Lords Sitting of 27 July 1981

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

Royal Assent
The Lord Chancellor (Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone): My Lords, I have to notify the House, in accordance with the Royal Assent Act 1967, that the Queen has signified her Royal Assent to the following Acts:

Finance Act,

Town and Country Planning (Minerals) Act,

Zoo Licensing Act,

British Telecommunications Act,

Forestry Act,

Licensing (Amendment) Act,

Local Government and Planning (Amendment) Act,

Indecent Displays (Control) Act,

Disabled Persons Act,

Countryside (Scotland) Act,

Forgery and Counterfeiting Act,

Iron and Steel Act,

Criminal Attempts Act,

Atomic Energy (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act,

Contempt of Court Act,

Friendly Societies Act,

County of Kent Act,

South Yorkshire Act,

Wallerawang Collieries, Limited Act,

Peterborough Development Corporation Act,

Preston Borough Council Act,

British Railways Act,

United Reformed Church Act,

East Sussex Act,

Milford Docks Act,

Northumbrian Water Authority Act.

Post Offices: Accessibility
2.39 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: 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 how many post offices there are in England and Wales; how many are accessible to the disabled; and how many have been made accessible since 1970.
The Minister of State, Department of Employment (The Earl of Gowrie): My Lords, in England and Wales there are 1,354 Crown Post Offices and 18,076 sub-post offices. I am informed by the Post Office, which has responsibility for such matters, that data on accessibility for the disabled to Crown Offices is not available centrally and the information could not be obtained except at disproportionate expense. I understand,
546
however, that the Post Office has pursued a policy of incorporating access for the disabled into all new Crown Offices built since 1970 and of adapting existing buildings, where practicable and reasonable, to improve access for the disabled.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, while I thank the noble Earl for that very adequate reply, may I ask whether he is aware that the people wishing to draw their mobility allowances have to go to the post office for it, and it is difficult for them if they cannot get access? Also, we want to have another type of access for those who are not in wheelchairs but who need handrails to enable them to get up numerous steps, in many cases.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for reminding us of some of the difficulties that can fall on the disabled in respect of post offices, and I shall draw her point to the attention of the Post Office.
Viscount Ingleby: My Lords, may I ask the Minister whether he is aware that the problem has been solved at Dartmouth in Devon? This has been done by constructing a ramp parallel to the front of the post office, curving into the entrance and closed in so that it is protected from the weather and does not become slippery, and it is provided with handrails so that it is suitable for the ambulant disabled as well as for the wheelchair disabled.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most grateful for that information. I am glad that Dartmouth is so enlightened and I hope that others will follow.

Iran: Export of Tank Engines
2.41 p.m.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether British tank engines have been illegally exported to Iran; whether Iran paid several times the market price to secure the illicit deal; and who shared in the profits.
The Minister of State for Defence Procurement (Viscount Trenchard): My Lords, investigations into whether Scorpion engines have been illegally exported from this country have been in progress for some time. It would not be appropriate to comment further at this stage of the inquiries.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, would the noble Viscount agree that the British Leyland subsidiary, Alvis, appears to have been involved in this deal? Will he further agree that it appears to have gone ahead despite the Government's embargo on such exports? Will he make it clear to Alvis that they do not escape responsibility by dealing through an intermediary?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, as I have said, at this stage of the inquiry I do not want to make many further comments. Alvis were the manufacturers and they have not broken the law. So far as the export is concerned, at this stage of the investigation all I am prepared to say is that it appears that other firms may have exported these engines illegally.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, does the Minister not agree that this is an extraordinarily serious statement, that arms are being exported illegally? Will he say what control there is at the ports for the export of these arms? Surely licences have to be given, and is there machinery by which it can be assured that no arms without licences are exported?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, again I am satisfied that the customs and excise controls on a basis of export licences do constitute an efficient system. At this stage of the investigation I would rather not comment any further.
Lord Bruce of Donington: My Lords, can the noble Viscount say how long he expects the investigations to take? Will he give the House an assurance that when the investigations are complete the House will be informed of the result?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, anticipating that question, I have in fact tried to ascertain how long it is likely to take. I cannot give a definitive answer, but the investigations will be completed as soon as possible and they will be followed by the appropriate steps of a responsible Government.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, could I press the noble Viscount a little further? Will he take up the point suggested by my noble friend on the Front Bench; that is, that at the end of the proceedings a Statement will be made to the House?
Viscount Trenchard: My Lords, I very deliberately did not say exactly that. The situation is now sub judice and the next steps will depend upon the correct procedures.

Business Failures: April-June Quarter
2 45 pm
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether the record number of business failures in the April-June quarter demonstrates the success of their economic strategy.
The Minister of State, Treasury (Lord Cockfield): My Lords, the available evidence does not support the noble Lord's claim that the number of business failures in the April to June quarter was a record. On the contrary, the evidence is that failures may well now be on a downward trend.
Lord Hatch of Lusby: My Lords, I have made no statement; I have asked a Question. Can the noble Lord confirm or deny that in the quarter mentioned in my Question, April to June this year, 2,296 companies went into liquidation; that this brought the total for the first six months of this year to over 4,500, which is 44 per cent. more than in the relevant period for 1980? Is this what the Government mean when the Prime Minister talks about industry being fit and lean?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the noble Lord's Question consisted of a statement, namely, that there was a record number of business failures, followed by a conclusion that he drew from it. If he would care to refer to the publication Financial Statistics by the Central Statistical Office, he will find that the number of business failures in 1975 was higher than it was in 1980; he will find that the number of business failures in 1976 was higher than it was in 1980; he will find that the number of business failures in 1977 was only marginally less than it was in 1980. I place no weight on these particular figures. But what they do illustrate is that the number of business failures is much more related to the progress of a recession than to the economic policy of any particular Government. If the noble Lord now wishes to look at the number of failures for the quarter ended June, which was the quarter specifically mentioned in his Question, he will find the latest figures in the publication British Business which appeared on Friday. The figures are necessarily incomplete because of the disruption in the Civil Service, but in so far as they go—and I stress those words—they suggest that the total number of failures is falling rather than rising.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, while noting—and may we ask him why?—that the noble Lord did not mention the 1979 figures, may I also ask him whether he thinks it proper to question the nature of the Parliamentary Question which my noble friend put down, which was presumably passed by the Table? It appears to us to be not a statement but a Question, and it comes rather ill from the noble Lord to dispute it.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I entirely disagree with the noble Baroness. It is not unusual for Questions to contain statements of fact. Where those statements of fact are wrong or questionable, I think it is only right that this should be pointed out.
Lord Nugent of Guildford: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the Table Office has no responsibility with regard to the form of a Question? The form of the Question is entirely the responsibility of the noble Lord putting it down.
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, that is entirely correct, which is why I refrained from following up the point made by the noble Baroness about the Question having been passed by the Table. It is not at all unusual for Questions to contain statements of fact, because the Question presumably is based upon something, although the noble Baroness is no doubt acquainted with many Questions based on nothing at all; but some Questions are based upon something, and if

549
what they are based upon is questionable, I think it not unreasonable to point that out.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the Clerks do give the many individual Members of our House a great deal of advice which we very willingly accept? Is he further aware that we on these Benches feel that if he approached these Questions with a good deal less cynicism we should enjoy his Answers much better?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I must take exception to the remarks of the noble Baroness. The noble Lord, apart from making a statement, was asking for some information, and I was endeavouring to draw his attention to the information that was available. The information which is available does in fact indicate what I said. I see nothing controversial about this; I made no attack of any sort on the record of the Labour Government; I could easily have done so. All I did was to draw attention to the fact that in the last recession, which like this one was sparked off by an oil price explosion, we also had a rise followed in due time by a fall in the number of business failures. This is a well known fact, and I cannot see why it should be regarded as controversial.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that as a result of the loan guarantee scheme and the start-up scheme, which began only a month ago, the signs are extremely encouraging?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend. These are measures which have been taken by the Government to assist the creation of new businesses.
Lord Shinwell: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us admire his capacity to defend very adequately the Government's economic policy? However, would he not sometimes yield a little and admit that the Government's economic policy has not been altogether an unqualified success?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I am always grateful to the noble Lord for his assistance. I do not think that from the dawn of history any economic policy, or indeed any other policy, has been an unqualified success. All I claim is that we have done better than our predecessors—a very modest claim.
Baroness Macleod of Borve: My Lords, can my noble friend give us the figures for the same quarter of businesses that have started as opposed to those that have failed?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, it is very difficult to give a straight answer to that question. There are an enormous number of new businesses which have been created. Last year, for example, there were 70,000 new companies registered, compared with something like 5,000 or 6,000 which were liquidated. But it would be quite wrong to pretend that we have 70,000 entirely new enterprises compared with only 5,000 or 6,000 which have disappeared.
Lord Beswick: My Lords, when the noble Lord says that the failures are due to the economic recession and not governmental policy, are we to understand from him that Government policy has no effect one way or the other upon the recession?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the Government's policies are designed to provide a long-term solution to the problems which have been posed by the recession.
Lord Morris: My Lords, does my noble friend find it in any way regrettable that a Question can have been tabled in your Lordships' House in terms of petulant sarcasm?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, I would only say that we all greatly regret the number of business failures. There is no dispute between the two sides of the House on that issue. But I do not think that it is really helpful if one tries to exaggerate the size of the problem. That is the only point that I have been trying to make.
Lord Jenkins of Putney: My Lords, does the noble Lord not agree that his party is supposed to be the friend of the businessman? Would he not further agree that some businessmen are beginning to regret the money that they have poured into the Conservative Party?
Lord Cockfield: My Lords, the present Government are the friend of all the people in this country.
The Lord President of the Council (Lord Soames): My Lords, I think that we have had a fair crack at this Question and it is, I believe, the feeling of the House that we should move on to the next Question.

Television 405-Line Services
2.53 p.m.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will now instruct the BBC to close down their outdated 405-line black and white TV transmissions, and thus save money and energy, and make these frequencies available to the Home Office for other valuable uses.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Home Office (Lord Belstead); My Lords, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary has no plans to accelerate the timetable which he announced on 20th May last year in another place for the phased closure of the 405-line VHF services of the BBC and the IBA. These services are reaching the end of their useful life, but surveys carried out by the broadcasting authorities have indicated that there are still many small communities which can receive the 405-line services but which do not receive satisfactory 625-line UHF services. Accordingly, the closure of the 405-line

551
services is to begin in 1982 and will be phased over a period of about four years in such a way as to minimise any inconvenience to the remaining 405-line viewers.
Lord Orr-Ewing: My Lords, would my noble friend not agree that frequencies are a very valuable commodity and that these particular bands are badly needed for the development of mobile radio and other essential services such as the police, the fire service and the like? Would it not, therefore, be an advantage if notice were now given that for a relatively small number of very old sets—between 20 and 40 years old—there will be a speeding up of the timetable, so that these wavebands may be available for essential and developing mobile services, just as they are already in the United States and in some Western European states?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, this is a difficult problem. There are people still using 405-line television and the only fair way, I think, of making the transition to 625-line television is through a phased programme. My noble friend specifically mentioned the question of the mobile radio services. I might add that it was at the request of my right honourable friend the Home Secretary that the Mobile Radio Committee is undertaking a study of the spectrum requirements for land mobile radio in the future.
The Duke of Atholl: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that there are many small communities in Scotland which are dependent on the 405-line services to receive any television reception at all, and that they would bitterly resent it if the Government increased the speed with which they are phasing out the 405-line services unless they received their own particular local stations on 625-lines? I imagine that that would be a fairly expensive undertaking at present or, for that matter, at any future time?
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I appreciate what my noble friend the Duke of Atholl has just said about communities in Scotland. My noble friend may wish to have his attention drawn to the fact that when my right honourable friend the Home Secretary on 20th May last year answered a Question for Written Answer about the programme of phasing out the 405-line television services, my right honourable friend also announced what are called "self-help schemes" for communities which will not be able to receive 625-line television.
Earl De La Warr: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the BBC is most anxious to close down this service next year? Would he also agree that it is becoming almost impossible to maintain these old sets because spares simply are not available? Would he further agree that second-hand monochrome 625-line sets can be bought very cheaply indeed? Therefore, in so far as there is hardship, I do not think it is relevant.
Lord Belstead: My Lords, I generally take my noble friend's advice in matters of broadcasting, but in this particular instance I think that next year would be too soon. There is the need to try to look after the smaller communities, and at the moment both the BBC and the
552
IBA have what they call their Phase Two programme for extending 625-line coverage to communities with a permanent population of 500 or more. That will be followed up with a Phase Three programme for the very small communities of 200 or more—and that within the period of four years when we believe that the 405-line television should come to an end.

