with the orders in the reverse order to which they appear on the Order Paper because that was how I expected them to appear on the Order Paper. I hope that your Lordships will not be unduly confused by that.
The second order, the subject of this Motion—I speak now about the Southern Rhodesia (Legal Proceedings and Public Liabilities) Order 1979—is made under Section 3 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 and refers principally to the past. It deals with the consequences of the lapse on 15th November last year of Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 and of certain Orders in Council made under that section to deal with the situation created by UDI. The order is extremely technical and I shall not detain your Lordships with too lengthy an explanation, but essentially it has four purposes.
First, it safeguares the position of the London board and the governor and trustee of the Reserve Bank of Rhodesia appointed by the British Government in place of the illegal board in Salisbury.
380
Those who served as governor and trustee in London have carried out their duties over a long period with care, skill and dedication. The purpose of Article 2(1) of this order is to confirm the validity of their actions over that period and to protect them from any liability. I believe your Lordships will agree that such protection, for actions which were, of course, undertaken at the request of the British Government, is entirely right and proper.
Secondly, the order deals with the consequences of the failure of the Southern Rhodesia authorities to make any payments after November 1965 to United Kingdom stockholders in respect of its own stock or that of the former Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland for which Southern Rhodesia assumed responsibility. Both the sum involved—some £45 million—and the number of persons affected—over 15,000—are substantial. Article 3(1) of the order will make it possible for legal proceedings in respect of such stock to be instituted even though the usual limitation period for such proceedings has expired. A comparable provision is made in the case of other debts and liabilities. Accordingly, this article makes possible a legal action against the Government in right of Southern Rhodesia for a period of six months after the commencement of the order, even though the usual period of limitation has long since expired.
Thirdly, the order deals with the satisfaction of the claims of Rhodesia's creditors, and seeks to ensure that they are met in an orderly manner. The power to decide how to apply any monies received since the lapse of sanctions on account of the Government of Southern Rhodesia for the settlement of Rhodesia's existing debts is vested in the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, and the responsibility will rest on him to see that claims are satisfied in an equitable manner. At the same time the liabilities of the Registrars and Trustees of the Sinking Fund of Southern Rhodesian stock are limited and they can be required to satisfy judgments for payment of interest and redemption only from the monies of the Government of Southern Rhodesia which they hold in respect of such stocks and not from any other funds held on Southern Rhodesia's behalf.
Fourthly, the order validates payments made in discharge of Rhodesia's liabilities

381
since UDI. Finally, the order does some more general tidying up. It provides that where there is any inconsistency between the registers of stock kept in the United Kingdom and Southern Rhodesia the registers in the United Kingdom are to prevail.
Perhaps I should mention briefly the more general subject of Rhodesian debt. The Ministry of Finance in Salisbury has stated quite clearly that they fully accept the importance of meeting debt service and arrears of capital redemption and interest. This is an encouraging and important step, and acknowledgement of the debt will be included in the transitional provisions made in connection with the introduction of the independence constitution. The timing, and distribution, of payments for pre-UDI liabilities will be the subject of official discussions with the Government of Zimbabwe after independence. I am sure that your Lordships would agree that it would not be right for the Governor to use his authority to take decisions which would prejudge issues which are properly the concern of the independence Government. Furthermore, as it would not be technically possible for all debts to be paid before independence, the acceptance by the independence Government of any arrangement arrived at will be necessary for its successful implementation.
I turn now to the Southern Rhodesia (Constitution of Zimbabwe) (Elections and Appointments) Order 1979, which is the first one on the Order Paper. This one looks forward to the future and to the elections and appointments which are the necessary steps towards the establishment of an independent Zimbabwe with its Government freely and fairly elected. It is made under Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1979 and authorises the Governor to take the steps necessary to conduct elections and appoint a Prime Minister and other Ministers who can assume office on independence. Different sections of the order will be brought into effect by the Secretary of State as they are required.
The key step is the holding of elections to the House of Assembly and the Senate. The Governor has already enacted detailed ordinances, modifying the electoral law and providing for the functions and duties of the Election Commissioner and the
382
Election Council. Copies of these have been placed in the Library. The Election Commissioner took up his duties in mid-December and is supervising the preparations for the elections. The Election Council began its meetings on 15th January. Ten parties have registered to take part in the elections and the nomination of candidates took place yesterday. Arrangements have been made for all 10 parties to have equal time on television and radio. Commonwealth observers will be going to Rhodesia to observe the elections later this week. The British Government will shortly be proposing, through the usual channels, arrangements for a small number of Members of all parties and both Houses to visit Rhodesia to observe the elections. Elections on the White Roll will be held on 14th February. These elections take place separately from those on the Common Roll, largely for administrative convenience, since they are held for constituencies with a register of voters. The Common Roll elections will be held on 27th to 29th February on a party list system in eight electoral districts. The schedule to the order provides for the elections to be held on a list rather than a constituency basis. The schedule also modifies the constitution to remove residence qualifications for elections to the Senate and the House of Assembly and to ensure that any person deprived of his citizenship by the former Administration of Rhodesia other than on grounds of fraudulent registration, should be entitled to vote.
Arrangements for elections to the Senate will be made immediately after the elections to the House of Assembly have been completed. Section 4 of the order requires the Governor to appoint a Prime Minister. In accordance with the provisions of the constitution, this will be the person whom the Governor judges is best able to command the support of a majority of Members of the House of Assembly. Section 5 requires the Governor to make provision for voting for the President-Elect, who will assume office on Independence Day. Finally, the order brings into force those parts of the independence constitution which will be required to give effect to the other provisions of this order.
Before concluding, I should like to make a few general comments about the remarkable achievements of the Govern-

383
or's Administration in the space of only five weeks. Rhodesia has been returned to legality and sanctions have been lifted. A cease-fire has been established, the monitoring force deployed and 21,000 members of the Patriotic Front forces have reported to assembly places. The Cease-fire Commission is meeting regularly and good co-operation has been established between the respective military commanders. The Governor has made full use of the Patriotic Front's military commanders in dealing with threatening incidents and they have had considerable success in settling these.
On the political front, the return of the Patriotic Front's political leaders is nearly complete and the massive task of bringing back refugees is getting under way. The barriers which lately stood between Rhodesia and the international community are disappearing. Relations with her neighbours are beginning to approach normality. Air links are being restored and many countries are sending representatives to Salisbury. The European Community has agreed to a special trade régime for Rhodesia with immediate effect. This will be of the greatest assistance in stimulating trade and employment.
Within Rhodesia, former restrictions have been very considerably relaxed. A general amnesty has been declared and the cases of all detainees are being reviewed. All those formerly detained on the basis of ministerial orders have been released. Martial law courts have been suspended and martial law itself will be lifted when the cease-fire is fully effective. But very difficult problems remain to be overcome. There is evidence of serious breaches of the cease-fire agreement by Mr. Mugabe's forces, in particular the extent of cross-border movement since the cease-fire came into effect. There is also the question of detainees still being held by Mr. Mugabe's party in Mozambique. There are some 70 former members of ZANU in detention, who have applied to us to secure their release as required by the Lancaster House agreements. Although we have pressed Mr. Mugabe on this matter, no action has been taken and in consequence the people concerned have been deprived of their right to stand in the elections. The
384
Government take the view that there is a heavy responsibility on Mr. Mugabe to release these detainees forthwith so that they too can benefit from the settlement. We hope that other Governments will join us in urging the importance of this on him.
My Lords, it is my duty to remind all the parties that they entered into a solemn undertaking at Lancaster House binding upon themselves and their colleagues and before the whole world. They cannot now impede Rhodesia's progress to independence and their prospects for high office in the Government of Zimbabwe depend absolutely on their securing the approbation of the Rhodesian electorate. They can achieve that only by demonstrating the merit of their policies and the strength of their respective teams, not by hijacking their political opponents and not by dragooning the voters into supporting them by threats and intimidation.
My Lords, the Government remain determined to hold under peaceful conditions elections in which all parties can take part in the confidence of an impartial Administration. These elections are now only five weeks away. I believe your Lordships will agree when I say that my noble friend Lord Soames has already made giant strides towards the creation of the necessary conditions for free and fair elections and deserves the congratulations of us all. There will be no respite for him over the next few weeks, but, if all the parties comply strictly with the agreement signed at Lancaster House, the prospects of bringing Rhodesia to independence honourably and in peace are promising.
After 14 years of illegality and seven years of bloody war, in which 20,000 or more have given their lives, the dark clouds over Rhodesia are beginning to move away. What she needs now more than ever in her history is our help, our encouragement and our prayers. I beg to move.
Moved, That the order laid before the House on 13th December 1979 be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
3.11 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I will confine myself at this stage to