Dinner
Lord Denham: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of your Lordships if I announce that dinner will be available today at the usual time. Dinner will also be available at the usual time on Tuesday and Thursday of this week. I should perhaps add that the Refreshment Department will not be open on Wednesday of this week.
Consolidated Fund (Appropriation) Bill
Brought from the Commons endorsed with the Certificate from the Speaker that the Bill is a Money Bill within the meaning of the Parliament Act 1911; read 1a.
Greater London Council (Money) Bill
Read 3a, and passed.
County of Avon Bill [H.L.]

  Derbyshire Bill [H.L.]
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, in moving the first of the next two Motions that stand in my name on the Order Paper I should like to say a brief word about both of them. They are the usual end of Session Motions to enable Private Bills to continue their progress through Parliament in the new Session. The first Motion refers to two Private Bills which started in this House and are still with us, and the second Motion refers to three Private Bills which started in another place and are now in this House. I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
  Moved, That the Promoters of the Bills have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bills, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to that period shall have been paid;
  That such Bills shall be deposited in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the third day on which the House shall sit after the commencement of the next Session of Parliament, with a declaration annexed to each, signed by the Agent, stating that the Bill is the same in every respect as the Bill at the last stage of the proceedings thereon in this House in the present Session;

  553
  That the proceedings on such Bills shall in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session, and that no new fees be charged to such stages;
  That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bills in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
  On Question, Motion agreed to.

British Railways (No. 2) Bill
  Greater London Council (General Powers) Bill

    Yarmouth (Isle of Wight) Pier Bill
    Lord Aberdare: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
    Moved, That the Promoters of the Bill have leave to suspend any further proceedings thereon, in order to proceed with the Bill, if they shall think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that notice of their intention to do so be lodged in the Office of the Clerk of the Parliaments not later than three o'clock on the day before the close of the present Session, and that all fees due thereon up to the period shall have been paid;
    That, if any of the Bills are brought from the Commons in the next Session, the Agent for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration, signed by him, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Commons in the present Session;
    That the proceedings on such Bill shall, in the next Session of Parliament be pro forma only in regard to every stage through which the same shall have passed in the present Session and that no new fees be charged in regard to such stages;
    That the Standing Orders by which the proceedings on Bills are regulated shall not apply in the next Session of Parliament to such Bill in regard to any of the stages through which the same shall have passed during the present Session.—(Lord Aberdare.)
    On Question, Motion agreed to.

Belize Bill
3 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
Clause 1 [Fully responsible status of Belize]:
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Before the amendment is called, I should like to ask the Minister a question. As some of the amendments to this Bill refer to the date of independence, what is the justification for declaring on television last night and in the newspapers this morning a specific date for independence before this House has agreed the date?
Lord Skelmersdale: As I am about to say, this was agreed between my honourable friend the Minister of State, Mr. Ridley, and the Belizean Prime Minister, Mr. Price, at discussions last week. At this stage, I would not want to anticipate that statement. if the noble Lord wants me to, of course I would be prepared to do so.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I accept that it was an agreement between the Minister of State and the Prime Minister of Belize, but this Bill is before the House and has to be approved before independence is granted and an appropriate date fixed in accordance with the decision of this House. Does that not anticipate a decision of this House before the decision is taken?
Lord Skelmersdale: No; I understand that in independence Bills this is perfectly normal. I believe that one of the most recent to come before your Lordships' House was the Zimbabwe Independence Bill. This matter is not included in the Bill, but is in the special procedure which goes before Her Majesty in Council. We are not doing anything different in this Bill from what we have done in the past.
Lord Avebury: In view of what the Minister has said, would he be prepared to accept a manuscript amendment to write the actual date into the Bill, instead of this charade of an Order in Council?
Lord Skelmersdale: I should have thought that it would be for the convenience of the Committee if we discussed this with the appropriate amendments, rather than at this point. However, I am in the Committee's hands on this matter.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think that there is some point in the noble Lord's question. Whether it is done by agreement behind a chair, or in any other way, it means that it is anticipating Parliament's decision before that decision has been made. If there are strong reasons for that—outside needs that could be explained—it might well be that one could overlook it. But without those reasons, I think that we ought jealously to guard the fact that we still have the power to oppose this date if there are good reasons for doing so, and the anticipation could therefore be an embarrassment.
3.4 p.m.
Baroness Vickers Baroness Vickers moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 7, at end insert ("but will continue to take appropriate measures to protect the integrity of Belize").
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move this amend-

555
ment, which stands in my name and that of the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham. I had hoped that we would have had a statement before debating this Bill, because that would have made matters very much easier. I think that it must be agreed that this independence Bill must be regarded as unique in the matter of procedure. It went through all its stages in the House of Commons in fewer than two hours late at night. When, as was reported in The Times, the talks between Guatemala and Belize in New York, failed, this put everything in jeopardy. I understand that the United Kingdom therefore decided to go ahead and give independence to end colonial rule under the terms of the United Nations resolution that requires Belize to achieve full independence by the end of 1981.
So, this amendment is a probing amendment to find out how, and for how long, the Government intend to protect the integrity of Belize, in view of the fact that President Lucas Garcia has said that if Britain were to grant independence unilaterally—which appears to be what we intend to do—Guatemala would regard that independence as illegitimate and would not recognise the sovereignty of the Belizean régime headed by the present Prime Minister, Mr. George Price.
During the Second Reading debate, I mentioned that Belize is an oasis of democracy in South America and I continue to consider that point. Democracy is very important to Belize, and I want to discuss the future of Belize when it becomes independent, and whether this democracy can be guaranteed. It was stated that there was a list of heads of agreement. I now understand that it is unsigned, and that, if it had been signed, it would not have been a legal document and, therefore, would have no standing.
In 1971, Britain sent troops to prevent a possible invasion by Guatemala. Can the noble Lord give an assurance that the present situation is different? In view of the fact that the Belize defence force is little more than two years old and numbers only 600 men, I gather that it would be impossible to train more than 1,000 a year in the next two years. Guatemala has 16,000 of the best trained soldiers in Central America, and I understand that it is also being supplied with arms by the United States of America.
The main worry is that many nations are waiting to exploit the vast untapped oil reserves and also the hundreds of thousands of acres of very fertile and uncultivated land. It is stated that in the off-shore Cays, the waters are teeming with fish. If seismic reports are accurate, Belize floats on a sea of oil, which has attracted the attention of oilmen from America, Holland and West Germany. Speaking in the capital of Belmopan, the Prime Minister, Mr. Price, revealed on 23rd June 1981 that Guatemalan dictatorship was seeking to establish a naval base in the strategic island of Sapodilla. I gather that the Prime Minister is willing to co-operate with Guatemala in trade and agriculture but that he objects to any military installations.
I want to know how Belize will be defended after the Union Jack is hauled down. I do not agree with the Foreign Office spokesman who, as reported in the Morning Star on 23rd June, 1981, stated that:
556
"After independence, Belize becomes part of the American sphere of influence. After all, it is in Uncle Sam's back yard".
I do not want to think that any Commonwealth country will be in Uncle Sam's back yard.
The strategic pickings for the United States of America in Belize, where there is an airbase which lies only 250 miles from the capitals of Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala, would be very useful to the Americans. The opportunities to train in anti-guerrilla warfare would also be useful. As far back as 1968 the Daily Express warned that there was a secret plan, drawn up under powerful American influences, which would, in effect, hand over Belize to Guatemala. I gather that Mr. Bethad Webster was the mediator. It was stated that after independence Belize should not be allowed to become a member of the British Commonwealth. This was stated by President Johnson, who made it plain in 1968 that:
" There was no room for the British Commonwealth on the South American Continent ".
President Kennedy gave a strong assurance to the Guatemalans that
"Britain would be seen off double quick ".
In October 1980 a document entitled Free Belize Now stated:
"Our independence is not negotiable".
It is a question of how the United Kingdom might satisfy Guatemala regarding the alleged breach of the 19th century treaty, which was signed in 1859, to look after the country itself. In 1940 Guatemala repudiated this treaty on the ground that the cart road had not been made. In October 1979 the Belize Prime Minister informed the United Nations that the Government of Guatemala agents were actively engaged in the internal affairs of Belize.
Several times during the negotiations the Guatemalans have threatened with military force, once even as we sat at the negotiating table in Washington DC. Belize is accorded special status by the non-aligned movement which has pledged its unconditional support of Belizean independence. Mexico has also offered its full support. But what guarantee is Britain going to give to Belize? Will it remain a fully independent country of the Commonwealth? This is the reason I am moving this amendment today. I beg to move.
3.11 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am grateful to my noble friend for having moved this amendment. Since there have been changes in the position since I spoke to you on this matter on Second Reading I welcome the opportunity now to give the Committee details of what has been agreed with the Government of Belize. Premier Price of Belize and my honourable friend the Minister of State have, as I told the House a few minutes ago, discussed on 22nd July the arrangements to be made after independence on 21st September for the defence of Belize.
Recognising their responsibility to bring Belize to secure independence Her Majesty's Government have agreed with the Government of Belize appropriate measures to ensure a sound basis for the future security of Belize from any external threat. It was agreed that British forces would remain in Belize after independence

557
for an appropriate period under arrangements to be made in an exchange of notes between the two Governments on the attainment of independence by Belize. At the same time the British Government would provide military training, aid and assistance including the provision of training teams, and lend service personnel to assist in the development and growth of the Belize defence force. The Belize Government, for its part, would make available training areas for use by British forces as required.
It was further agreed that certain countries in the region would be invited to participate in arrangements with the United Kingdom under which, in the event of armed attack against Belize, externally organised or supported, or the threat of such an attack, they would consult together to consider what measures should be taken in relation to such an attack. These arrangements should be viewed in the context of Belize's membership of the United Nations and of the Commonwealth and against the background of the international support already expressed for Belize's independence within its traditional and existing borders. Her Majesty's Government and the Government of Belize consider that these measures provide a sound basis for the future security and territorial integrity of Belize.
The Government therefore recognise their responsibility to bring Belize to secure independence, but I do not feel that this amendment is necessary since security will, as I have said, be the subject of a specific agreement between the Governments of Belize and the United Kingdom which will set out in detail the measures to be taken. The amendment is therefore, I am afraid, not acceptable to the Government. My noble friend Lady Vickers expressed reservations on the Guatemalan position in this matter, and I am happy to be able to tell the Committee that newspapers of 23rd July in Guatemala City report a statement made the day before by President Lucas Garcia in reply to journalists' questions about Premier Price's reported attempts to obtain defence guarantees from Britain, Mexico, and Canada.
The President of Guatemala said:
"Guatemala will never invade Belize. Guatemala is not an aggressor and we have no interest in destroying the Belizeans. They are our brothers, even though we have differences. We would never come to the point of invading that territory, for to do so rather than benefiting us would bring upon us the revenge of the world. The United Nations wants independence to be given to the Belizeans and we shall keep silent. If they could reach a good understanding with us this would suit them because we could co-operate with them. It is always a good idea to live in accord with one's neighbour, and I consider that it would serve them well to sign the heads of agreement and stay friends with Guatemala".
I hope this gives added point to my earlier remarks.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I think it has been helpful that the noble Minister has been able to make this statement. I am not sure that it follows from what he says that the amendment is unnecessary. We have certainly travelled further than we have before both in the terms of the statement of the President of Guatemala and in the degree of explicitness in the Government's commitment to the defence of Belize. We are glad to hear that the forces are to remain there.
They are to remain there—I think this is the Govern-
558
ment's own phrase—while it is appropriate that they should, and that term indeed appears in the amendment, as well. It is evident that the Government regard it as appropriate that the forces should be there now. I take it they regard it as appropriate because it has not been possible to reach agreement with Guatemala. It is that fact which makes it appropriate that the forces should remain. I hope we can assume from that, therefore, that the forces will remain until an agreement has been reached with Guatemala, and we may have more confidence of the future safety of Belize from attack, because that is really what is in issue.
Many points have been raised about this Bill and we know that there are differences of opinion among the Belizean people on many aspects of it; on the form of the constitution, and many other matters. Those are not necessarily matters with which this House can deal very well. They are matters for the Belizeans to settle. But this question of the security and integrity of Belize is something that this House ought to be satisfied with before we proceed further with the Bill.
I do not know that I need to press the point further than to say that I hope the Government will take an opportunity before we part with this amendment of making it clear that "appropriate" means as long as there are any reasonable grounds to fear a possible danger from Guatemala, or indeed anywhere else, to Belize. Not that I think that there is anywhere else. One encouraging sign in the whole business has been the understanding attitude of other countries on the American continent. If the Government are able to say anything further about the attitude of the United States to the whole matter, that also might be able to give encouragement to the Committee. There are then a few more things that the Government need to say, and in the meantime the amendment is still on the Marshalled List and we might vote for it.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: I should like to support what has just been said by the noble Lord, Lord Stewart. While these reassuring statements have been made from Guatemala in the last few days, may I recall that on 1st July Guatemala's president, General Romeo Lucas Garcia, voiced the hope that there would be a conclusion of a treaty, but declared that meanwhile his Government maintained all its claims and it would not recognise an independent Belize created by unilateral British action. General Rodrigues, the head of the defence department, said that a unilateral declaration of independence would be opposed by the Guatemalans.
They have built up very considerable military capacity since the Americans are now delivering weapons to Guatemala. The people in charge of Guatemala seem to be the military rather than political leaders, and this creates a danger. American arms were refused to Guatemala, in view of their bad record on human rights, since 1977. But now the United States has started to deliver large quantities of arms to that country. While it can be said that the British will train officers and a defence force in Belize, I would point out that the total population of Belize is 150,000 while the total population of Guatemala, which has a very considerable army, is 40 times that, and the