385
a few remarks on the first of the two orders relating to elections and my noble and learned friend Lord Elwyn-Jones will no doubt have a few remarks to make about some aspects of the constitutional legality of the two orders. I come first to the first and last points made by the Minister; namely, that we all agree—certainly we on these Benches agree—that considerable progress has been made in Rhodesia since Lancaster House. It is with a sense of great relief and gratitude that we hail the restraint and the comparatively peaceful way in which the transitional stage seems to be developing.
That is not to say that certain incidents have not occurred which have gravely imperilled the peaceful development of this policy, not only the variations of activity, to which the Minister referred, on the part of Mr. Mugabe, but dreadful incidents like the slaughter of seven non-reporting guerrillas in the bush by Rhodesian forces. We must make the point that the Governor and his assistants must do everything in their power to prevent a repetition of incidents of that sort. However, it would be churlish not to join the Minister once more in expressing our satisfaction and encouragement to Lord Soames and his assistants in building up now the preconditions for really free and fair elections. They have achieved a great deal. We profoundly hope that their efforts will be crowned with final success in the next few weeks.
One of the pre-conditions, of course, is that the cease-fire should be effectively observed, and I agree with a remark made by the noble Lord the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, at the beginning of the negotiations at Lancaster House that a cease-fire, when agreed, might not proceed without incident. Nevertheless, the role of the Cease-fire Commission is vital in examining promptly and deciding without delay any complaints put to it about the actions or lack of actions by any one of the parties in coming forward to report to the assembly points.
One notices that Bishop Muzorewa in the last week or so has made specific complaints about the non-compliance in particular of the insurgents following the lead of Mr. Mugabe in this respect; that they have by no means all reported, he said, and that some new ones had been fed into the bush to replace insurgents follow
386
ing him who had reported. Have complaints similar to those, widely broadcast by the Bishop, been the subject of careful, prompt and decisive examination by the Cease-fire Commission? It is vital that any complaint, whoever makes it, is dealt with promptly because it is confidence in the movement forward of the cease-fire pre-conditions above all which will create confidence in the credibility of the elections when they are actually held. We would wish to have reassurance about the activity of the Cease-fire Commission.
Secondly, are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that there is in fact equal access to facilities—broadcasting, through the Press, public meetings—for all parties taking part in the election? I see that in another place one honourable Member referred to a trivial but dangerous little incident whereby Mr. Nkomo, returning I believe for the first time to Salisbury to address his followers, was denied the use of a loudspeaker. Such incidents may seem trivial to us here, but they can have an impact on the African mind beyond anything they would have on us in this country. Here again it is immensely important that the Governor and the British Government in Salisbury should watch these small but very dangerous incidents. I have given just one example, but there are others which may occur to noble Lords. That is the second point: are Her Majesty's Government satisfied that there continues to be full and equal access to public facilities for the purpose of the election?
Thirdly, the roll of voters must be as credible as the election, if the electoral roll is not put together with the maximum precision and comprehensivity, the elections themselves may suffer in their credibility. What about the 250,000 refugees—I believe that is the number—mostly in Botswana, Zambia and Mozambique, who have still to return to Rhodesia? What arrangements are there in train to restore them to their country and enable them to take part in the elections as fully qualified voters?
The question of detainees, of course, arises in this connection. I join with the Minister in expecting all parties concerned to release whoever they have under detention. It is indeed intolerable that while we are doing our best to meet demands for the fullest, freeest and fairest possible

387
elections, some of the very people who are making those demands and who were making them at Lancaster House are themselves exercising restraint on a number of detainees.
I do not know how many of these are involved. I think the Minister gave the figure of 70 and I believe that figure was given last Thursday in another place, but surely it is more than that. I shall have a quantitative relief, if not a qualitative one, if it is as low as 70, but I shall still retain a measure of disbelief about the figure, and perhaps the Minister can disabuse me on that point. We must consider not only refugees, but detainees, too. It is not enough to demand that we should facilitate the return of the refugees. That must be accompanied by the release of detainees who, for no possible reason except that of vengeance and repression, are kept in durance in the hands of irregular forces.
The Minister has referred to solemn undertakings accepted at Lancaster House. We all know what they were. One of them was that South African troops would be withdrawn from Zimbabwe. That was explicitly announced by Her Majesty's Government specifically on 5th December, and then again on 18th December as being part of the intention and the policy; and indeed, it could be strongly argued that the success of the Lancaster House Conference turned on the categorical assurance given about the future of the South African forces in Zimbabwe. They are still there. I know the rationale of this. It relates to the importance of the Beit Bridge as a means of communication to and from Zimbabwe. We are not quarrelling about that. Those from this House who have seen the bridge, even those who can read maps, would agree at once that to maintain and protect this vital artery of trade and intercourse must be the charge of the Government of the day in Rhodesia, not the charge of another Government from another country. Not only is it constitutionally anomalous to say the least, but it is seriously exacerbating to feelings in Rhodesia. It is one of those talking points that not only excites the Patriotic Front; elements outside Rhodesia, outside the Patriotic Front, are working up into a reinforcement of the old accusation that British and South African traditional
388
colonial policy still continues unabated. We know this to be wrong, to be untrue; and what possible objection can there be to instructing the Government of South Africa to remove their forces and to replacing them by possibly a mixed Rhodesian and Commonwealth force?
One has read the alleged objections to this: how can you guard one bridge with two forces? Well, now, this is ridiculous. Two forces become one for a common purpose. I see no reason at all why Commonwealth and Rhodesian elements, possibly drawn from the Patriotic Front and the Salisbury Government forces, might not form a composite force to guard this important bridge and so get rid of this constantly exacerbating element in what everybody feels is an otherwise improving Zimbabwe position. I very strongly urge the Government to look again at this question of South African involvement.
Then there is the question of the Parliamentary Commission, which the Minister has described; that is, a Commission from both Houses of this Parliament, and from all parties, to go out there, side by side with the Commonwealth observers and any other observers (individuals or groups), and, I expect, to report back to Parliament as to how they have seen the elections proceed. My noble and learned friend may have points to make on this question, but whether or not he has, I would myself put this very strongly to the Government.
We welcome very much the intention to create a Parliamentary Commission from this Parliament to go out to Zimbabwe. We urged this very early on in the negotiations, as the noble Viscount will remember. We would, however, expect, and certainly strongly urge, that such a Commission report not only to the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, as undoubtedly they would, but formally to both Houses of the British Parliament.
This changes the nature of the Commission from being an ad hoc aggregation of representative Members from both Houses into a kind of visiting Select Committee; and why not? This is an event of immense importance—the creation of a new State within the Commonwealth through free and fair elections.

389
It may be epoch-making. It may show the world how—against the background of seven years of bloody warfare and 14 or 15 years of bloody mindedness in Rhodesia—through the British initiative, based on our experience and our constant goodwill in countries like Rhodesia, when it comes to the question of independence it is possible to usher in independence based on free and fair elections.
Let us make much of this Parliamentary Commission. Let the usual selecting authorities choose the members with great care and give to the Commission something like the status and standing of a Select Committee so that they will bring back to both Houses of Parliament their report, which I confidently believe will, on balance, be very encouraging and favourable. We can discuss it, and in so doing can once more emphasise to our own people, to the people of Africa, and indeed to the whole world, that this procedure of peaceful democratic change from dependency to independent sovereignty can be carried out.
3.27 p.m.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, we on these benches should like to associate ourselves, broadly speaking, with what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said, subject to this: generally speaking, we feel that the progress so far made in the implementation of the cease-fire and in preparation for the coming elections is remarkable. It might have been so very much worse. There have been incidents, but they have not been extremely grave, and there is good reason now to suppose that the elections will be held on the appointed date. However, I suppose we have certain criticisms—we always have—of Government action and, as I say, I do not dissociate myself from anything that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has said. More especially, I should like to back him up on the question of the Parliamentary Commission. We would unhesitatingly associate ourselves with that for the reasons which he gave.
If the procedure in another place is any guide, I believe that it is possible in this debate to raise any question connected with the forthcoming elections. My colleague, Mr. Russell Johnston, in another place the other day raised three questions, to two of which he received some sort of
390
answer, but to the other he received no answer at all, nor did anybody. I refer of course to the important question that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has just raised; namely, the continued presence of the South African troops in Rhodesia, north of the Beit Bridge. I understand that only about 250 of these troops are deployed, but it is a fact that their deployment in Rhodesia is not in accordance with the assurance which the Foreign Secretary gave us in this House on, I seem to remember, the actual day of the signing of the cease-fire, when, in answer to a supplementary question that I posed, he declared that when the Governor had arrived in Rhodesia and legality had therefore been imposed there would be no foreign troops on Rhodesian soil. That was a categorical assurance. I quite understand that there may be difficulties about this. I suppose it is possible that Lord Soames has done his best to get these foreign troops removed; but, if that is the case, he has not been very successful.
What I should like to ask the Government is this—and I more or less repeat, I think, the question which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, put. Why is it that it has not been possible to remove these troops from north of the bridge, and to impose some kind of joint control of the bridge between the South African forces on one side and another force on the other? What could the other force be? I rather doubt whether we could at this moment do what the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, suggested, which is to get a combined force of Patriotic Front guerrillas and General Wall's forces organised in time to defend the bridge before the elections. I rather doubt that; but what I cannot see is why one should not send out a company of sappers of British Royal Engineers. What is to prevent us from sending them out? Why should they not guard the bridge perfectly adequately? They need have only rifles, I should think, to do that, and there is no reason why they should not do it. I really do not see why it cannot be done, or, at least, why it should not be suggested or put to the South African Government. If it were accepted then, of course, it would remove what is, I am afraid, a very considerable grievance and the allegation that we are not fulfilling our obligations, which one might feel is having a