559
possibility of the Belizeans ever building up a sufficient defence force is remote.
The Minister said that there would be support from other countries involved in the area. Nevertheless, the present situation in Guatemala is dangerous because there is severe economic strain with the Government under a good deal of pressure—it is not uncommon for countries to embark on military enterprises to relieve the concerns of their domestic situation. I should have thought it was extremely dangerous to grant independence to Belize without the assurances which the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, has sought.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: While we welcome the explanation given by the Minister and his statement that, in anticipation of the Bill being approved, appropriate action had been taken in the form of agreements which he thought would meet the problems which had been outlined by noble Lords on both sides of the House—and it seems as though those agreements will work out all right—why should that mean that we cannot accept the amendment? I should have thought that the amendment being written into the Bill would strengthen those arrangements, which I gather will be agreed to once the Bill has gone through its parliamentary procedures and received the Royal Assent.
At the end of the day the agreements about which my noble friend spoke, like all agreements, can be broken or there can be moves to amend them for all sorts of new reasons that may arise between now and the effectiveness of this legislation. Like my noble friend and noble Lords opposite, I should like to feel that we are committed under the Bill to ensure that appropriate action is possible, so that we can look upon the preparations that have been made as a sensible anticipation of what might happen. However, I believe that in no way relieves us of our responsibility, in the words of the amendment, to ensure that we are obliged under statute,
"to take appropriate measures to protect the integrity of Belize",
and I hope that in the circumstances, without in any way weakening the agreements that have been made, those words can form part of the Bill.
Lord Avebury: It is said that if you sup with the devil you must have a long spoon, and that certainly applies to the assurances that have been given by General Lucas Garcia, the dictator of Guatemala. It is proper that the Government should have made, as they have, a Statement promising that the military support for Belize should continue after independence and that we should assist the Belizean defence forces in building up their own strength. However, it was well put by the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, that it will be impossible for Belize ever to compete with Guatemala in the scale of its military effort because of the huge disparity between populations and resources. Even if we were prepared to station troops there for the purpose of training Belizean defence forces more or less indefinitely and build them up at the rate of 1,000 a year, as the noble Baroness suggested, so that after 16 years the Belizean forces would equal those of Guatemala, that would bankrupt the Belizean economy. Therefore it is not conceivable
560
that in the last resort the integrity of Belizean independence could depend on the strength of its own military forces.
I was glad, therefore, to hear the Minister say that certain countries in the region would be invited to participate in the guarantees of the security of Belize's boundaries. However, he went on to say that if there were any threat to the integrity of Belize, those nations would consult together to consider what measures should be taken. It seems to me that that falls short of the sort of absolute guarantees to which they are entitled. So long as the British are there and Belize is a dependency of this country, presumably we are committed in some absolute sense to sending reinforcements if there should be a threat of a Belizean invasion; but now, with the Americans building up the Guatemalan armed forces and, as the noble Lord said, supplying them with weapons, there could be threats in the future which would be the subject of consultation between the countries in the region but the might of the Guatemalan armed forces might be such that it would be impossible to take action within the time necessary to protect Belizean independence.
I therefore believe that if we were to write the words of the amendment into the Bill, even though the Minister says we intend to do what the amendment says, it would have an enormous effect on the morale of the people of Belize. It would show them that not only by the Statement which the Government issued over the weekend but also by writing it into the statute, we are determined not to back down through any threats that may be made by the Guatemalan dictators but will ensure that for all time the arrangements made are such as to safeguard the security of the Belizean people.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I am not sure about the advice given to the Committee by my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls. He can correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that if we were to amend the Bill in the way proposed we should lose the Bill until the autumn Session; it would have to go back to the Commons.
Lord Avebury: They could be recalled.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: That is a technical reason why I should think it would be unwise to press the amendment now. But it is on the merits of the matter that I feel that the arrangement between the Minister of State and the Prime Minister of Belize is better than the amendment, which, as I understand it, would commit the British Government to support Belize with military forces in perpetuity, whatever arrangements might be made in the meantime by countries which border on Belize for Belize's security. Again, at a later stage we should have to amend the Bill, I take it, if any other arrangements were made. I prefer the agreement made between the Minister in this country and the Prime Minister of Belize, which I believe will serve the interests of Belize rather better than something more rigid such as the wording of the amendment.
3.29 p.m.
Baroness Jeger: I, too, hope that the Government will accept the amendment, because we should try to look at this from the point of view of the people of

561
Belize. I have been receiving messages and telegrams right up to today from people there who are nervous because they do not accept that arrangements made between Ministers have the force of a statutory undertaking. Ministers come and go, in the same way as noble Lords come and go. For how much longer will Mr. Price be in office? Arrangements made in this way do not give confidence and support, and unless we have a mood of confidence in Belize we shall not have the happy end to colonial rule to which we should be looking forward. The Minister said British troops would remain for an appropriate period, but "appropriate" is a very subjective word; what may seem appropriate to your Lordships may not seem appropriate to the people of Belize, especially if Guatemalan troops should be gathering on their borders.
I was puzzled that the Minister should seem to be giving such credence to a statement made at a press conference by the dictator of Guatemala. If he means what he says, why has the treaty not gone ahead? Why have negotiations broken down? If the Guatemalan Government want the British Government to give credence to a statement made at a press conference at the same time that the Guatemalan Government are refusing to sign a treaty, one cannot wonder at the fact that the people of Belize are alarmed and surprised. There is no earthly reason why the people of Belize should believe something that the President of Guatemala happens to say at a press conference, and there is no reason why our Government should feel that such a statement represents sufficient grounds. In fact I consider it be to be something of an insult to Her Majesty's Ministers, who have worked hard on the negotiations with Guatemala, that these people should prefer to set out a new policy at a press conference while having broken off discussions on the treaty.
I want to support what has been said by other noble Lords about the disparity between the two countries—not only between the Belizean population of some 150,000 compared with 7 million Guatemalans; but of Belize's population of 150,000, half are aged under 15 years of age and a quarter are aged over 60. That does not provide much of a basis for a population to be trained up into an army over the years, even given the excellent standards of training which British officers can offer. I feel that we should at least put this amendment into the Bill so that we have an absolutely clear situation, and thus give the people of Belize more confidence in their future.
Lord Derwent: I do not quite understand what this amendment means. My noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel says that as drafted this amendment means that we would give an undertaking to Belize in perpetuity.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: The amendment does not mean that.
Lord Derwent: One cannot enter an agreement in perpetuity. Some future Government will say, "This amendment is in the Bill but there is nothing to say that it is in perpetuity, and, as far as we are concerned, we do not want to go on with it." A future Government are much more likely to abide by an undertaking
562
given by the Government in the past than by referring back to an amendment in a Bill which, in my view, means absolutely nothing in practice.
Lord Shepherd: In 1969 to 1970, when I was a Minister of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I was in close negotiation with Mr. Price, the Chief Minister of Belize, and with the Foreign Minister of Guatemala. It is a very involved story and one that goes back many years. I should be less than frank if I said to your Lordships that the Guatemalans were very clear that Belize belonged to them. This goes back to a period when South America was Spanish and when the British had a particular position there.
I undertook those negotiations together with my noble friend Lord Stewart of Fulham, who moved this amendment, who was then my Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. I negotiated on a very clear basis: that there was no defence treaty—that there was no defence commitment. I have to say to your Lordships that under those terms and conditions there was no way that the Government or the people of Belize would have contemplated independence. I have nothing but praise for the way in which the Government have sought to bring the two sides together; but I do wonder—and this is why I believe the first amendment has some relation to the following amendment—whether there should be a referendum and whether the people of Belize should be allowed to decide whether their country should become independent or not. I must admit that with the Bill now before your Lordships' House, I was very surprised to hear on the radio that the date of independence had already been declared.
The Foreign Minister with whom I was negotiating was assassinated shortly afterwards, and no one could say that the political structure of Guatemala is very secure. Therefore, without in any way wishing to cast doubts on the good faith of the present Ministers, I wonder how much good faith the people of Belize should place on future Ministers and future Governments. In my case I made it very clear that there was no defence treaty. The Ministers say we have a military commitment but they do not specify the length of that commitment, and I can fully appreciate their difficulties.
I believe that the people of Belize, if they want independence and knowing the past, ought to have a very clear view of the future. Are Her Majesty's Government going to stand by them if they go to independence? If the Government are not clear and cannot give the specific assurance asked for in this amendment, then I consider that the people of Belize ought to know this before they have a referendum. If the people of Belize do not have a very clear statement enshrined in this piece of legislation, then, when the referendum is held, I believe that the views of the Prime Minister of Belize may not perhaps be upheld.
I fully understand the Government's difficulties in this respect, but I believe that Belize, like some of the Windward and Leeward Islands, may be sent into independence under some degree of pressure. The pressure is on Belize to become independent, perhaps without full knowledge and certainty of its future. With regard to the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, the Bill will not be lost.

563
There is still time available—there would be time even in October. It may mean that independence is delayed, but I would prefer independence to be delayed if only to ensure that if Belize does become independent, it may be reasonably certain that its integrity will be not only acknowledged but will also continue. I believe it would be wrong to send any territory into independence unless we are sure of its future. If we are not sure, then within our limitations we should say in our statute: "If you become independent, we will support you."
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: I hope that the noble Lord the Minister will take into account not only the feelings which have been expressed on both sides of the Committee in favour of this amendment, but also the concern of some of those who have served the Church in Belize and who have given many years' service to the people of that country. One of their causes for concern is the record of the Guatemalan Government in relation to the Church and to the attempts of churchmen to defend the rights of the poor people in that country. Amnesty International has given details of eight cases in which priests or pastors have been killed in the past 15 months, and as one looks to the future this cannot give one very great confidence—particularly not the church people of Belize. It seems therefore that the more this Bill can be strengthened and can show the determination of Britain to assure the integrity of Belize, the better.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is right when he says that this matter has behind it a very long history of negotiations. We have never been able to come to an agreement before now as to how independence should be approached. The Government have succeeded in doing this with the Guatemalan Ministers. I shall not repeat what I have already said about the merits of the case and the demerits of this particular amendment, but on the question of the Bill going back to another place, let me suppose that the Bill has to be reintroduced in October, or it might be delayed in order to take the remaining stages. I would hesitate to accept that responsibility, I must say. There have taken place successful negotiations, which no one has previously been able to achieve. It is a pretty tricky situation, and sending back the Bill to another place for another three months or so would be to accept a very heavy responsibility which I would not care to undertake.
Lord Shepherd: Is it not a fact that there is to be a spillover period into the middle of October? Bearing in mind that the Government have control of the business in another place, I should not have thought that if your Lordships' Committee were to pass the amendment, that would necessarily delay the Bill. There is one point I should like to put to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel—I might have made it in my earlier speech. While Belize was a dependent territory, have we not from time to time in recent years found it necessary to have added reinforcements to protect the boundaries of Belize? That must have been because of uncertainties as to what might have been Guatemala's attitude to Belize even as a dependent territory.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: Of course that can be done under the Ministers' formula. We are to protect them for an appropriate period, which presumably means a period to be agreed between the two Governments in the light of outside events.
Lord Avebury: Would not the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, agree that if the amendment were passed and the Government still considered it absolutely vital to adhere to the timetable, they could in theory bring back another place to deal with it during the recess?
Lord Beswick: I wonder whether we can have a little more information from the noble Lord the Chief Whip. A statement has been made that if the amendment were passed the Bill would be lost, but I must say that I feel quite strongly that that is not the case; certainly one could consider it until October. I have had a little experience of these matters. We passed two Bills through all their stages on Friday morning. I cannot believe that if this one amendment were made to the Bill, it could not go back to the other place, come back here by Friday, and be passed.
Lord Denham: I rather hesitate to come in because I have not heard the whole of the argument, but what I understood my noble friend Lord Home to say was that, after the immense amount of effort that there has been to get a solution to the problem, for this House to delay the Bill, even slightly, by sending it back to another place would be unwise. I thought that that was what my noble friend said.
Lord Beswick: On the one particular and narrow point, it is physically possible to send back the Bill to the other place with one amendment and then get it back before the House rises on Friday.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: It might be appropriate if I confirm that. If the Government accepted the amendment and the Bill went back to the other House, they could easily find time for it to reach us by Friday.
Lord Denham: I would hesite to pontificate with so many of your Lordships who have come from another place. The noble Baroness opposite shares with me the disadvantage of not having done so, but there are difficulties with their procedure in another place that we in this House do not have. For instance, if we receive an amendment back from the Commons, we can debate it almost immediately upon receipt, but that is not possible so far as another place is concerned; they have to have it down on the Order Paper. I think it important that we should get away from these procedural minutiae. Personally I was very much convinced by what my noble friend Lord Home said, and I hope that the Committee was.
Baroness Jeger: May I remind the noble Lord, who never pontificates, that we are having to spend more time on the Bill today because Government business managers brought it on in the House of Commons between 10 o'clock and 12 o'clock at night for Second Reading, Committee, Report, and Third Reading, all in two hours. It does not lie in the mouths of Govern-

565
ment managers to blame us if there are now some timetable difficulties.
3.44 p.m.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: The noble Baroness is spoiling a good case by bringing in that kind of argument. If one has followed the Bill through all the stages in another place, one will know that there is no question at all that the Government have done nothing other than genuinely try to bring about a solution to a very difficult problem. They have used all the machinery of government, with all the skill and advice that they have, to bring that about. So I am rather sorry that the noble Baroness wanted to inject a comment of bad faith into what has gone before; that is not the case.
The point of my noble friend Lord Home is a very real one. I believe that the amendment would strengthen the Bill, and I should like to see it included, if procedure so allows. I would want to support it in the Lobbies if need be, but I would not want to delay the Bill. If we could get the Bill through by Friday, I should like to support the amendment. If it is to be delayed beyond that, I believe that there would be a risk of creating a new atmosphere which would completely undermine the successful negotiations that have already taken place. It is not a question of detail.
If the Bill could be brought back to us on Friday, I believe that your Lordships' House would be carrying out its proper function by inserting an amendment which it believes would strengthen the Bill and would achieve the general principle lying behind what clearly the Government want to achieve. So information on whether the matter can be handled by Friday is rather important. If it cannot be brought back by then, I would say let it go, because there are safeguards in the agreement that has already been entered into. But if the Bill can be brought back by Friday, I believe that it would be strengthened by the amendment. I believe, too, that it would mean that the people involved would be more likely to adhere to the agreements that they have made if this provision were written into the Bill. It would then be possible to fall back on the provision.
However, having weighed all the points and compared one against another, I think that speed is of the essence to some extent. If the matter can be handled by Friday, I would certainly support the amendment. If it cannot be done by Friday, I would not wish to risk upsetting the very sensitive negotiations by letting the matter go on until October. I should like clear advice on whether the Bill can be brought back by Friday, if the Government want it. Judging from my knowledge of government, which goes back 30 years, if the Government want it back by Friday, they can get it back. There is no doubt about that. But if there are reasons that I have not foreseen and they cannot get it back, I should like to know about them.
Lord Denham: If you Lordships will forgive me for just half a minute, I would say that my noble friend is to reply to the debate. What worries me is that we are getting away from the point of the amendment and into the question of procedure. Would it not be
566
right for my noble friend to reply? If noble Lords are then not happy, they can always ask him questions.
Lord Avebury: The noble Lord, Lord Denham, might not have been aware that over the weekend there took place major developments which created certain military obligations for this country, to continue after the independence of Belize, and the question before us is whether or not we should write that point into the independence Bill. It was the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, not a member of the Opposition, who raised the question of whether or not this could be done procedurally this side of the Summer Recess. I wanted only to tell the noble Lord, Lord Denham, that I served as a Whip in the other place and I would venture to express the opinion that it could be done: if your Lordships were to pass the amendment, it could be sent back to another place, and it could be completed in another place in time for them to rise when previously planned.
Lord Shinwell: Since I know nothing about this subject perhaps I may offer an observation. I think we should get rather more clarification on one point which concerns me in particular and which might concern other members of the Committee. In the course of the debate a reference has been made to the United Kingdom guaranteeing the security of Belize in perpetuity. I am bound to say that it amazes me that we can guarantee anybody's security in perpetuity. We cannot even guarantee our own. When I recall the controversies that have occurred in recent years over whether we could guarantee the security of the countries associated with NATO and could make our contribution to that effect in perpetuity, I do not believe that any member of your Lordships' Committee will accept this particular point. We have not got the strength, neither are we likely to have it in the foreseeable or the remote future.
If we could have some clarification on that I should be obliged, because I would like to vote one way or the other. I do not want to abstain. I do not like sitting on the fence because I know what the result is likely to be. By that I mean that a reference was made many years ago by Lloyd George about Sir John Simon that he had sat on the fence so long that the iron had entered his soul. I do not want to do that, therefore I should like a little clarification. If there is anything in the Bill or the amendment which guarantees in perpetuity the security of Belize, I am voting against it.
3.50 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: For some considerable time I have been trying like a fish slice to get a word in edgeways. May I first say to the Committee that in the statement the phrase" appropriate measures" was used as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, rightly recognised, and the same phrase is in the amendment. From that point of view, there is nothing in the statement or in the amendment which contradicts each other. But—and it is a big but—I am advised by my legal department that this amendment is open-ended in time. There have been various arguments backwards and forwards as to whether it is open-ended or not, and I am advised that it is. Furthermore, it casts fundamental doubts on the scope of the executive

567
and legislative powers of the United Kingdom Parliament, as to whether it is within our constitutional capabilities to do this. But I think probably the first reason is sufficient in itself.
However, I can assure the Committee that, as my honourable friend the Minister of State has said several times, not only will appropriate measures be taken in the light of the circumstances pertaining at any particular time in the future, but we are determined to see them right. I. think, if my memory serves me correctly, that when I was about to wind up the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House about a fortnight ago I was, incidentally, asked to put the strongest pressure on my noble friend the Chief Whip to make sure there was no hurry in bulldozing this Bill through, as the allegations were that it was bulldozed through all three stages late at night in another place. Your Lordships really cannot expect to have it both ways. I have delayed it on the one hand and used my good offices to do so, and now I am accused of rushing it through. I really think that is a little unfair.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: May I say a few words first about the apparent difficulty raised that we should delay independence if we accept this amendment? The argument is that if this amendment is made here it must go to another place, which will delay the Bill and delay independence. If that argument were valid at all, it would be an argument against making any amendment whatever at this stage in the Bill. I really do not think the Committee can allow itself to be put in that position.
But it is not correct to say that it would delay independence. The Standing Orders of another place provide that if the House sees fit it can require amendments from this House to be considered forthwith. There is really no doubt at all. May I draw to the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, that if we make the amendment in this House and the Government accept it and recommend it to another place, we can have it back by Friday. Of course, if that were not true, one might have to consider the terrifying possibility of another place having to sit during the following week. But possibly, so far as the goodwill and security of the people of Belize is concerned, we might even in both Houses be prepared to endure that; but it might not be necessary. There is really nothing in that argument and it will not stand up.
Secondly, on the question of perpetuity, the nature of the guarantee this amendment contains would continue as long as it remains on the statute book and it is up to Parliament. If at any future time any Government felt that they could not continue this commitment, or that for any reason whatever it was sensible to divest ourselves of it, they would have to come to Parliament and ask for the Act to be altered. That is quite a reasonable proposition. Of course, in the nature of the case you cannot pass Acts of Parliament saying that things shall last forever; they last for as long as the Act of Parliament lasts. The point of putting this in an Act of Parliament is that if any future Government want to alter it they must get the permission of Parliament to do so. We maintain that in the circumstances that is a reasonable request.
568
It has been argued also that what is in the amendment is not as good as the guarantee that Britain has already given. But we are asking not that the amendment should be a substitute for the guarantee but that it should be an addition to it. Our suggestion is that this, as it were, seals the thing still further and makes it more emphatic. It might be said that it is unnecessary to do that, but I do not think the people of Belize take that view. The Government have not been able to show that the acceptance of this amendment will in any way damage the situation in Belize, or that it would make some future agreement with Guatemala harder to reach, or that it would upset the constitution and delay independence. They have not been able to show that this amendment in any way damages the situation. The most they can say is that they do not think it is necessary.
In the circumstances, that does not seem to me a sufficient reason for resisting the amendment. Indeed, even if they were right in saying it was not necessary, I repeat that I am sure that is not the view that the people of Belize take; it would be of considerable value in strengthening their moral in what by any count must be a difficult situation. I am sorry the Government have not so far expressed their willingness to accept the amendment. I would suggest to my noble friends that we ought to test the opinion of your Lordships on this matter.
3.57 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: Before the noble Lord goes as far as that, may I ask him to look at the Bill? He will see that under Clause 2 the constitution has to be presented in the form of an Order in Council. This also refers to the definitive date of independence day. My understanding is that the present plan is that a single combined order for these two facts will be made on Friday, 31st July, assuming Royal Assent by this time. Friday is the last Privy Council of this Session and I am told that, if we miss it, it will be necessary to have a special sitting of the Privy Council to do this, and it would then be likely that we would miss the Belizeans' preferred date for independence, 21st September.
Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord decides what to do with this amendment, there is one small point that comes to mind on reading his amendment. I wonder what the position would be if Belize was attacked and damage was done. Would not the Belizeans, if this amendment is passed, have a claim in the British courts against Britain for any damage done?—because we would have to continue to take appropriate measures to protect the integrity of Belize. By passing this amendment should we not possibly be damaging this country?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: I should like to say two things. If by any ill fortune Belize should be attacked and great damage be done there, I would hope this country would in any circumstances be prepared to give whatever help suitable to the Belizean people. I do not think the amendment puts on us in law anything more than lies on us in honour, anyhow.
I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, does his valiant best with one defence after another.

569
Heavens! we shall have to have a special session of the Privy Council. I believe that when the Privy Council meets it is not normal for all Privy Counsellors to turn up; but if those who are members of the Government are going to find it inconvenient, there are a number of my noble friends here who will be happy to take their places. It really will not do. The issue is a serious one, and if it is going to cause a minor inconvenience to another place and some inconvenience to the Privy Council, that is worth it. The thing can be done, keeping to the present promulgated independence date. It can be done and it ought to be done.
Lord Shinwell: I am not wholly satisfied by what my noble friend Lord Stewart has said, much as I admire his skill and his knowledge in matters of this sort, but what I am concerned about is this: If Belize is attacked—that is a simple point—is there a guarantee that we are going to furnish military assistance on behalf of Belize against Guatemala? Is that the position? Because when I consider the turbulence and the volatile attitude of South American states, I am not at all sure that we are in a position to guarantee anybody's security there.
Lord Boyd-Carpenter: Could my noble friend clear up the one point in this debate which troubles me? On the merits of the matter I think I am with him, but I am less than clear on the argument as to whether or not the carrying of this or any other amendment would prevent the achievement of the agreed independence date of 21st September, because if that is so then, as the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, has said, no amendment can be made without causing a degree of disruption at the initiation of an independent state which many of us would not wish to see. But if that is so, then surely this Committee, as the revising Chamber, is being put in a position of some difficulty. If we are taking a Committee stage at a time when we are told that, though we may be right on merits to make this or any other amendment, we cannot do it without doing considerable public mischief by delaying the date, then this does not seem to me—I say it with great diffidence—the right way to treat your Lordships' Committee.
Lord Skelmersdale: It was not ever my intention to come into this Chamber this afternoon and treat your Lordships' Committee, or indeed any other proceedings in your Lordships' House, with any sort of disparagement. I would never intend to do that, I can tell my noble friend. But regarding the first part of his argument, I am advised very strongly that any amendment would mean that the Bill would have to go back to another place—and we have all accepted that—and there is then great danger in missing the Belizeans' own preferred date for independence. I should perhaps point out to the Committee that the Belize Government have been elected consistently on an independence platform. This was reaffirmed in the general election of 1979, and again, I understand, this was backed up by the local council elections in Belize City, where approximately half the population live, where the Government party was returned with an overwhelming
570
majority.
Lord Harmar-Nicholls: I think this is a point which ought to be pursued. The noble Lord, Lord Stewart, and most noble Lords who have spoken, have held high office, so when they come to your Lordships' Committee, which is a revising Chamber, they come with a lot of experience. Their experience often tells them, when they are producing legislation to be considered, that you have to read between the lines, quite apart from the actual words being discussed. The part that interests me and worries me a little bit is the fact that the Government are resisting this amendment. Ought we to be reading between the lines? Are the Government in a position to give, by a hint or a blink, even if they cannot use words, an indication that agreements that they have entered into, which in the long term are in the interests of Belize, would be injured if, for some reason, these words were put in?
That would be a reason to cause me to have second thoughts; certainly not the timetable, or having to call the Privy Council together, which could easily be done. Perhaps we could have some indication, if that is their reason—and they are the ones who have been negotiating; they are the ones who have been meeting the Ministers in the various Governments involved, and they know the atmosphere. If they feel that they have arrived at an agreement which is a good agreement and which, in the present atmosphere, if it is given effect to, will achieve what they all want, and if they feel for some reason—we know atmospheres, and this is where I come to reading between the lines—that this is likely to affect that, then let us know about it. Nobody wants to be difficult, or even to keep rigidly to the proprieties of the two Houses, if bigger things are likely to be interfered with.
If there is something like that I should like a hint, and I would take the hint from the Government. If they cannot give that sort of hint then I think that we ought to insist upon our right as a revising Chamber to have our say as to what we think would make the Bill a better Bill.
Lord Skelmersdale: If my noble friend were to do that and the Committee were to follow his advice, I must advise your Lordships that what I said originally still stands. This amendent is legally defective, and these words could not be enforced by any court of law. As a matter of law they add practically nothing to the Bill which is not added by an exchange of Notes, which de facto becomes a treaty obligation. The Government really must stand on that particular case.
Lord Home of the Hirsel: I have never before spoken so much in my life on one morning, and I hope never to again, but the issue here has been rather side-tracked by the procedure, I think. The issue here is whether we can give an open-ended commitment in this case. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that this is really undesirable. I think this is the centre of the issue, and that the agreement made between the Ministers of our two countries is really preferable to that.
Lord Gore-Booth: I have nothing to say on the legal side of this matter at all, but I will give your Lordships, with apologies, a piece of history. When I first joined