391
rather deplorable effect on the general situation in Rhodesia as a whole. I hope the Government will explain to us why that sort of solution is not possible.
Subject to that, I must say that I feel reasonably optimistic. There are, of course, still considerable difficulties in relation to Mr. Mugabe's attitude. We understand that he will come back next Saturday, and we hope he will, but it remains to be seen. That is the main outstanding difficulty. If he does come back, then I believe that the other, comparatively minor difficulties will be solved, and that we shall then be able to look forward to congratulating Lord Soames and the Government most sincerely on what they have done. In the meantime, I congratulate them on what they have done so far, and I hope that the one remaining difficulty which I have mentioned will be satisfactorily solved.
3.32 p.m.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, I should like to say just a few words on this subject. First, I think we all recognise the tremendous difficulties which confront the Governor, and that it is not possible to please everybody. I think we ought to congratulate him on the success he has had so far, although there are still difficulties which need to be resolved. I should like to support what both Lord Goronwy-Roberts and Lord Gladwyn have said about the presence of South African troops in Rhodesia. I think that if the Governor is going to be able, as I hope he will be, rigidly and strictly to enforce the arrangements which have been agreed at Lancaster House, then he must be in a position to say that, so far as he is concerned, all the conditions which it is in his power to implement have been implemented. I therefore hope that, in one way or another, it will be possible to ensure the security of the bridge without having to rely further upon South African troops.
Now I come to another point, to which I attach very great importance, which was raised both by the Minister and by Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and that is the question of the detainees. With all respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, I do not think it is just a question of numbers, although numbers are important.
392
The people who are being detained are to a large extent people who have been especially selected because they are politically important, and they could therefore play a politically important part in the elections. We know what the effect would be on a British general election if the principal personalities were not to be allowed to take part. It might conceivably have some effect upon the election. I am very glad that the Minister referred specifically to the detainees who have not been released by Robert Mugabe, and I feel that, here, something must be done urgently and very strictly. This is a clear, unmistakable infringement of what was precisely agreed at the Lancaster House Conference.
My belief is that we have very little time in which to deal with this matter. I believe that an immediate ultimatum should be sent to Robert Mugabe saying that these people have got to be released. They are being held, not by the Mozambique Government, but in camps under the control of Mugabe and his people. He should be told that these people must be released immediately, and at any rate before he, Robert Mugabe, will be permitted to return to take part in the elections in Rhodesia. He is due to return on Sunday, and there is therefore not much time to be lost. I think it ought to be made a condition that he immediately releases these people. There is no difficulty in his releasing them; he can do it in a matter of hours. But it seems to me absolutely intolerable that he should be allowed to return to Rhodesia on Sunday and hold a mass meeting of supporters while there is still a large number of detainees being held, under restraint, in his camps outside the country. I should like to know what the Government feel about this, and what action they are going to take. I think it is in their power to secure the release of these people, because I do not believe Robert Mugabe would care not to be allowed back into Rhodesia. I ask for some word from the Government as to what action they are going to take apart from expressing criticism in Parliament.
3.36 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, I shall not keep the House for more than a moment, but I cannot remain silent while the problem of South African troops in

393
Rhodesia is discussed in a rather respectable way, in terms of a limited number of South Africans in and around Beit Bridge. That is not the problem. The truth is that over the last few months the forces of General Walls have carried out operations deep in the heart of Zambia and in Mozambique, and those operations were carried out through the agency of South African battle helicopters, as the Minister knows perfectly well—the Pumas. These Pumas were not piloted by Rhodesians; they were piloted by South African officers, certainly wearing Rhodesian uniforms. The situation is comparable to that which existed in Spain before the war, when German and Italian pilots were fighting Franco's aircraft. That is the situation. The successes deep in the heart of Zambia and Mozambique were as a result of the use of African equipment operated by African officers.
The Minister himself wrote to me in the Recess (quite politely, if I may say so) a fairly evasive answer, because he said that of course he knew nothing about the nationals who were serving in the Rhodesian forces. The truth is that they are South Africans, and the situation came about as a result of South African pressure, as I told him and as I told the House on a previous occasion. If this continues—and it will, because the Government are very tender on this operation—then, when the elections are over and the writers of the world's Press get to work, a pretty disgraceful story will come out, because the Foreign Office know the facts just as well as I do, probably from the same source. But the facts are that, today, there are South African pilots operating strike helicopters, battle helicopters, which make up the nub of Rhodesian forces.
3.39 p.m.
Lord HALE: My Lords, I am very sorry to introduce an almost mundane aspect into the matter, but the course that the debate has taken apparently compels me to raise at this moment any point I have upon the second order, which will be voted on separately but which is being discussed now. I am sorry about this, because this has been an excellent discussion and I should like to congratulate both the noble Lord who introduced the first order and my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts for his admirable and tempered criticisms.
394
Coming to money, which is becoming an increasingly important subject, can we resolve whether, under the second order, the British Government are being left with any residual or consequential responsibility in respect of outstanding issues of Southern Rhodesia stock?—which was the subject in another place of some proposals for possible guarantees during the period of emergency when we were discussing who were the Government. If this order is passed and a Government is formed, can we say that our liability in respect of any of these matters has not been reassumed and is being discharged?
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, I wish to intervene for a few brief observations only. I would not interpolate into any of the difficulties mentioned by other noble Lords which have arisen in Rhodesia since the Governor, Lord Soames, took office. May I pose this as a thought for some of us. I cannot conceive of any more difficult a position for anybody to take up than that of the noble Lord, Lord Soames. Over our many years of experience in these matters, when we were about to hand over independence to an independent Government, we always did so when we were satisfied of the situation of stability and that the moment was ripe to do so. I would pay tribute to all Members of your Lordships' House, both of the Opposition and of the Government, that over the years we appear to have succeeded in bringing two warring factions together to carry out elections in Rhodesia for a new Government in that country. I think that that is a most remarkable achievement and one that we shall do well to remember.
That is, basically, all that I would say of the present situation; but, having served, as I did, in Malaya, and having seen one Governor, Sir Henry Gurney, shot and murdered by the communist terrorists; and having served under another Governor, Sir Shenton Thomas, who died at the hands of the Japanese, I know well the difficulties and dangers which face people who are sent overseas to serve our country in that capacity.
In conclusion, may I mention one point on this trust that people have in Britain to see that such people get a square deal. When I was in Rhodesia, there was this question of pensions. I have been in consultation with my noble friend Lord Trefgarne on this subject and it would not

395
be right if I were to mention what we have discussed in these issues. But there is this worry with regard to pensions and I would hope that, possibly, when the noble Lord, Lord Soames, comes to the position (as we all hope he will) of handing over to an incoming independent Government, he might find it possible to bring up that issue and impress upon a new independent Government of Zimbabwe that there is this more binding obligation upon them to honour the conditions of service of former public servants in that country. Incidentally, with respect to other territories, Her Majesty's Government always have exhibited an interest to see that those conditions were observed. That is all I have to say.

THE STEEL STRIKE
3.44 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of INDUSTRY (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, with the leave of the House, I will now repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Industry in another place in answer to a Private Notice Question on the steel industry talks. The Statement runs:
"The Secretary of State for Employment and I met Mr. Sirs and Mr. Smith on Saturday. Together with the Secretary of State for Employment and myself, the Prime Minister saw trade union leaders and BSC management at separate meetings yesterday.
"The Government welcomed the meetings which allowed those concerned to explain their views to Ministers. All concerned clearly understood that Ministers were in no way involving themselves in negotiation—and Ministers emphasised that there was no taxpayers' money available to fund a settlement. ACAS continue their contacts to see whether they can help."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Viscount for repeating the Statement which has been made in another place.
396
In view of the fact that the Statement tells us that Ministers are in no way involving themselves in negotiation, may I ask whether the Government are still demanding that BSC break even by March this year? If that is not intervention, I do not know what the word means. Could he tell me of any bulk steel industries throughout the world which are now making profits, anyway? The Statement goes on to suggest that ACAS continue their contacts with both sides of the industry. May I ask the noble Viscount what ACAS are supposed to talk about to the industry? The Secretary of State has already prohibited any useful discussion about the issues which have caused the strike and, therefore, ACAS, it seems to me, are stymied by Government action before they can begin.
Much of the case which the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have been making is based on productivity figures for steel in Britain which are arrived at, I suggest, by the most unfair comparisons imaginable. Would the noble Viscount agree that the only suggestions on productivity that we have heard, either from the Government or from BSC, is that productivity should be improved by a large-scale reduction in the labour force? Is there no other way in which an industry which has had a huge input of capital in recent years can think in terms of increasing productivity? And if productivity is as bad as all that, ought there not to be inquiries into the management of BSC and not condemnation of the unions?
We are now approaching the end of the third week of this damaging strike. Surely by now the Government will have made some estimate of the unemployment in other industries which is bound to come in consequence of this strike. What estimate are they making of the effects, and the cost, on the economy if this strike continues much longer? I do not know whether the Government are aware that throughout the country, and, certainly, throughout the trade union movement, it is now believed that the Government picked on the most reasonable trade union in British industry with no strike record whatever and whose members—none of whom if they are under 60-years-old have ever been on strike—are now convinced that they have been picked on for the reason that they have no strike record. I wonder whether the