571
the Foreign Office, one of the first files I had was the long-delayed consideration of this question. I should like to put that into the argument as an element, but that is all. In terms of diplomats and their political masters talking to each other, there is always a feeling that, somehow, it is not quite worthy of us to have failed to arrive at a solution for so long. I am afraid that is not very helpful, but it is a fact.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: Perhaps I may just say this—I am sorry to speak so often. There has been talk about open-ended commitment. The nature of the commitment described in this amendment is the commitment the Government say they have already entered into and by which they are bound.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 86: Not-Contents, 118.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Amherst, E.

Kennet, L.

Ardwick, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Avebury, L.

Leatherland, L.

Banks, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Listowel, E.

Beswick, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B. [Teller.]

Bishopston, L.

Blyton, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Brockway, L.

McCarthy, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Milverton, L.

Byers, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Caradon, L.

Northfield, L.

Chitnis, L.

Oram, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Oxford, Bp.

Clwyd, L.

Phillips, B.

Collison, L.

Plant, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

David, B.

Porritt, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Robbins, L.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Rochester, L.

Seear, B.

Denington, B.

Shepherd, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Spens, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stamp, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gaitskell, B.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Garner, L.

Stone, L.

Gladwyn, L

Strabolgi, L.

Glenamara, L.

Strauss, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Halsbury, E.

Tordoff, L.

Hampton, L.

Underbill, L.

Hankey, L.

Vickers, B. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hughes, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hunt, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Janner, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Birey of Abingdon, B.

Bellwin, L.

Allerton, L.

Belstead, L.

Alport, L.

Bessborough, E.

Ampthill, L.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Atholl, D.

Boyle of Handsworth, L.

Auckland, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Avon, E.

Chelwood, L.

Aalfour of Inchrye, L.

Clitheroe, L.

572

Cockfield, L.

Lyell, L.

Cottesloe, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Craigavon, V.

McFadzean, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Daventry, V.

Mansfield, E.

Davidson, V.

Margadale, L.

DeFreyne, L.

Marley, L.

DeLaWarr, E.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Derwent, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Donegall, M.

Middleton, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dundee, E.

Mottistone, L.

Eccles, V.

Newall, L.

Effingham, E.

Norfolk, D.

Ellenborough, L.

Northchurch, B.

Elles, B.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Energlyn, L.

Onslow, E.

Exeter, M.

Orkney, E.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Gainford, L.

Pender, L.

George-Brown, L.

Portland, D.

Glenkinglas, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Gore-Booth, L.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gormanston, V.

Redcliffe-Maud, L.

Gowrie, E.

Reigate, L.

Grey of Naunton, L.

Reilly, L.

Gridley, L.

Romney, E.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

St.Aldwyn, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St.Davids, V.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Hayter, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Henley, L.

Sharples, B.

Holderness, L.

Sherfield, L.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Ilchester, E.

Somers, L.

Jessel, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Killearn, L.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Kilmany, L.

Swinfen, L.

Kimberley, E.

Teviot, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Trefgarne, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trenchard, V.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Lawrence, L.

Vivian, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Long, V.

Ward of Witley, L.

Loudoun, C.

Westbury, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 to 4 agreed to.
Clause 5 [Retention of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies in certain cases.]:
4.16 p.m.
Lord Stewart of Fulham Lord Stewart of Fulham moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 4, line 36, at end insert—
("(8) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that any person who—

(a) immediately before Independence Day is a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies; and

(b) does not, on that day, become a citizen of Belize shall continue to be a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies.").

The noble Lord said: This is a simple amendment which is, as it says, for the avoidance of doubt. I think it would be agreed, from the discussions we had on Second Reading, that when one studies the Bill it is genuinely difficult to be certain that the situation

573
described in this amendment is the situation that results from the Bill. The purpose of the amendment is solely this: to make sure that nobody who is now a citizen of the United Kingdom and Colonies, who enjoys the citizenship we here do, shall find himself as a result of this Bill with no citizenship at all. I think the amendment produces the effect we want. It is not clear from the Bill as at present drafted that that would be the effect. For that reason, we move the amendment.
4.18 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: The nationality clauses of this Bill follow generally the pattern of previous independence legislation. They provide that people deriving their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies from a connection with Belize should lose that citizenship unless they have a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency. Under the Belize independence constitution people closely connected with Belize through their own or a parent's birth, naturalisation or registration in Belize, will become citizens of that country. Those whose connection is through a grandparent will also become citizens of Belize provided that they have no other citizenship; for example, that of neighbouring Guatemala or Honduras.
Clause 4 provides that those who become citizens of Belize under the constitution and those who have a close connection with Belize through a grandparent but who do not become citizens of Belize because they are citizens of another country should, unless excepted by Clause 5, lose their citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies. As your Lordships will be aware, Clause 5 saves from loss of citizenship of the United Kingdom and Colonies those who have a close connection with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency.
The net result of all this is that everyone will have a citizenship of one kind or another. As I assured the House on Second Reading, no one will become stateless. Those who have close links with the United Kingdom or a remaining dependency will remain citizens of the United Kingdom and Colonies. Those who have close links with Belize will be citizens of that country except for a very limited category of people who are citizens of another country such as, as I said previously, Guatemala or Honduras. This amendment would force us to take this last category of people as our citizens. They are people who belong essentially to another country and have no links with the United Kingdom or a remaining Colony. Therefore I hope the Committee will understand that the Government is unable to accept this amendment, and that in view of what I have said the noble Lord, Lord Stewart of Fulham, will not seek to press it.
Lord Stewart of Fulham: In view of what the noble Lord the Minister has said, and since it appears that nobody will be left stateless, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 agreed to.
Clause 6 [Interpretation]:
4.20 p.m.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe Lord Taylor of Gryfe moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 4, line 42, after ("appoint") insert ("such Order shall only become effective after a referendum of the electors of Belize have decided by majority vote in favour of Independence.").
The noble Lord said: I hope that discussion on this amendment will not become a discussion on procedure. The fact that the Government have announced an independence date should not complicate consideration of this amendment.
This amendment seeks to assess the support of the people of Belize for independence. The Committee will remember that, when we had a discussion on Second Reading, and on earlier discussions on the Belize question, it was assumed that there would be an agreement with Guatemala. In these discussions a number of headings were announced as being the terms of an agreement with Guatemala. We have not reached an agreement with Guatemala.
I am not minimising the efforts of the Ministers who have been engaged in these negotiations. I think that it is an extremely difficult problem. But at that time Mr. Price, the Prime Minister of Belize, said that the terms of the agreement with Guatemala would be submitted to a referendum of the people of Belize. We do not have the terms of an agreement with Guatemala and I am suggesting therefore that the referendum should be about independence and should be submitted to the people of Belize because of that changed situation.
It was assumed by Mr. Price that if he had a firm agreement with the Government of Guatemala, that would be the basis of independence. That agreement assumed certain things: it assumed the cession of access to the Caribbean and it assumed other things. As I say, it has not been achieved. Therefore I am suggesting that this is a changed situation for the people of Belize, who must now be extremely nervous about their future in the light of the failure to secure agreement with their powerful neighbour with 40 times their population, with an army being supplied by the United States and with a regime that is busily engaged in liquidating its own internal opposition. I do not place a great deal of faith in a press statement by a general from Guatemala. The people of Belize must be equally nervous and apprehensive in the absence any firm agreement.
I suggest that the issue should be placed before the people of Belize. It will be said that Mr. Price was elected on an independence ticket. That is true. An independence ticket in Belize, like an independence ticket anywhere in that kind of environment, is bound to be a popular item in the party programme. It is a very different situation when the terms of the agreement and the terms of independence are understood by the people. Mr. Price has accepted that the Guatemalan arrangement should be submitted to a referendum: but it is much less complicated and much more easily understood by the people of Belize if the straight issue of whether they want independence or not is put before them. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
We have many precendents for referenda. I recall when it was on everyone's lips in Scotland that we ought to have devolution. That was until the terms of devolution were spelt out to the people of Scotland,

575
and they did not accept those proposals. Equal opportunity should be given to the people of Belize to recognise what is implied in the new situation, and that the date for independence should follow that decision.
I happen to be secretary of the Anglo-Belizean all-party parliamentary committee. I have taken a reasonable interest in that country. I have received representations from Church organisations as well as from people in Belize not to hasten this decision and not to push it through without due consideration. It is in response to those representations that I am asking the Committee to support my amendment.
How much better it would be if the Belizean people agreed by a free referendum to have independence in the new circumstances. I hope that independence is accompanied by some celebration of national unity within the country, and we ought to test that before we proceed. It is a very sad thought if we read in today's papers, following the announcements over the weekend, that British troops have had to be used in Belize in order to suppress disturbances in Belize City.
I recall going way up to the Guatemalan frontier, visiting some of the Scottish troops there. They were invited to ask me questions. The first question one soldier from Glasgow asked was: "Lord Taylor, what the hell are we doing here?" I assured him that they were there to defend the integrity of Belize against Guatemala. Never did I imagine that they would be used as troops within Belize in order to quell disturbances in Belize City or the country of Belize.
I mention that simply to indicate that there is not necessarily national unity in the new circumstances in this case and it would be well and to our credit if we gave the Belizean people the opportunity of testing that. I beg to move.
4.27 p.m.
Lord Avebury: We are facing a changed situation. It is not true to claim, as the Minister does, that the people of Belize voted in 1979 for independence on the terms which are now being offered to them. At that time they had no knowledge of the heads of agreement. May I quote from a pro-Government paper which is entitled "Supercream" of Friday 20th March. It said:
"The voting on 21st November 1979 was not for the heads o agreement. Any editorialist which suggests that the 52 per cent. plus people who voted PUP on 21st November 1979 were voting for the heads of agreement of 1981 is patently dishonest".
Therefore, what we are suggesting is that the people should have some opportunity of expressing an opinion on these matters.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, did not explain properly why the Opposition declined to attend the constitutional conference which took place earlier this year. I shall tell him and inform the Committee now that the UDP was only one of several opposing groups in Belize which supported the unanimous decision to remain there during the crisis which followed the announcement of the heads of argreement. They asked for a postponement, but it was refused, even though it was pointed out that the Prime Minister, Mr. George Price, felt that it was necessary to stay away in view of the rioting, arson and shootings of members of the public who were people in opposition to the
576
terms that they thought they were being offered. That is the situation.
When the Government asked us a few weeks ago to give a Second Reading to the Belize Bill it was still on categorical assurances—it was not just assumed, we had it in black and white—that the treaty with Guatemala based on the heads of agreement of 11th March would be concluded and submitted to the referendum before independence day. I can quote Mr. Nicholas Ridley, who gave a press conference in Belize. This was dealt with in the Reporter, a newspaper of Belize on 10th May. He said:
"I am quite sure that the essential and most important thing to do next is to conclude the negotiations for the treaty with Guatemala. Secondly, on the assumption that we do get a treaty signed, it will clear the way to hold the referendum which the Prime Minister has promised, and that should come the sooner the better".
Even the other day the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, used words indicating that the treaty would be signed and the referendum held in all probability before independence. I am referring to his speech on the Second Reading. The noble Lord shakes his head, but let me remind your Lordships of what he said in column 948 of Hansard on 10th July:
"The date of independence is not specified there"—
that means in the Bill—
"because it is considered undesirable to fix it until the negotiations with Guatemala have been completed and a referendum held on the terms of any treaty based on the heads of agreement".
That is what the noble Lord said: he could not fix the date of independence because these things have to happen first. Was not that a clear indication to the House of the sequence of events which would lead up to independence being prefaced by the conclusion of the treaty and the submission of its terms to a referendum of the people?
Now we read in the papers, and we have heard it again from the noble Lord earlier this afternoon, that Mr. Price, the Prime Minister of Belize, was in London last week putting the finishing touches to the arrangements for the transfer of power to be effected on 23rd September. That is said to be because Mr. Price is very keen to attend the Commonwealth Heads of Government meeting in Australia at the end of the month: if one is to believe what was said by Mr. Patrick Keatley in the Guardian. There may be another reason for the timing, which I shall refer to in a few minutes. Yet the talks between Britain and Guatemala on Belize broke up without having reached any agreement on 10th July and I think it has been tacitly agreed on the previous amendment to be inconceivable that in the two months which remain before the date which has now been set the negotiations could be concluded, the treaty signed and the referendum held.
Therefore, one is bound to say that the Government have misled Parliament, no doubt unintentionally, and have put your Lordships and the people of Belize in an impossible position. It was difficult enough to imagine what would have happened if the people of Belize had rejected the treaty before independence, but they might as well not bother to come out and vote at all if it is held afterwards, because of course there would be no way for Belize—which is not going to be a party to the treaty—either to revoke or vary it after the event.