397
noble Viscount would say what sort of action can now take place? ACAS have been stymied by the Government; the Government have said that they take no heed whatever of the economic and social consequences of this strike. Where do we go from here? Is the noble Viscount aware that steel is the genesis of a dozen major industries and that if this strike goes on much longer there will be chaos throughout the whole British economy?
3.50 p.m.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I do not wish to follow in any detail what the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, has said. We can understand that the Government wish not to intervene in this dispute and to leave it to the management, the unions and ACAS. May I ask the Government whether they will consider seriously trying to clarify the situation for the public at large—clarify it by publishing an up to date and authoritative statement of the facts which everybody can understand? What, for instance, is the actual take-home pay of the major categories of steelworker in the public and private sectors at the moment? Does anybody really know that? Certainly, I do not. By how much would the productivity proposals increase wages and reduce costs if implemented to the full? May we have any other relevant facts that would enable the public to understand what is involved? It is a very difficult situation for any corporation making such losses as these to pay any increase in wages; but we should be better advised if the public at large and we ourselves could know exactly what is in dispute.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, and the noble Lord, Lord Byers, for their contributions, with the one exception of the last contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Lee. I am sure that he will agree with me that the last thing any of us on any side want to do is to widen an area of dispute. I therefore must refute very strongly indeed any idea that this Government has picked on steel. That is far removed from the truth. Even Mr. Bill Sirs, and others, I am glad to say, said after the weekend talks that they were quite clear that this strike had no political motivation. It has
398
none. We are involved as representatives of the shareholders, as representatives of the taxpayers; but we are not involved as management in negotiations, and we believe that the record of Government getting involved as managers in negotiation has been a very poor one over many years.
Yes, my Lords, the target of break-even—or profit, not loss—in the new financial year from the end of March is still the same. We believe that the situation with British Steel is that enough money has been put in by the taxpayer to make that kind of requirement a reasonable proposition. Over £2 billion has been invested in the past few years to make British Steel one of the best equipped steel industries in the world. Our productivity, to which the noble Lord also referred, falls, by any objective measurement—and I am well aware that one can go on bandying around different productivity figures for as long as one likes—as was agreed in the sector working party, where both unions and management are involved, far short of that of all the main competitor-countries' steel industries.
The noble Lord asked what ACAS were going to do arising from my right honourable friend's Statement that they were in touch and that we welcomed their activity. By asking that, did he mean that the Government should authorise British Steel—who do not ask for it—to put in more money than the £4 billion that the taxpayer has contributed in the past five years? I do not believe that would be a right course to take with the industry equipped as it is with the 1976 report on productivity—again acknowledged by both sides—still regrettably not a reality.
It is not the time to apportion blame; it is the time to say that in an industry which is superbly equipped today, where our labour rates, regrettably, are far below those of other countries, by matching productivity with this superb equipment, considerable pay increases beyond anything that is on the table—and a considerable sum is on the table—could be earned. Let us ask both management and the workforce to forget the past, to use the equipment and to get down to negotiating again, as I hope they will; and, as my right honourable friends the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister,

399
have suggested, a self-financing deal within these confines is more than possible.
Lord PEART: My Lords, is the Minister not aware that this is the first strike in the industry over the past 50 years? We are dealing here with a moderate union. Mr. Sirs is a very moderate trade union leader. Apart from that, are the Government not aware that in Europe alone, if we are to compare like with like, in most of West Germany, Belgium, France and Italy, steel making concerns are in the red? They are subsidised partly because of subsidies to the coking industry which supplies the steel industry. Is the Minister not aware that there is a danger that if the closures that are now taking place continue, our defence requirements will be hit? That is very dear to the hearts of noble Lords opposite. No doubt we will discuss this in a future debate. There was a question on the Order Paper only today about the situation regarding ships. All this will be in danger. Worse than that, if this policy continues, the Tory Party will be said to have created industrial deserts where men and women have no work and where there will again be rising poverty. The Government have behaved deplorably in this matter and the men have been extremely reasonable.
3.57 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am of course aware—as is the whole House—that this is the first steel strike since 1926. My right honourable friend, who knows Mr. Sirs—I do not know him personally—is convinced of his integrity. We are well aware that, as the noble Lord put it, Mr. Sirs is considered a moderate. Regarding other steel industries, noble Lords are a little out-of-date. There is substantial improvement going on in the German, French and Dutch steel industry. The German industry is quite definitely in the black. I am well aware of the point about coking coal. I am also aware of the prices at which coking coal is purchased by companies in these countries. Taking all these matters into consideration, there is no burking the issue that our productivity is the main reason for this problem. That is why the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Eric Varley, set the target of break-even by March of
400
this year; and that is why we believe that that target should be honoured.
So far as paying for defence equipment and the general seriousness is concerned, nobody in this House will under-estimate the seriousness of a prolonged steel strike. Equally, our ability to pay for anything—defence or social services—depends upon a growing realisation that management and workforces together, when provided by the taxpayers with equipment, shall use them to good advantage and shall not demand extra money from the taxpayer which has to be taken away either from the social services or from defence.
I regret the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition's remarks on the Tory Party causing an industrial wilderness. I could remind him of the difference between the situation that we took over and the one that he took over in 1974. It is partly because of this continuous so-called element of "settle this at all cost", which means extra taxpayers' money from somewhere, that we are in this mess. We intend to carry out the target that was set by the right honourable gentleman, Mr. Eric Varley, the previous Secretary of State for Industry.
Lord KALDOR: My Lords, when the noble Viscount talks about low productivity being the cause of all troubles, may I ask whether he has really investigated who and what is responsible for the low productivity? The implication is always that it is entirely up to the workers whether productivity is high or low. I wonder whether the noble Viscount is aware that before the First World War the productivity of the German steel industry was more than twice that of the British steel industry and that, according to the best experts, this was due to the fact that the German industrialists made far better use of economies of scale and carried out a scheme of compulsory standardisation, allowing long runs, which it was not possible to do in the case of the British industry. That had nothing whatever to do with the workers.
May I also ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that our grossly over-valued exchange rate is an important factor in causing our profitability to be low in the steel industry in relation to other countries? The value of the exchange rate is

401
certainly not the responsibility of the steel industry or of the steel workers: nor can the Government abdicate from responsibility in a matter of this sort. Finally, I want to ask the noble Viscount whether he is aware that this question of steel is absolutely vital to the economic future of Britain. The Government are perfectly callously and calmly willing to see the size of our steel industry cut by 40 per cent., which means that Britain's industrial power will be reduced by 40 per cent. and that Britain's industrial standing and defence capacity will be reduced by 40 per cent. And they do that, following the narrow and pointless objective of financial solvency, which under certain conditions makes no sense whatsoever.
4.4 p.m.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am well aware that the causes of low productivity are many and indeed the management and the unions of this industry have been into them on many occasions. The problem is that the identification of those many and complicated causes has not led to effective action. I am not blaming anyone: I am stating a fact. I will not follow the noble Lord hack before the first war because he knows that, while he has educated me on a number of historical figures, I cannot follow him back in detail on this. We are not saying either that management is perfect or that trade unions are perfect. What we are saying is that after many joint studies targets have been declared by the previous Administration and by ourselves, and it is now up to the two combined to implement those targets.
The exchange rate has complicated the position in so far as the competitiveness of the British industry is concerned, but if one looks at the strengthening of the exchange rate against the very low wage costs that regrettably we now have in Britain compared with our main competitors in steel, an equal productivity would more than cover the exchange rate and would allow major increases beyond the levels that have been on the table and which have been estimated at 12 per cent.
Of course, we know how vital this industry is. I wish, however, that the noble Lord had not suggested that we were sitting callously waiting to see the
402
destruction of important things. He almost makes me believe that that is what he believes—almost assumes—will happen. I hope I have the support of the House in appealing to both sides that in the time left—and there is time left before the really serious damage sets in and before jobs are put at risk within steel and outside—all in British Steel should get round the negotiating table again and seek methods of using this superb equipment to solve all the problems, in the way in which the previous Administration asked them to do.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, on this issue of being involved in the dispute, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister whether there are not special circumstances associated with this dispute; namely, that while there is a dialogue about money not being available and one side saying it ought to be available, vast numbers of men in the industry have been disemployed and vast numbers will be thrown out of employment before very long because of the changes that are taking place in the industry? Obviously that is bound to be considered by those engaged in this dispute, particularly on the workers' side, when the men are asking for better conditions and simultaneously vast numbers of their colleagues, and even they themselves, are going to be thrown out of employment. Is that not a special circumstance that the Government should take into consideration?
On the matter of involvement, suppose, for example—I admit it is partly hypothetical although it may be actual and realistic before long—that there is a dispute in connection with the supply of water and the disposal of sewage. Are we to understand that the Government would say: "We refuse to be involved in a dispute of that character, which affects vast numbers of the people in our country"? Are not the Government going a little bit too far in this matter of non-involvement? Are we not dealing here not with a private industry, although parts of it are in the private sector, as we all know, but substantially with a nationalised industry? Is it possible for this Government, or for any Government, having accepted nationalisation, though reluctantly, as a fact which cannot be ignored, to say: "We will not be involved in matters concerning this

403
industry"? Is this not a new concept that has been developed by the Government?
Having observed the activities of the Secretary of State for Industry, Sir Keith Joseph, does not one come to the conclusion—this may not be acceptable but this is how I see it—that he does not mind at all this dispute taking place, whatever the consequences may he, as long as he puts the union in its place? That is what he is after doing, when in point of fact he is helping to ruin this country; and that ought not be to allowed.
4.9 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I just want to say that a good many years ago now I used to be a director of a steel company and at that time workers were extremely proud of being steel workers and we were extremely proud of our workers. Therefore, the present situation really makes my heart bleed. I have to face the fact that, if there was evidence that in spite of the money which has been pumped in by the taxpayers the factories concerned were still ill-equipped, then I would consider there was a case for still more taxpayers' money to be pumped in, even though it had not been used fully effectively to date. But I understand that that is not the case, and that the industry is pretty well equipped today—up to the level of our competitors. That being so, until something can be linked with the assurance of increased productivity, then, with the deepest regret, I feel that any further money pumped in by the taxpayer would not be effective in bringing about the improvement that we all long to see in the years ahead.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, did I understand the Minister to say—?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, if am not to lose track of the important points which the noble Lord, Lord Shin-well, raised, as well as those raised by my noble friend Lord Amory, may I say that every industry has special circumstances, and every department of Government and national service always has special circumstances. The combination of those special circumstances and the meeting of them beyond the resources of the nation, in order to secure a settlement, has been
404
the practice of Governments of both parties for a very long time and it is one of the reasons why we are in the mess that we are in now.
So far as the redundancy question is concerned, the whole thing depends upon the market for steel. The last Administration's White Paper of March 1978 contained a quotation which ran as follows:
"To achieve financial viability, it is necessary for capacity to move more into line with demand".
In the last two years British Steel, after making heavy losses and with this new equipment, have sold 17 million tons. One just does not know, because one is not the management of this organisation, whether their estimates of 15 million tons against a changing world for the future are right exactly. But we have no reason to challenge them, and the numbers involved to make that amount must be brought to a level which is competitive with other countries' industries, which, as I have already said, are at the moment improving.
On the question of involvement, once more, we are involved in how much money shall be taken from the taxpayer and denied to other important areas. Yes, my Lords, we are very involved. We are involved in ensuring that damage of the magnitude that is being outlined is not done to the British economy. But if we ignore the former type of involvement, which is correct involvement as shareholders, and start intervening as management in negotiations and taking more taxpayers' money from other sources which we do not have, then this country will go to wrack and ruin, to quote the noble Lord's phrase. I was very grateful for the intervention of my noble friend Lord Amory.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the Minister—?
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords—
Lord WIGG: On every occasion I am going to stand—
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I think that the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton, has the ear of the House.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the

405
Minister one or two questions? First, will he confirm that the original statute under which this industry came into public ownership required that it should break even taking one year with another, but gave no indication of over what period that balance was to be struck? Secondly, may I ask him how the present Government can say that they are not involved, when they and their predecessors have in fact set the targets which are the cause of most of this trouble? Thirdly, may I ask him why it is possible to find 20 per cent. for the miners and only 2 per cent.—although I think they have pushed it up to 12—for the steel workers?
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, I am not so familiar as the noble Baroness with the original statute, but on the assumption that she is accurate, as usual, and that the object was to break even taking one year with another, it is worth recording that a cash limit of £700 million to accommodate losses of £300 million was required for the current financial year, which is not yet over. So that by no stretch of the imagination can it be said that British Steel has in recent years been breaking even one year with another.
We are, of course, involved once again in setting targets. This is our duty as representatives of the shareholders, who are the taxpayers. We cannot avoid that. So far as our setting a particular target is concerned, we have taken and reinforced the target of the last Administration. The right honourable gentleman Mr. Varley, in reply to a parliamentary Question on 22nd May 1978 said:
"The BSC must get its finances straight as quickly as is practicable. My right honourable friend will know that in the last financial year BSC, in common with many comparable companies overseas, lost money. It lost £440 million. Part of the Government policy is that the financial objectives of the BSC should be to break even by the financial year 1979–80"—[Official Report, Commons; col. 1105.]
We are talking now about 1980–81.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, would it be possible for Her Majesty's Government to put slightly more emphasis on the fact that Mr. Sirs appears such a reasonable, such a good, ordinary Englishman? Secondly, the implications of the
406
noble Viscount's earlier reply, that more is available if productivity goes higher, could be underlined by allowing the Gas Corporation, with their enormous projected profits, to pay very much above the going rate to their workers because they have made profits. This would surely show to the people who work for our industries in the public sector that profits mean good wages and secure jobs while no profits means not very secure jobs and not such good wages. Thirdly, the exchange rate surely has nothing to do with productivity and manhours per ton of steel. Fourthly, with all these closures, does British Steel not have anything to "flog" in order to raise more money, if it really is put in a squeeze about providing more money to put on the table?
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the Minister's case, as I understand it, is that successive Governments have provided the BSC with all the money that is necessary, and that the equipment in the industry now is of such a first-class nature that the only thing that needs to happen is to increase productivity. I wonder whether the noble Viscount would tell us what happens to the increased productivity when it has been produced. Do they eat it, or do they take it out into the Atlantic and drop it overboard?—because the one thing that is demonstrable is that they cannot sell it. The truth, surely, is that the Government's attitude here is completely bogus. They are not concerned at all with productivity. They are concerned about the ratio of productivity with a decreased number of men. In other words, this is a politically motivated strike, in order to squeeze out of the industry every man who can be squeezed out. The typical Tory policy, throughout this century when they have been in Government, is to solve our economic problems by increased unemployment.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, may I intervene for a moment, before the noble Viscount answers that question, by suggesting to the House as a whole that when the noble Viscount has replied we really will have had enough of this and that it is becoming a debate. If that is the feeling of the House after the noble Viscount has answered that question, I hope that we might go on to the other business.
Viscount TRENCHARD: My Lords, that is certainly my feeling. In my view, all those involved in this dispute in British Steel—the union leaders and the management—are reasonable and solid Englishmen, some with very great experience—
A noble Lord: What about Scotsmen?
Viscount TRENCHARD: Yes, my Lords, and Scotsmen, too, for all I know—and Welshmen. I appeal to all, both inside and outside this House, to restrain from blame-awarding and the like. I shall not deal with the points made by my noble friend, as this discussion has gone on for a long while and his last two are really for British Steel to deal with, not for me. However, may I deal very quickly with one point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigg. He asked what I expect British Steel to do with it if they get higher productivity; do I expect them to eat it? No, I do not. I am aware of the harshness of what I am about to say. If, however, one has a situation in which an industry or a company is not competitive, it has first to become competitive before it can hope to increase its market share. We have to do that first in British Steel. When there is a backlog such as this, because things have been allowed to become noncompetitive, I am aware that it involves redundancies, which are already necessarily high but which were not faced up to by the previous Administration, though the request to face up to them was made by that Administration. However, the redundancies were not faced up to by the previous Administration and they have to be faced up to now. As soon as they are faced up to there is a very good chance that the market share will start to increase; and as and when world economic activity begins to increase, British Steel will be well placed.
I think that I missed a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell. The cash limits have taken full account of the estimated redundancy requirements. I know that money is by no means everything; in fact, it is less than half the problem when one considers the human problems. But, Yes, the redundancies have been allowed for in the figures.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (CONSTITUTION OF ZIMBABWE) (ELECTIONS AND APPOINTMENTS) ORDER 1979
4.22 p.m.
Debate resumed.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, there are some questions which I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, arising both from what he has said and also in part from what was said during the discussion. First, with regard to the position of detainees, may I ask the noble Lord whether there are any political detainees still detained who were originally detained during the time of the Muzorewa-Smith régime'? When I speak of "detainees" I mean political detainees. Whereas I entirely agree with the criticisms and the observations that are made about the detention of detainees by the Mugabe side, the same principle ought clearly to apply to whoever is holding detainees in this period leading up to the elections. Therefore I should like to have information from the noble Lord on that matter.
Secondly, as to the series of questions which were put about the continuing participation of South African forces in defiance of the most solemn undertakings given to this House, may I ask what representations have been made to the South African Government? As my noble friend Lord Wigg mentioned, it is not only the bridge matter; it is also the question of the participation of South African—I do not know whether "forces" is technically the right word but members of the South African armed forces, at any rate, in the other services and in the other places that have been mentioned. May I ask the noble Lord what is happening about that? What representations have been made and what has been the response? As the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn, and others have said, this is casting a cloud over a good deal of the horizon.
The proposed parliamentary commission of observers has been welcomed on all sides of the House, but I should like to know when it is proposed that the observers should go out to Rhodesia. Obviously it is desirable that they should go out to Rhodesia a good while before

409
the elections proper take place so that they can see how well the ground has been prepared The suggestion that the parliamentary observers should report back to Parliament seems to me to be an essential and important one. May we assume that this will be done in some shape or form?
Finally, I should like to ask about the provision in Section 4 of the constitution and elections order. I think I understood from the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, that the appointment and selection of the Prime Minister would be done in accordance with the Westminster model. In other words, the Governor would seek to ascertain the person best able to command a majority in the House of Assembly. There is nothing to indicate this in the terms of the order. However, I understood that to be the understanding if not the convention that is going to be applied. With regard to the choice of Ministers, may I ask what is the convention. Is the Prime Minister, independently, to act on the advice of other Ministers? What role has the Governor to play in that context? These are important constitutional questions upon which I, and I think other noble Lords, would welcome the observations of the noble Lord.
4.28 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I shall try to deal as best I can with the considerable number of points which have been raised. Noble Lords will no doubt intervene to remind me if I forget any, and those that I am not reminded of I shall deal with in correspondence at a later time. May I begin by thanking those of your Lordships who were kind enough to speak warmly of my noble friend Lord Soames and his achievements. I shall certainly ensure that these sentiments are conveyed to him.
Various points have been raised in connection with the conduct of the elections. May I come first to the question of the parliamentary observers. As I said in my opening speech, the Government will be making contact, through the usual channels, to discuss the formation of a group of seven members of both Houses to visit Rhodesia for the elections. The Government will be ready to meet their expenses and the Governor
410
will arrange facilities for them. There is of course nothing to stop individual members from visiting Rhodesia during the elections, but I hope they will understand that the strain on the Governor's slender resources of providing facilities for the considerable number of official observers from the Commonwealth and elsewhere make it impossible for him to arrange facilities for individual members, although I am sure that he will do his best.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, and others, asked what arrangements would be made for the parliamentary observers to report back to Parliament. We do not envisage any formal report. It will be for the members themselves to decide how best to record and report their impressions. I come now to the question of the detainees, a question which was raised specifically by the noble and learned Lord and also by other noble Lords, including the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. The Governor has released—and I can say this quite categorically—all persons held under ministerial orders, commonly but not necessarily accurately referred to as "political prisoners".
A number of persons remain detained under martial law; their cases are being reviewed. One factor in their release will be the effectiveness of the cease-fire. I can also repeat what I said in my opening remarks that 70 persons remain detained by Mr. Mugabe's supporters in Mozambique, and this is a matter of the utmost concern to it. I assure your Lordships that we attach no less concern and no less importance to this matter than was indicated by my noble friend Lord Duncan-Sandys. It is the case, we understand, that Mr. Mugabe intends to return to Rhodesia very shortly. We are not necessarily saying that he cannot return until these detainees have been released, but we very much hope that they will be released, and we are in contact with him about it.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way and I do not want to harass him with too many questions, but these are all very important matters which are not really susceptible to being dealt with by correspondence. "Detention by martial law"