577
Why might the people of Belize not be very happy about giving Guatemala a blank cheque? The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, spoke on Second Reading (col. 950) about the Government's being, and I quote:
"aware from a variety of reports of the disquieting situation in Guatemala".
I should like to ask the noble Lord: is he aware that the regime of President Garcia has been responsible for murdering thousands of his own citizens since he took office in July 1978? Has the noble Lord seen the reports mentioned by the right reverend Prelate opposite of the murders of churchmen in Guatemala? Does he know that Fr. Marco Tulio Maruzzo, an Italian priest, who on 1st July was machine-gunned to death by government agents in Quirigua was the eighth priest to be assassinated or to disappear during the last 15 months?
Is it any wonder that in dealing with a regime like that the people of Belize should have doubts about its good faith in abandoning the claims it has pursued over the territory of Belize ever since the beginning of the century? Although President Lucas Garcia did speak recently of his earnest desire to be friendly with the people of Belize and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, just a moment ago quoted him as saying at a press conference that,
"Guatemala will never invade Belize",
this is not compatible with the statement made to Congress in Guatemala on 1st July, when President Lucas Garcia said that "unilateral independence" would not be recognised. In addition, the Guatemalan Ambassador to the United Nations, Señor Eduardo Castillo, said in a letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, which was released in Guatemala only on Saturday, that Britain—and I should like the noble Lord to note particularly what was said—was acting in violation of Article 33 of the United Nations Charter, which calls on parties to any conflict to reach solutions through negotiation. Also he says in the letter that Guatemala maintains its claim over the territory of Belize on the ground they have always quoted, that the 1859 Treaty was null and void because Britain had never constructed the road that was mentioned therein. So the president may have made a statement at the press conference but it is quite different from what he said to the Congress and exactly opposite to what their ambassador to the United Nations has said in the letter to the Secretary-General of the United Nations which was published early on Saturday.
It is in the light of these ambiguities and their knowledge of what happens to opponents of the régime just across the border that the Belizeans have grave doubts about certain aspects of the heads of agreement, and they want to see exactly what is meant before they give their opinion, as they are perfectly entitled to do, in this referendum. We know that there is difficulty about the interpretation of Article 3, which allows Guatemala,
" the use and enjoyment of the Ranguana and Sapodilla cays, and rights in those areas of the sea adjacent to the cays".
I asked about this on Second Reading. I want to know: is it true that Guatemala has already moved
578
in and occupied these cays? Will they be allowed to station military forces on them, or police or paramilitary forces? I did ask, as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, will recall, whether Belize would retian sovereignty over these cays. I should still like a reply because, if she does, surely it would be possible for the Government in Belize to forbid the entry of armed men, whether they be soldiers or paramilitary forces, to the territory of an independent Belize.
Also, I think we should know what is meant by Article 11, which says:
"Belize and Guatemala shall sign a treaty of co-operation in matters of security of mutual concern, and neither shall permit its territory to be used to support subversion against the other".
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, said there was nothing in the heads of agreement which would allow Guatemalan troops on Belizean soil. Is that going to be spelled out in the treaty? I should also like to ask him, if whether, on independence, Belize signs the United Nations Conventions on Refugees, as I hope she will, it will be made clear in the treaty that political opponents of the Lucas Garcia régime who flee across the border into Belize will be safe from illegal refoulement.
The constitution of Guatemala states that Belize is part of the motherland and there are only two ways in which this provision can be altered. One is by plebiscite and the other is by a two-thirds majority in the legislature. Does the noble Lord think that President Lucas can deliver, after the decades of brainwashing the Guatemalan people have been subjected to that Belize is still part of the motherland? His sudden change of heart, if indeed it has taken place at all, seems to have been prompted by offers of military aid from the United States and, as the noble Lord says, supplies have already begun to flow. But the more weapons the Americans put into the hands of criminals who murder, the more likely it becomes that ultimately these weapons will be used for an anschluss in which Guatemala will absorb Belize into its own territory.
Guatemala undertakes in the heads of agreement to recognise Belize, but only after completion of the treaty; so, if there is no treaty because if proves impossible to construe the heads of agreement in a way that is mutually acceptable, Belize will attain independence with the shadow of Guatemalan agression still hanging over it. We have heard earlier today that, whether or not it is written into the Bill, we are morally obliged to maintain military forces there virtually indefinitely, and we have no cards left to play in our negotiations with Guatemala. And, my Lords, all this has occurred, it seems to me, because Mr. Price has decided that by hook or by crook he is going to stage his independence day celebrations on 23rd September so that he can attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference at the end of the month on 30th September, and so that he can continue the celebrations of the 31st anniversary of the founding of his party, the PUP, on 30th September. The Government must have known all along that that was the intention, so what was the meaning of all this charade about the Order in Council, and the remarks made on Second Reading by the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, about the uncertainty of the timetable?
There is no doubt, as has been said, that the over-

579
whelming majority of the people of Belize want independence. The UDP had 47 per cent. of the votes in the general election of 1979, but only 29 per cent. of the seats, because Belize has been given a copy of the undemocratic election system which operates here. The Opposition there also favours independence. I do not really see why the noble Lord opposite should think that so very funny.
But a growing number of the inhabitants of Belize reject the deal which they are being offered. When the heads of agreement were announced, 1,000 people spontaneously demonstrated against them in the Belize Central Park. The civil servants and the teachers went on strike. The Belize Action Movement, which is portrayed by Mr. Ian Mather in the Observer of 12th July as a dangerous group of violent black power extremists, expresses, in my view, a legitimate anxiety that the stage is being set for occupation by Guatemala, the submergence of black people and what they call "cultural genocide".
So what is to be done now? In my opinion, the Government have played a shabby three-card trick on the people of Belize, promising that nothing would be done without their consent, offering them a simulacrum of democracy, and then snatching even that away from them at the last moment. We may have an,
"inescapable moral obligation to bring the nation to independence"
and we may have voluntarily accepted, before the United Nations, that we shall do it by the end of the year. But nothing obliges us to arrange it on a date which will gratify Mr. George Price's personal vanity, or enable him to turn what should be a national celebration into a party political rally. I hope that this amendment will be passed by your Lordships, and that we shall enable the people of Belize to express their opinions, as we promised them all along.
4.42 p.m.
Baroness Vickers: This is a problem that we want to put before your Lordships. I received many telegrams this morning, including one from the Belize Newspaper Association, which reads:
"Congratulate you on insight into the problem facing the silent majority of Belize. We think a referendum would avoid more"—
and I want to emphasize the word "more"—
"civil unrest and that your timely intervention would save the lives and property of many people in Belize".
What worries me is that so many people in Belize have had no real knowledge for about 25 years of what has been happening. In fact, I have a note here saying:
"It might interest you to know that the people of Belize have been blindfolded, gagged and ear-plugged by the radio of Belize. They have successfully sealed off all information and discussion of their own fate for over 25 years".
We know perfectly well that the Opposition did not wish to attend the conference in London and, also, that they were not very happy about the constitution, of which I have a copy, which was written in April 1981.
At the same time, the Government information office, through Reuters and through a publication called New Belize, has laboured for years to present abroad a portrait of Belize and of attitudes within that country that bears little relation to the real situa-
580
tion, and which takes little account of the hopes and fears of the majority of the people there. We must take into consideration—I have been to Belize more than once, and have had representations made to me on many occasions—the fact that they do not get the full information that they wish. We have already had some riots and strikes and British troops have had to be used. This is very unfortunate.
Therefore, I should like to support the point of view that we have a referendum, so that there can be no doubt about what the people of Belize want. I do not know whether it can be done immediately; I can see no reason why it could not be done before independence day. It was very unfortunate to announce independence day over the radio at seven o'clock on a Sunday, and we have little time to consider the details. So I hope that the noble Lord will at least accept this amendment or, if he does not want to put it in the Bill, will suggest that there shall be a referendum before independence is declared.
Baroness Jeger: I intervene only briefly to say that there are some difficulties about this amendment. I do not see that it is for this Committee or for another place to insist that the people of Belize must have a referendum. Equally, I maintain that we should take no action which prevents them from having a referendum if they want one. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, I have received many telegrams such as this, saying:
"Postpone independence pending referendum requested".
That summarises the message from the people there. Many of them feel that they have been led up a very long garden path.
I must remind the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, that in col. 932 of the Official Report for 10th July 1981, he said:
"We believe that independence for Belize should not be conditional on the successful outcome of negotiations for a treaty based on the heads of agreement, but we also believe that it is not desirable to decide the actual date unless these are completed and a referendum has been held".
That has been quoted in the Belize papers and now, today, they hear that that undertaking which was given in this House has been thrown on one side. They expected to have a referendum. The messages that I get express shock and dismay because, apparently, that is not to happen.
Having said that I do not think it is for us to impose a referendum on these people, but it should be held if they wish it, I just want to ask the noble Lord—if I may do so, without straying beyond the bounds of his confidences with Mr. George Price—whether Mr. Price went back from the most recent talks having agreed that he would scrub the referendum idea, because, certainly, his own people are going to ask questions about that. I very much hope that we can have some information on that. By making the date so early that a referendum is not possible, we deprive all these people of something which they may wish, but which it is not for us to impose upon them.
4.47 p.m.
Viscount Massereene and Ferrard: I should like to support this amendment. That may surprise the Committee. Many years ago—he probably would not