411
—what does that mean? Are they charged with military offences and are they going to be tried? What is this régime of detention by martial law? It reminds me very much of the government of the Greek colonels, in respect of which I sought to make representations and I was informed by the Attorney-General that that was outside the ordinary jurisdiction of courts and that I should refer to the International Red Cross if I wanted anything done about it. What is the position? How many are there? It is a blanket observation about which I think the House ought to know a little more.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am sorry to tell the noble and learned Lord that I simply have not got the information that he requires. I think I ought to have it and I apologise for the fact that I have not, but I will find out and let him know.
Lord DUNCAN-SANDYS: My Lords, may I also interrupt for one moment? The noble Lord said he hoped that the detainees detained by Mr. Mugabe's supporters would be released: surely the Government can do more than express a hope. Surely they are now going to insist that the Lancaster House agreement is implemented on all sides and make it a condition that those who do not will not be allowed to take part in the election. Otherwise it is a farce.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, we shall have to keep this matter under very careful review. I was asked to give an assurance that Mr. Mugabe would not be allowed to return to Rhodesia before these men had been released. I am not able to give that assurance but I can say that the Government attach no less importance to this matter than the noble Lord, Lord Duncan-Sandys, and other noble Lords. We will take such steps as are open to us and as we think necessary to secure the release of these detainees.
Several noble Lords have referred to the Governor's use of Rhodesian security forces to deal with incidents and breaches of the cease-fire. I must emphasise that this is permitted under the terms of the Lancaster House agreement. In practice the Governor works through Patriotic Front commanders and liaison officers
412
where possible in defusing threatening situations. This has been remarkably successful. More generally the responsibility for maintaining law and order rests with the police. But, where they have been unable to cope with incidents, the Governor has thought it right to call upon the Rhodesian forces. This applies particularly to the very considerable infiltration of ZANLA forces across the border from Mozambique.
A number of your Lordships have raised the question of the presence of the detachment of South African forces at Beit Bridge. I do urge your Lordships to keep this particular problem in perspective. We are talking of a small contingent which is present for the exclusive purpose of defending the bridge, a vital lifeline not only for Rhodesia but also for the countries to the North. The presence of a team from the monitoring force in the vicinity gives us adequate assurance that the contingent will not be used for other purposes. I do not accept that it will be in any position to influence the elections or, more important, to interfere in Rhodesia's affairs. I must also ask your Lordships to bear in mind always that the Governor has to maintain a fair and impartial position between the interests of all the parties. Naturally he takes into account the sensitivities of the many African governments about the presence of even a small number of South African forces just across the border. Equally he must consider the concern of the internal parties to see that the lifeline is properly defended. This is a matter of enormous psychological importance to them. As the cease-fire becomes more effective their perceptions may change and the Governor will keep the matter under review. But we are dealing at the most with a very short period up to the elections, now only a few weeks away.
If I may, I should like now to deal with what the noble Lord, Lord Gladwyn said. I was surprised that the noble Lord should propose the despatch of British troops to take what could in the worst case be a fighting role. I seem to recall several noble Lords expressing anxiety about the dangers of a Vietnam-type conflict. I repeat that the Governor will keep the measures necessary for the defence of the bridge under careful review.
Lord GLADWYN: My Lords, is it really impossible to contemplate the despatch of a small number of British troops, armed with rifles, it is true, but have not the monitoring forces got rifles? It is not necessarily to engage in battles but to control the bridge.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, the monitoring force is there to monitor the cease-fire and, as I said earlier, there is a contingent from the monitoring force near the bridge, but we do not envisage the despatch of further British troops to take up a positively defensive or even offensive role in Rhodesia.
Coming to some of the other points that have been made, my noble friend Lord Gridley asked me a question with regard to the pensioners. As the noble Lord will know, I have corresponded and conversed with him a number of times on this matter and am continuing to do so and I will certainly make sure that the Governor knows his views.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, the Minister has dealt with the South African troops on the Beit Bridge. Everyone knows, on a world basis, that they are there and what they are doing, and one could readily accept what the Minister has said, but once again he has not dealt with the fact that there are a considerable number of South African officers wearing Rhodesian uniforms, and they have been there for a long time, using South African equipment. This cannot be argued about. The Pumas are South African aircraft and they were flown and fought by South African officers. They are still there but the noble Lord never answers, and he has not done so again today.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord is referring to the circumstances which prevailed before the Governor's arrival, but the Governor has said—and I have repeated it in this House several times—that there are indeed some South Africans serving in the Rhodesian forces, including people of other nationalities, but they are completely under the command of the Rhodesian commanders and are therefore now subject to the Governor and the cease-fire arrangements. It should be said that there are members of several other nationalities serving in the Patriotic Front forces, including, I am
414
informed, 500 regular members of the Mozambique forces. We have said repeatedly that we shall not conduct a purge or a witch hunt of the forces of either side.
Lord WIGG: But, my Lords, if the noble Lord can repeat—and it is significant that he can—that 500 members of the Mozambique forces are serving with the Patriotic Front, will he then ask the South African Government how many officers, warrant officers, NCOs and other ranks are seconded to the Rhodesian Forces?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am not aware of any regular South African officers seconded to the Rhodesian forces, but there are South African nationals serving in the Rhodesian forces.
The noble Lord, Lord Hale, asked me about a certain residual liability relating to Rhodesian stock. I can tell him that there will be no United Kingdom liability in that connection. A number of more technical points were raised, and I will, if I may, write to noble Lords giving answers. I will particularly write to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, about the remaining detainees held under martial law. Accordingly, I commend to your Lordships the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Lord HARMAR-N1CHOLLS: My Lords, before my noble friend concludes, can he find some opportunity of answering the point made by the noble and learned Lord with regard to those detained under martial law, for this reason? It is a very dangerous atmosphere there, and the only interpretation we have on the record this afternoon is the one put upon it by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Elwyn-Jones, an ex-Lord Chancellor, who rather suggested that it might be in the same category as the tyranny of the Greek colonels. For that interpretation to stand alone without any official reply, which may have reached my noble friend, could well be more dangerous than the mere term itself would imply.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, manna from Heaven has arrived, and I am able to say that a number of persons were detained by the previous authorities under martial law. The Governor has ordered

415
a review of the cases of all these detainees and releases are proceeding. Their offences range from crimes of violence to stock theft. Once conditions exist for martial law to be lifted the vast majority of these would automatically be released. I cannot give precise numbers of detainees, but I understand that the Governor is to make an announcement very shortly. I hope that that helps the noble and learned Lord.
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, I hope it also helps the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, who seemed to be challenging my bona fides and indeed my propriety in making so bold as to ask those questions. Before the noble Lord departs from the subject, can he say a word about the constitutional convention and the appointment of a Prime Minister?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I apologise to the noble and learned Lord. That can be simply dealt with. The position is that the Governor will, as the noble and learned Lord rightly said, appoint the Prime Minister, being the person whom he thinks is best able to command a majority in the House of Assembly. The other Ministers will be appointed upon the recommendation of the Prime Minister.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, will my noble friend allow me to say to the noble and learned Lord opposite that I was not questioning his propriety or his bona fides. I was questioning his comparisons. But he ought not to be angry with me. I got an answer to his question for him.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA (LEGAL PROCEEDINGS AND PUBLIC LIABILITIES) ORDER 1979
4.43 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the order, laid before the House on 11th December 1979 be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
Lord ELWYN-JONES: My Lords, there is just one question I should like to ask. It is a somewhat complicated order which the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, helped us by explaining. What is the position with regard to the discharge of liabilities incurred by the Smith regime during the period of UDI? Are those liabilities now to become the liabilities of the United Kingdom Government, either immediately or in the long run, or are they to be the inheritance of whatever new Government may emerge after the elections take place?
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I cannot say what will be the position of the new Government when they take office in regard to these liabilities. They will certainly not be a liability upon Her Majesty's Government. I suppose the truthful answer is that they will be the result of negotiations between the creditors and the new Government of Rhodesia when they come into office.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

BEES BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1a, and to be printed.

DANGEROUS SUBSTANCES AND PREPARATIONS (SAFETY) REGULATIONS 1980
4.45 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Dangerous Substances and Preparations (Safety) Regulations 1980, laid before the House on 20th December, be approved. These regulations are designed primarily to implement an EEC Directive adopted, in July last, which requires Member States to prohibit the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances in two specific situations. They deal with a wide range of substances in relation to ornamental objects—such as ornamental lamps—and with the use of a carcinogenic chemical known as Tris in textile articles intended to come into contact with the skin. The regulations also include an existing prohibition on the use of chloroethylene as an aerosol propellant which is simply

417
being transferred from the Aerosol Dispensers (EEC Requirements) Regulations 1977.
It might be helpful if I were first to explain briefly the requirements of the new Directive. It amends a 1976 Directive relating to restrictions on the marketing and use of certain dangerous substances and preparations by adding some additional prohibitions. The first is a ban on the use of a number of dangerous substances (classified under certain categories in a 1967 EEC Directive on Dangerous Substances) and other liquids having a flash-point below 55ºC in ornamental lamps (often referred to in this country as glitter lamps) and other objects, and the marketing of products containing these substances. The second prohibition relates to the use of Tris (2,3-dibromopropyl) phosphate (which is commonly known simply as Tris) in textile articles intended to come into contact with the skin, and the marketing of textile articles that have been treated with or contain Tris. The Directive was adopted in order both to protect consumers and to harmonise existing national regulations which could constitute a technical barrier to trade. So much for the Directives.
I turn now to the regulations, taking each of these prohibitions in turn and outlining the reasons behind their inclusion. Regulation 1(1) is self-explanatory. Regulations 1(2) and 1(3) set the dates of coming into operation. Regulations 2 and 4 can be brought into force without delay since they largely repeat earlier legislation of similar effect. Regulation 1(3) which relates to the coming into force of Regulation 3—a new requirement—allows a short period for the disposal of non-complying goods.
Regulation 1(4), together with Regulation 2, effects the transfer of the existing prohibition on the use of chloroethylene as an aerosol propellant. This transfer is considered desirable because the prohibition is contained in the 1976 Directive which I have already mentioned and which is being added to by the Directive of last year. It has little in common with the other matters dealt with in the Aerosol Regulations, which mainly concern the marketing and safety standards of aerosol containers.
Regulation 3 related to ornamental objects such as glitter lamps. Some of
418
the liquids, known as halogenated hydrocarbons, sometimes used in these lamps have anaesthetic properties, and in the event of breakage of or leakage from a lamp, prolonged inhalation of the resultant vapours can cause unconsciousness with the possibility that this might deepen into death. Examples of the kind of solvents involved are carbon tetrachloride, trichloroethylene, 1,1,1 trichloroethane and tetrachloroethylene. There has been little evidence of accidents or adverse effects caused by these lamps in normal use in this country, but there have been reports of one or two accidental deaths in other countries, and France and Belgium have in fact already banned the use of various solvents in these lamps. I am advised that the former Department of Prices and Consumer Protection issued certain recommendations as to the construction and labelling of these lamps about 18 months ago, which specified inter alia that carbon tetrachloride should not in any circumstances be used in glitter lamps.
Tris represents a more serious hazard. It was developed in the USA as a flame-retardant treatment for clothing fabrics and it was used there in the manufacture of children's nightwear until it became known to be carcinogenic; that is, cancer-inducing. It can be absorbed into the body through the skin and can be ingested by the common childhood habit of sucking treated fabric. Some EEC countries, including the United Kingdom, have already prohibited the sale of various categories of Tris-treated textile products in order to prevent exports from the USA finding their way on to the market.
The first prohibition of Tris in the United Kingdom was the Nightwear (Safety) Order 1978 which ceased to have effect on 30th November 1979. That prohibited the supply of children's nightwear treated with or containing Tris. That order was made under Section 3 of the Consumer Safety Act 1978 which provides that such orders expire after one year. The draft regulations now before the House are to be made under Section 1 of the Act and will remain in force indefinitely.
Regulation 4 of the proposed regulations will permanently renew the ban on Tris-treated children's nightwear and will extend it to other textile articles intended to come into contact with the skin, in

419
accordance with the somewhat wider scope of the Directive. Some 150 bodies representing manufacturers, traders, consumer interests, local authorities and other Government departments have been consulted about the proposed regulations. These have generally been welcomed, particularly by consumer organisations, and no points of any substance were raised against them.
It may be helpful to give a short word of explanation as to the reason for adding a specific reference to children's dressing-gowns in Regulation 4(2). Dressing-gowns were included in the definition of "child's nightwear" embodied in the Nightwear (Safety) Order 1978 and it is considered necessary to ensure that they fall within the scope of the proposed regulations. Without the specific inclusion of dressing-gowns in Regulation 4(2) it would have been possible to argue that they were not subject to the regulations because they were not intended to come into contact with the skin.
In common with the other Member States of the Community we are required to implement the Directive by July 1980. However, there is a need to perpetuate the effect of the Nightwear (Safety) Order in permanent regulations as soon as possible, and it is appropriate to deal with the other aspects of the Directive at the same time.
As with most of the existing regulations concerned with consumer safety matters the regulations will be enforced by local trading standards authorities. They will have the power to take action at all levels of the supply chain, from manufacture or importation to retail sale. I hope that your Lordships will approve these regulations, which will be a useful addition to consumer safety legislation. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 20th December 1979, be approved.—(Lord Trefgarne.)
4.54 p.m.
Lord WALLACE of COSLANY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his lengthy and very expert explanation. His pronunciation of those difficult names gained my utmost admiration. I used to be in terrible trouble on that score in
420
your Lordships' House. The noble Lord has had a harassing and busy day and I began to think, as I entered the Chamber to deal with these regulations, that he needed safety regulations himself! However, generally speaking, we have no objection to these regulations because they certainly extend a greater measure of safety. However, I am rather intrigued by Regulation 4. The Explanatory Note says that:
"the prohibition extends to children's dressing-gowns, which are not covered by the Directive if they are not intended to come into contact with the skin".
The noble Lord has young children and I ask, how on earth can a lively bundle of lovable mischief be stopped from getting its dressing-gown in contact with its skin? Children have a remarkable habit of undressing themselves in most unorthodox ways. For the life of me, I cannot understand that note, but perhaps the noble Lord will be able to explain. I simply cannot see any reason for it. Anyway, apart from that I support the regulations. Indeed, we certainly have no objection.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, I am sorry to trouble the noble Lord on such a busy afternoon with two rather small general points. However, I gave him notice that I wished to raise them and he may possibly have prepared answers. Therefore, it may be that he would be more angry if I did not raise them than if I do so.
First, the regulations make reference to certain British Standards, and that is quite common. There is another Instrument which is probably being considered at this very moment by the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, which makes a similar point. In the Explanatory Notes to these Instruments one reads, as one does in this instance:
"The British Standards referred to in the Schedule to the Regulations may be obtained from the British Standards Institution … Pentonville Road".
It goes without saying that anyone purchasing the Instrument at the Stationery Office would be enormously helped if he could also obtain from the Stationery Office, at the same time, the British Standards without which the Instrument is not really complete. I hope that that can be arranged.