581
remember—when I had interests in the West Indies, I met Mr. Price. That is rather beside the point, but Mr. Price is a very ambitious man and any Government that makes agreements with Guatemala, and imagines it is 100 per cent. certain that the Guatemalan Government will honour them, is not a very wise Government. I cannot see why the people of Belize cannot be allowed to have a referendum on the question of independence, because it has been promised them. As my noble friend Lady Vickers and, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, said, the people of Belize are kept in the dark. We have not been very good during the last 15 or 20 years in shouldering our responsibilities, and we ought to allow a referendum in the present case. I hope that the Government will take notice of what has been said by your Lordships who have asked them to allow the people to have a referendum on the question of independence.
Viscount Montgomery of Alamein: I, also, should like to intervene very briefly. I go back to the original introduction by the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, when he said that the question of the independence of Belize had been accompanied by scuffles. I think he would agree that this country has brought independence to many nations and they have rarely not been accompanied by scuffles of one kind or another. That does not seem to me to be a very good reason to delay the independence of Belize.
It is my belief that the Minister of State in another place has negotiated an agreement over the independence of Belize, against very considerable odds and in very difficult circumstances. If we passed this amendment we should put the clock right back to the beginning and these negotiations would have to start all over again. Furthermore, these agreements on an international scale have received overwhelming support from the international community—in the United Nations and elsewhere. Anything that we in this House did to delay the matter at this stage would be detrimental to the interests of the people of Belize. Therefore I would urge your Lordships to reject the amendment.
4.50 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: The question of a referendum has aroused tremendous interest both in this House and outside it, and in Belize, and it is quite right that it should. However, what the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, said in her very helpful and constructive speech is absolutely right. It is not for the British Government, the British Parliament or for anybody else to impose upon the Government of Belize or the people of Belize a referendum in the way suggested by this amendment. I am able to tell your Lordships, because I had the opportunity to meet Premier Price last week, that he is sticking by what he has always said: that there will be a referendum in Belize on the terms of a treaty when a treaty is to be signed. He has never promised a referendum on the independence issue because he feels—this is his political judgment—that in two general elections, to which I have already referred, he had a mandate from the people of Belize. The first was well before the heads of agreement were even thought of. For all I know, it may not even have been an idea in the mind of God.
Lord Avebury: Before the noble Lord sits down, is he suggesting that Mr. Price had a mandate for the heads of agreement when the general election was in 1979 and the heads of agreement were in 1981?
Lord Skelmersdale: No. What I am suggesting to the Committee is that Mr. Price had a mandate on independence, irrespective of the heads of agreement. We now know, though I did not know when I made my Second Reading speech to your Lordships, that the discussions on a treaty following the heads of agreement were at that stage not in any way postponed. That, I am afraid, is the situation we are in today. Nevertheless, when there is a treaty there will be a referendum. That is the referendum which Mr. Price has consistently talked about.
Lord Avebury: Are we going to finish this debate without answers to any of the questions which have been put? Are we not going to have answers to any of the questions about the heads of agreement?
Lord Skelmersdale: We are discussing an amendment. I will certainly speak to the noble Lord on the heads of agreement. One of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me was about human rights in Guatemala. Of course the Government are very much aware from a variety of reports of the disquieting situation that pertains so far as human rights are concerned in Guatemala. And of course we very strongly support the observance of full human and democratic rights there. However, as the Guatemalan Government broke off diplomatic relations with the United Kingdom in 1963 over Belize we are not usually in a position to make direct representations to them. Nevertheless, we have consistently pressed at the United Nations and in other international fora for the adequate protection of human rights throughout the world, and will continue to do so.
The noble Lord wanted me to talk about the heads of agreement. The point is, what exactly do they contain? The noble Lord mentioned item 11: that Belize and Guatemala shall sign a treaty of co-operation in matters of security of mutual concern, and neither shall permit its territory to be used to support subversion against the other. That means exactly what it says. When a treaty is agreed on the heads of agreement, this I am sure will be one of the things which will be in it.
The noble Lord also asked whether it is true that there is already a Guatemalan presence on the cays. The answer is, most certainly no, this is not true. I recall that I said in my Second Reading speech that such a presence, unless invited by the Belizeans who are all-powerful in this matter, would be an act of war. There is no such thing going on in Belize at the moment.
The heads of agreement were made available to your Lordships. From what the noble Lord said, I believe that he has a copy. The essential feature for Belize was that, subject to negotiation of a full treaty, Guatemala would recognise Belizean independence and territorial integrity within its existing frontiers. The treaty would thus have involved no surrender of Belizean territory or the restriction of sovereignty.
Lord Avebury: All that that means is that if no treaty is signed, then Guatemala never recognises Belize.
Lord Skelmersdale: No, it does not mean that, because the heads of agreement are still on the table and have not yet been broken off.
Lord Avebury: But there is no treaty.
Lord Skelmersdale: I accept that at present there is no treaty, but the heads of agreement are still on the table and I have no doubt that discussions upon them will be resumed. I should certainly hate to use the expression: the discussions in New York have broken down over this particular treaty. In return, Guatemala would have received guaranteed access to the high seas through its own territorial waters, the use and enjoyment of the two southernmost cays on the Belizean barrier reef, as well as free port facilities in Belize and transit facilities through Belizean territory for imports and exports. Belize and Guatemala were to collaborate on a range of matters of mutual concern.
I do not think that this is anything which should worry the people of Belize. If they had riots upon the heads of agreement in early April, surely it is rather odd that we should hear reports, which I have not had confirmed, that they should be rioting now about exactly the opposite?
Lord Avebury: No, that is not true. If the noble Lord is relying upon the BBC's "World Today" which spoke of Belizeans celebrating the news of independence, he may like to know that a friend of mine who telephoned Belize this morning was told that the riot squads were out, that tear gas was being used and that disturbances were occurring.
Lord Skelmersdale: This may well happen, but I personally have not had confirmed reports of it. All I said was that, standing here in your Lordships' Committee, it seemed to me that the situation was a little bit strange, to say the least, though this is something which happens in various parts of the world. I said that it is odd that they should have rioted against the heads of agreement and that now they are apparently rioting when there is no treaty on the heads of agreement. I really do not understand it.
Be that as it may, if I can go back to what I said originally about this amendment, there has never been any promise in Belize from the Belizean Prime Minister that there should be a referendum on the pure question of independence. I agree with the support which I have had from behind me, and also from the noble Baroness, Lady Jeger, that this is a matter for the Belizeans, not for this House.
Baroness Jeger: As the noble Lord referred to something which I said, I do not want to be misrepresented. The situation is obviously very complicated and has been complicated by some statements made in another place. I take the noble Lord's point that the referendum was to be about the treaty and not about independence, but on 30th June in col. 815 Mr. Ridley said:
"It would be difficult to conceive of an agreement between Britain and Guatemala, if it were rejected by Belize, having any
584
chance of being in force when Belize goes independent, because nearly all the provisions of the agreement relate to Belizean territory. I therefore cannot see how that could be. If the Belizeans prefer to go to independence without a treaty, that is their decision. I think all honourable members would agree that to do that would be to proceed upon a reckless and unnecessarily dangerous course".—[Official Report, Commons; 30/6/81, col. 815.]
That seems to be exactly what the Government are telling Belize to do today, to proceed on this reckless and unnecessarily dangerous course because they have been told to go to independence without a treaty and without a referendum.
Lord Skelmersdale: It is not anything of the sort. The Government are giving force to the wishes of Belize, which is what I said in the beginning.
Lord Taylor of Gryfe: Your Lordships have been treated badly today. We have been treated badly, first, by the Government, before this Bill has been approved by the House, making an announcement that there would be independence to Belize on a certain date while a Committee of this House, by this amendment, is discussing whether we should have a specific date for independence. To that extent I think this House is entitled to protect its authority, and if for no other reason I would welcome support in the Division Lobbies on this amendment.
Secondly, I must say with all charity that I have not found the noble Lord's explanations of the situation at all convincing. The discussion on the first amendment was complicated by a discussion on procedure: the second one has been complicated a good deal by a discussion on the terms of the heads of agreement. Now the heads of agreement have not been agreed; it was simply a document on which the Government sought agreement and hoped to get agreement when they produced the independence Bill. But in fact, the heads of agreement have now been discarded by Guatemala and there is nothing in their place; there is neither guarantee nor treaty, with the people of Belize or with this country which protects the integrity of Belize and the democratic rights of the Belizean people.
Belize is rather special in this part of the world. If your Lordships consider what is going on round about Belize, you will realise how uncertain and how ominous is the situation. Belize has reasonable democracy and some of the cays which might be ceded to Gautemala under the proposed heads of agreement—and now I am falling into the same mistake of discussing the heads of agreement, but on these cays is one of the most effective demonstrations of co-operative activity in any part of the world. The fishermen of the cays of Belize are used as an example and for training by the United Nations on the organisation of fishermen in the third world, and how they can combine for their mutual advantage. Because they have built up co-operatives they are living happily and prosperously together; in co-operatives these people have given an example which is much copied in other parts of the world.
It is this which is dangerous today. There is no guarantee with Guatemala, with a population forty times the population of Belize. There is no protection whatsoever and with no guarantees with Guatemala, we are being asked now to grant independence next month. In those circumstances, the people of Belize

585
are entitled to express their view. Someone has said, "It is not enough simply to accept the view of the Prime Minister of the country". Someone has said, "We have no right to insist on referendum in Belize". Do we not? We have responsibility for Belize until this moment and we certainly have responsibility in any country or any part of the old colonial empire to which we are granting independence, to ensure a smooth and happy transition. Unless that is provided, opposition can go underground; there will be undercurrents of dissatisfaction. But think of the advantage of granting to the people of Belize the right to decide whether or not they want independence. That is a much less complicated issue, than the issue of the Guatemalan treaty, which Mr. Price has said he will submit to the people—presumably post-independence, or whenever that is agreed.
So I suggest to your Lordships' House that we have a simple decision to make. Here are 150,000 people in a very troubled part of Central America for which at present we have responsibility: have we no responsibility to consult those people now, before the final act? I suggest that your Lordships should support the amendment in order to give that opportunity.
5.6 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 70; Not-Contents, 120.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

John-Mackie, L.

Amherst, E.

Kennet, L.

Avebury, L. [Teller.]

Kilmarnock, L.

Banks, L.

Leatherland, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Beswick, L.

Listowel, E.

Birk, B.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Briginshaw, L.

Longford, E.

Byers, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Caradon. L.

McCarthy, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Milverton, L.

Collison, L.

Mishcon L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Darcy (de Knayth), B.

Oram, L.

David, B.

Oxford, Bp.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Phillips, B.

Rochester, L.

Denington, B.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Diamond, L.

Seear, B.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Shepherd, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Shinwell, L.

Gregson, L.

Stamp, L.

Grey, E.

Stone, L.

Hale, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Hampton, L,

Taylor of Gryfe, L. [Teller.]

Hanworth, V.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Tordoff, L.

Hooson, L.

Underhill, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Vickers, B.

Hughes, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Hunt, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Wigoder, L.

Janner, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

586

NOT-CONTENTS

Ailesbury, M.

Ironside, L.

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Killearn, L.

Allerton, L.

Kilmany, L,

Alport, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ampthill, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Atholl, D.

Kinnaird, L.

Avon, E.

Lane-Fox, B.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Lawrence, L.

Bellwin, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Loudoun, C.

Boyd-Carpenter, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Lyell, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

McAlpine of Moffat, L.

Cathcart, E.

McFadzean, L.

Chelwood, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Cockfield, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Mansfield, E.

Craigavon, V.

Margadale, L.

Craigmyle, L

Marley, L.

Crawshaw, L.

Marshall of Leeds, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Daventry, V.

Middleton, L.

Davidson, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

de Clifford, L.

Mottistone, L.

De La Warr, E.

Mountevans, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Newall, L.

Dilhorne, V.

Norfolk, D.

Donegall, M.

Northchurch, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Eccles, V.

Onslow, E.

Ellenborough, L.

Orkney, E.

Elles, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

pender, L.

Exeter, M.

Portland, D.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Fortescue, E.

Reigate, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Romney, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

St. Davids, V.

Garner, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Gibson-Watt, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Glenkinglas, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Gore-Booth, L.

Sharples, B.

Gormanston, V.

Sherfield, L.

Gowrie, E.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Soames, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Strathspey, L.

Swinfen, L.

Halsbury, E.

Thomas of Swynnerton, L.

Hankey, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Henley, L.

Trenchard, V.

Holderness, L.

Trumpington, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Ilchester, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

Inglewood, L.