421
The second point is that the Instrument begins in heavy type with the words:
"Supersedes draft published on 5th December 1979".
I should like to ask what arrangements there are by way of recompense for the people who paid their 40p for the earlier draft which never came under starter's orders. I am thinking not only of the people who are buying over the counter at the Stationery Office, but of the institutions which place standing orders for all the Statutory Instruments within their fields. Do those people have to pay for non-runners?
4.57 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I am obliged to your Lordships for the reception that has been given to these regulations. In response to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, I point out that what I need is not safety regulations but a good trade union—and I shall see what I can do about that! However, the noble Lord made a point about dressing-gowns. It is certainly the case that children's dressing-gowns often come into contact with a child's skin. We felt that we did not want to be exposed to the risk of a manufacturer arguing that it was not intended to come into contact with the skin, and that is why children's dressing-gowns are specifically mentioned in these regulations.
As regards the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Airedale, I should like to thank him for having given me advance notice of them. The main need is to ensure that British Standards which are referred to in Statutory Instruments are readily available in the United Kingdom. They are, of course, obtainable both over the counter and by post from the British Standards Institution's sales department in London, and they can also be purchased at nine regional sales offices. These arrangements seem to have worked well and, as far as it is known, no difficulties have arisen.
Up to about 10 years ago British Standards were, in fact, available also from Her Majesty's Stationery Office. However, that arrangement came to an end on HMSO's initiative because of the very considerable problems encountered—for example, as regards shelf space—in keeping a stock of the very large range of
422
Standards, now numbering about 8,000. It is understood that the BSI would be prepared to consider any approach from HMSO about the selling of Standards through HMSO outlets, but the difficulties previously encountered would probably still exist. There could also be problems in connection with the issue of amendments to Standards, of which there are about 700 a year, and the keeping of stocks up to date. Indeed, 200 Standards are withdrawn each year and between 600 and 700 new ones issued.
Finally, because of the way in which the BSI is funded, it is important for the BSI to have a way of persuading customers to become members by offering a discount and that would, to some extent, be lost if Standards were available other than from the BSI. I am advised that HMSO would be prepared to consider the matter in consultation with the BSI if asked to do so, but in the circumstances to which I have referred it may well be preferable to leave matters as they are.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, may I say that I am not asking that the Stationery Office should stock 8,000 British Standards. I am only asking that it should stock those which are specifically referred to by Statutory Instruments, since a Statutory Instrument is not really complete without the British Standard to which it refers.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, I must say that that is a valid point. It was not the one to which I applied my mind and prepared myself to speak this afternoon. However, I shall consider it further and write to the noble Lord.
The noble Lord also raised the question of what happens when a draft Statutory Instrument is superseded, as in this case, and whether subscribers to the one superseded receive some of their money back. I understand that this matter is currently being considered by the Civil Service Department, in conjunction with other departments, in response to an inquiry from the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments, and I am advised that it would not be appropriate for me to anticipate the outcome of the deliberation by the Joint Committee. With those explanations, I hope that your Lordships will see fit to approve these regulations.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CHILD BENEFIT AND SOCIAL SECURITY (FIXING AND ADJUSTMENT OF RATES) AMENDMENT REGULATIONS 1980
5 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I beg to move that the Child Benefit and Social Security (Fixing and Adjustment of Rates) Amendment Regulations 1980 be approved. The regulations are concerned with child benefit increase which is a weekly payment of £2.50 made to certain people bringing up children alone. The purpose of the regulations is two-fold. First, they seek to make the premium available to people who, single-handed, are bringing up children who are not their own. Secondly, they remove an anomaly underwhich someone cat, be excluded from entitlement if he is receiving a specified benefit now payable at a rate lower than child benefit increase.
At present only lone parents are eligible for the premium. There are, however, people other than parents who are bringing up children single-handed—for example, some grandparents are in this position. They have to cope with the same difficulties, financial and otherwise, as lone parents. In the fields of income tax, supplementary benefits and family income supplement, easements for what are generally termed "one-parent families" are alreadyextended to such people. The Government consider it is right and fair, therefore, that they should also be included within the scope of the help provided by the child benefit increase, and these regulations so extend eligibility to make their inclusion possible.
With regard to the second purpose of the regulations, someone is excluded from entitlement to the premium if he is receiving one of the benefits specified for this purpose in the main regulations. The specified benefits are all long-term, and initially all made provision for a child at a rate higher than that of child benefit increase. Among them are dependency allowances to industrial death benefit and industrial diseases benefit in respect of pre-1948 employment. Both dependency allowances are payable at a higher or a lower rate according to the circumstances of the case. The lower rate is now below the level of child benefit increase, which
424
is now five times higher than when it was first introduced in 1977 at the rate of 50p. As long as the lower rate continues to be included in the specified benefits, someone can be denied the more substantial help that he would otherwise receive through the child benefit increase. The Government wish to remove this anomaly.
I am confident that your Lordships will accept the regulations before you. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft regulations laid before the House on 11th December 1979, be approved.—(Lord Cullen of Ashbourne.)
5.3 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am sure that the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Minister for his explanation of the instrument now before your Lordships. Very briefly, I should like to raise a number of matters. I cannot resist the temptation to ask the noble Lord whether he has any information yet as to whether the child benefit will, in fact, be increased next November. I think I am right in saying that a decision has already been taken not to increase it this April.
Arising out of the position of single-parent families, I want to raise three small matters. The noble Lord has quite rightly said that in addition to the £4 given weekly by way of child benefit to single parents along with other parents, there is a premium of £2·50 per week for the first child. My understanding of the situation is that less than half the single parents entitled to that £2·50 in fact receive it because they have not taken it up. I am well aware that the department has spent a certain amount of money in trying to draw this entitlement to the attention of single parents. Perhaps the noble Lord will at some time let me know whether or not that campaign still exists and, if so, what steps are being taken? Secondly, if it does not exist, can the noble Lord say whether the Government are prepared to embark upon another campaign?
Having said that only half the single parents take this up, I think I am right in saying that about half single parents have more than one child—they have two children. I think that it has been the

425
practice of Governments over some period of time to recognise that single parents are in a very difficult financial situation, notwithstanding the help they receive from the State. I wonder whether the Government have considered, or would be prepared to consider, making the £2·50 available to the second child. It may well be that there would be some other loss of benefit—I do not know. However, bearing in mind that over half single-parent families have two children, it would perhaps be a step in the right direction if the Government were to consider the £2·50 premium for the second child.
I turn to my second point, and in a sense I do not know whether it has been considered. However, in looking at the whole problem of single parents, as I have been doing recently, I am amazed to find the number of those who are single parents by virtue of the fact that the husband is in prison—I accept some for short terms and some for quite long terms. I wonder whether the Government will give consideration to regarding prisoners' wives as single parents, and whether they will feel able to extend the premium to them. That is all I want to say. Perhaps the noble Lord will answer my questions at some stage; I do not ask for a reply this afternoon because I appreciate that these points have to be thought out very carefully. We support this instrument.
5.7 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I, too, should like to join in thanking the noble Lord for this careful explanation of these regulations. I welcome the extension of the child benefit increase to persons bringing up children who are not their own. I also welcome the removal of the anomaly whereby people in receipt of benefit lower than the child benefit increase were excluded. We on these Benches find these regulations to be non-controversial and unexceptionable, and I am happy to support their passage through the House.
Of course, single parents would be helped not only by an increase in the benefit provided specifically for them, but by any increase in child benefit. Therefore, can the noble Lord give any indication whether the Government will increase child benefit in the foreseeable future? After all, income tax allowances have been replaced
426
by child benefit; when such allowances are raised the only way in which one can take account of children is, at the same time, by increasing child benefit. That was not done in the last Budget, so the position of people with children worsened as against those without children. Can the noble Lord give us any indication whether the Government intend to grant an increase in child benefit, particularly as that would be instrumental in reducing considerably the number of recipients of supplementary benefit at present. It seems to us on these Benches that the case for an uprating is overwhelming.
5.10 p.m.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords for their approval of this order. The main question that I was asked was whether there is likely to be an uprating in child benefits in November. I am extremely sorry that I am in no position to give an answer to that. It will obviously depend on the financial resources available at the time. As I think your Lordships know, we in the Government are just as keen on child benefits as the Labour Party and also the Liberal Party.
The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, asked me several questions to which I think I can give him some answers today. Regarding the take-up of the premium, I understand that it is now accepted that about 60 per cent. take-up occurs. We had initiated steps to improve take-up with child benefit increase posters, TV fillers, and so on. My right honourable friend will be reviewing the take-up situation in the summer to see what further steps are then needed and what are practicable. The noble Lord also asked whether the Government would consider the increase being payable for more than one child; say, for the second child. I understand the position is that, because child benefit increase is payable under the Child Benefit Act, it has to be related to a particular child. It is nevertheless regarded as a benefit for the family as a whole, but there are no plans for making it payable in respect of other individual children, anyhow at this time.
Regarding the rather controversial suggestion about prisoners' wives, there is a case for extending child benefit increase to the wives of longer-term prisoners, but the extension could only be achieved

427
by abandoning for this group of families a fundamental feature of the benefit; that the separation is likely to be permanent. If that test is satisfied, then the child benefit increase is already payable. To make it payable even if the separation is not likely to be permanent would contrast unfavourably with the position of other families where the husband's employment provides no other option but to be away from home for long periods. Noble Lords will appreciate that the issue is a complicated one, and my right honourable friend is not considering making any change at present.
Baroness FAITHFULL: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, may I briefly intervene? May I ask the indulgence of the House to intervene on points slightly away from these regulations, but bearing in mind that there may be a change before next November? May I ask the Minister whether it is clearly appreciated that in this country there is still the poverty trap? I feel strongly over this, having made my maiden speech on it. The poverty trap means that a number of men and families are better off out of work than in work. This applies particularly to the low-paid workers. If the child benefits were to be raised, then the low paid workers would prefer—in fact, in any case they would prefer—to be in work. But many men who are out of work at the moment, having calculated that if they get certain low paid work they will have less coming into their house than if they stay out of work, opt, perhaps understandably, to stay out of work. If the child benefits were to be raised, then many men, I would submit, particularly the low paid workers, would get jobs, would be happier within themselves. This in fact at the end of the day would redound back on the Government, and there would not be so much money to be paid out in supplementary benefits.
Would the Minister not agree that child benefits should be treated as a personal tax allowance, so that as tax allowances for adults are increased, child benefits
428
would be adjusted proportionately? Otherwise the position of married couples with children will continue to deteriorate. The aim should surely be to continue the simplification of the tax structure, and ensure that child benefits keep in step in the future, giving equal support to families in and out of work.
Finally, may I ask the Minister whether the financial return on giving particularly good child benefits to parents with children under five has ever been considered? Many parents at the moment are going out to work instead of staying at home. They are putting their children out to child-minders, or making other arrangements for them, because of the need for the money. If they were able to have the option and stay at home and look after their children, particularly those aged nought to five, I believe that in the long run there would be a good return. Research in the delinquency field has shown—though not always—that often a contributory factor has been that children have not been able to have an immensely satisfactory and satisfying life between nought and three. At the end of the day, it would pay this country to give good child benefits to enable the woman who is now going out to work to stay at home.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for her intervention. What she said is of great interest to the House. It was in point of fact, as she herself said, not particularly connected with the regulations that we were dealing with, but I am quite sure that my right honourable friend will be more than pleased to read what she has said.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I understood from listening to the noble Baroness that at the beginning she asked a question. If the noble Lord, on reflection, feels that she did and he writes to her, may I please have a copy of the letter?
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: Certainly.
On Question, Motion agreed to.