Resolved in the negative and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
The Chairman of Committee: The Question is that Clause 6 stand part of the Bill?
Lord Stewart of Fulham: Before we leave this clause, I may say with regard to the amendment we have just discussed that a number of us on these Benches were very doubtful of the wisdom of the amendment and could not support it in the Lobby. We felt that this was a matter affecting disagreement among the people of Belize on which no useful purpose would be served by this House pronouncing judgment, particularly

587
as not long ago there had been a general election in Belize. On the other hand, we had very much in mind what one is obliged to regard as the very ill handling of this issue and of the Bill in general by the Government, and particularly this premature and preempting announcement of the date of independence while the Bill was still before this House. I think, therefore, that the Government should not construe the fact that some of us did not feel able to vote for the amendment as any general approval of their handling of this matter.
Lord Skelmersdale: I appreciate the sentiments expressed by the noble Lord, but again may I be allowed to tell the Committee that it was the Belize Government's intention to have independence on 21st September. I did in a way forewarn the House on Second Reading, when I said that this may be as soon as mid-September; the words are there in black and white. So I do not think I have added much to misleading the House. If I have I apologise.
Clause 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 agreed to.
Schedules agreed to.
Title agreed to.
5.16 p.m.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 21st July), Report received. Bill read 3a.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, in moving that the Bill do now pass, I appreciate that while certain reservations have understandably been expressed today in relation to Belize's transition to independence in what we must all acknowledge are less than ideal circumstances, I hope that the replies I have given have been sufficient to reassure the House that Belize's long overdue independence should not be any longer delayed. Despite the fact that the dispute with Guatemala remains unresolved and that Guatemala has reserved its position, we are confident that the understanding and goodwill established during negotiations over the past year or so will survive the transition and will provide the basis for successful negotiations in due course. In the meantime Belize will join the United Nations Organisation and the Commonwealth and will become an established member of the international community of nations. This in itself will give Belize a very considerable measure of security, and the measures which we shall be taking, in agreement with the Government of Belize, will underpin this.
We are sure that in passing this legislation and in proceeding firmly down the road to independence in September we shall be satisfying the wishes of the majority of Belizeans. It only remains for me to record the Government's congratulations to the Government and people of Belize and our good wishes for their future well-being and prosperity.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass.—(Lord Skelmersdale.)
Lord Stewart of Fulham: My Lords, during these discussions misgivings have been expressed and criticisms made, but I think we are all of us at one in wishing well to the Belizean people in the adventure of independence that lies before them.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I should like to make it absolutely clear that we, while going through the Division Lobby on the previous amendment, are in no way opposed to the independence of Belize, and we fully support the Government's move towards decolonisation. Our only reservations were on the timing, as I think the noble Lord will agree. We express our warmest good wishes to the people of Belize for their future happiness and prosperity, and we hope that the protection of their sovereignty will be fully assured and that they will take their place as a member of the Commonwealth, as a member of the United Nations and as a member of the OAS in full security for the future.
Baroness Vickers: My Lords, I should like to join in congratulating Belize on obtaining its independence. I should also like to ask my noble friend—and I raised this point with him on Second Reading—about the aid that we shall give them in future. I know that they have very bad conditions, particularly as regards the hospital in Belize—there is absolute need for a new one. The mental hospital is also in a bad state and housing is not very good. I should like to know whether we shall continue support for not just the armed services while they are there, but also for the country itself.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I am grateful to all Members of the House who have spoken on this Motion. I am sure that the people of Belize will be very pleased to receive their good wishes for their forthcoming independence. My noble friend Lady Vickers has asked me about British aid. I am afraid that I am unable at this moment to give precise figures on this matter. Figures for British aid following independence have yet to be decided, but aid will continue for a number of years and we are considering a suitable package. This was discussed in general terms with Mr. Price during his visit last week. There will be further detailed discussions with the Belize Government. I should add that there will be no difference in this aid package from similar aid packages which we have given in similar circumstances in the past. I beg to move.
On Question, Bill passed.

Employment and Training Bill
5.22 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Industrial training orders]:
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 31, leave out from first ("of") to end of line and insert ("sections (4) to (4B)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. In trying to devise amendments to the 1964 Act, which itself has been amended by the 1973 Act, and in trying to work out which paragraphs were what, et cetera, I stumbled upon line 31 on page 2. Although I was not seeking to amend that line, it struck me that the wording of the references which I seek to remove were not quite correct and that perhaps it would be more correct to have an amendment on the lines of Amendment No. 1. I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for trying to clarify the Bill, although I must tell him, with great deference and respect, that in my view the amendment does not have that effect but, in fact, obfuscates rather than clarifies. The Bill provides new consultation requirements before an industrial training board is established and applies the same requirements to cases where a board's scope is changed or where a board is abolished. My noble friend's amendment provides that the new consultation requirements do not apply to cases where a board's scope is changed or where a board is abolished. This, therefore, would give Governments much greater freedom to abolish or change boards without consultation with the Manpower Services Commission and without the commission consulting the industries concerned.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I intervene? I do not think that my noble friend has quite got the point of my amendment. I am not criticising or seeking to make anything different. What I am saying to him, in effect, is that Section 1 of the 1964 Act as amended has a subsection (4) but it does not have a subsection (4B). The amended 1964 Act has a Section 4 relating to levies and Sections 4A and 4B which relate to exemption from levies. All that I am saying to my noble friend is that I am not querying anything except that Section 1 does not have a subsection (4B). It seems to me that it would make more sense—and I am sure that this is what the drafters meant—if it were to say the "provisions of section (4) to (4B)", which does make sense within the amended 1964 Act.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, with respect, I think that the noble Earl is actually replying to the second amendment. This is the first amendment. It is not even technical; it is a matter of punctuation.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I confess that I am working from my brief rather than from the Marshalled List and it may be that I have missed something. However, my advice here, which seems to be clear in respect of what my noble friend has said, is that the provisions in Section 4 relate to levy proposals made by boards under Section 7 and not to terminal levies imposed under Section 9. Terminal levies are imposed by orders made by the Secretary of State without any proposals from boards. So the provisions in Section 4A and 4B are specifically disapnlied from terminal levies by Section 9(3) which provides that a levy may be imposed on employers:
"whether or not they are holders of exemption certificates".
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I must confess that the answer does not meet the issue that I think is there. I do not quite see the point which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, made about punctuation. However, perhaps it is just a matter of punctuation. I hope that it is possible, with the speed with which this Bill is being rushed through, that the necessary correction can be made to get the English right. That is all that I am worried about. I accept what my noble friend said about what he thinks the effect would be if the English were right. It is very complicated, and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("(2) Where an order is revoked under subsection 1(b) above, any requirements for employers or establishments in the industries concerned to respond to actions under sections 6 or 6A of this Act shall cease to have effect.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 2. This amendment follows on from those which I tabled in Committee and as regards which my noble friend Lord Lyell said, at col. 1305, and others, that he thought that I had gone too far. I wrote to my noble friend because I had not received the letter which he had promised me in Committee, and said that if I did not receive one from him I would put another amendment down—namely, this one. He has subsequently written to me a letter dated today, which was a little late.
Indeed, I would take this opportunity to say to the Government that I really think that they have rushed this Bill through. It is not as though it is granting independence to people who have already planned their Independence Day. Perhaps it would have been more reasonable if we could have had a little more time between the Committee and Report stages to allow for the normal exchange of letters, and also a little time between the Report stage and Third Reading. However, that is another issue which perhaps we shall discuss later.
I should like to raise one matter on which I hope that I may get some reassurance from my noble friend the Minister. What we are really concerned with here is to try to establish that when a training board has been wound up, companies in an industry shall not be pursued indefinitely by the Manpower Services Commission to render reports, provide information, tell how they are getting on with their training and so on. Those matters are the real burden of the training board system on companies that are training satisfactorily and are doing it smoothly; they have found them to be pretty intolerable. Indeed, they have found that they have had to employ more staff than they otherwise would have done in order to meet this business of supplying information.
If it has been agreed that the companies in an industry are training sufficiently well for the training board to have effectively done its job and expended its usefulness, then we want to spare those companies from the Manpower Services Commission (which will still remain in being) asking for all sorts of information. That would be tedious for the companies, and they hope now to be freed from that burden. Unfortunately,

591
this letter of today's date, which was written to me by my noble friend Lord Lyell, points out that it is not the training boards—because they will be wound up—that are the problem (I seek to remove their abilities to trouble people); it is the Manpower Services Commission, which he says:
"has its own powers under the 1973 Act".
Therefore, I have been firing my guns in the wrong direction. Here I return to the fact that we have been rushed, because if I had had my noble friend's letter earlier than this moment, I would have tabled a totally different amendment, which I am not now able to do, for if matters go as the Government wish, I cannot even do so on Third Reading. Therefore, it has been a most unsatisfactory affair and I am extremely sorry that this should ever have arisen.
With that background and notwithstanding my distress, I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me some reassurances that we will not have the Manpower Services Commission bothering companies unnecessarily and unreasonably—in the eyes of the companies, not in the eyes of the Manpower Services Commission because I am sure that it thinks that everything it does is reasonable. I hope that my noble friend will be able to give me that sort of assurance.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I very much take the blame for the delay and for the fact that my noble friend received a letter from my noble friend Lord Lyell rather late. The reason for this was that I was, in fact, anxious to fall over backwards and sideways to try to accommodate my noble friend and have the matter looked at several times to see whether I could meet him, and I spent a great deal of time on it myself. As my noble friend will appreciate, there are of course some pressures and exigencies on business at this time of the year, but in spite of that I wanted to go over the matter with the care that I have just mentioned.
My noble friend Lord Lyell made clear in Committee that on winding up a board we would ensure that its affairs were discontinued and wound up in an orderly manner. It seems to us that it would be inequitable if employers, purely by delay, were able to escape their obligations to the board, and I think that in the letter my noble friend has elaborated information as to what will be the likely procedure at the winding up of a board.
What is relevant here is that if a board were to be wound up, it is not that the Government would be seeing that there would be requirements to provide information of a bothersome, unnecessary or unreasonable character, in the words of my noble friend, or that there would be gratuitous bureaucratic goings-on; but that the requirements would be imposed only where it was necessary to do so in respect of trying to ensure equity between levy payers. In other words, we do not want cries of "It's not fair" from one group or another. Therefore, I think that that acts in the interests of employers and subscribers to a board rather than against them.
My noble friend's other amendment concerns the situation where the Secretary of State has declined—assuming a board is to continue—to make a normal levy order in accordance with that board's proposals. There might be a number of reasons for this, but the
592
most likely next step, if we assume that he intends that the board shall continue, is that he would refer the proposals back to the board, through the Manpower Services Commission, asking for fresh proposals, and saying why he was not prepared to implement the board's original proposals. Therefore, there would be no ambiguity so far as the board would be concerned; it would know what were his objections. There seems no reason whatever why the fact that the Secretary of State has declined to approve a particular set of levy proposals should in any way affect an employer's obligation to provide information to a board.
Again, I apologise to my noble friend if he thinks that he has been unreasonably treated. I have examined the substance of what he seeks to achieve with great care. I do not honestly think that his worries are well-founded, though I very much respect the job that he is doing in airing them. With those assurances, I hope that he will not feel obliged to press the amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank my noble friend very much for such reassurances as he is able to give me. Having learned that I am firing my guns in the wrong direction, there is no point in furthering this amendment. I should have said, as my noble friend picked up, that I was also talking to Amendment No. 11. I shall hope that in this rather cross-threading type of argument the message will get through to the Manpower Services Commission that people who are not under training boards do not want questions put to them. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.36 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 34, at end insert—
("(3) For subsections (3) and (4) of section 9 of the said Act there shall be substituted—
"(3) An order under subsection (1)(b) of this section shall provide for the winding up of the industrial training board and may provide for the application for specified purposes of any amount by which the assets of the board may exceed the liabilities and expenses of the winding up.".").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a more important amendment. At the Committee stage we had an amendment which was on the same lines, which was moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, who has kindly added his name to my amendment, as has, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. We had a good debate on this subject. At col. 1354 my noble friend the Minister made the major point—at least it was the point that struck me as important—that we were seeking to reduce the powers of the Secretary of State in relation to the costs of winding up, and he said, "This is no new power". That is quite true; it is no new power when one goes back to the 1964 Act.
However, 17 years have gone by since 1964 and in the course of that time good training companies—and that includes a large number, but not all, of the largest companies, and size is important only in the respect that people pay a great deal more money, in money terms, if they are big because most of the levies

593
that are raised are in proportion to the number of employers—and, therefore, many of the big companies have not had to pay, net, anything for the running of the training boards; because they have always received at least as much in grant as they paid in levy, and sometimes a great deal more. Furthermore, since levy exemption came in, they have been exempt from levy, so they have not paid it there. They did not ask for the training board system and in most cases they resisted it. Although there were some enlightened companies who thought that it was a good idea in 1964, they were relatively few. They did not ask for it and they have not paid for it, and now the training board is to be wound up. I am only talking about those which are to be wound up; we are not concerned with the ones that continue in being.
It will presumably be the case that training boards are wound up only when they have effectively done their job; that is, when they are dealing with an industry which is training satisfactorily or more than satisfactorily in the vast majority of the firms within that industry. Therefore, we are talking only about those to be wound up under conditions of good training. If it so happens that when it is wound up a training board finds that it does not have sufficient assets to meet its outstanding debts, for the first time companies will run the risk of having to pay something towards this training board that they probably did not want in the first place.
My noble friend when answering my last amendment talked about fairness. I am sure that that is foremost in his mind. This amendment is about fairness. Therefore, I suggest that it is perfectly reasonable to have Amendment No. 3; and if your Lordships would turn to Amendment No. 13, which goes with it, you will see that No. 13 in effect is the one which makes the point most clearly. It will ensure that if a training board is in net debt when it is wound up, the monies to pay for this shall come from Parliament and not from industry. I think that this is reasonable. The fact that the powers have been latent there within the 1964 Act to enable the Government to allocate charges how they wish is something that really does not bear consideration at this date, 17 years later. I trust that all noble Lords will join with me in trying to ensure that there is a fair deal for industry. I beg to move.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I am a little confused by this amendment. Perhaps the noble Lord can help me. I followed the noble Lord—in fact I voted for him—at the Committee stage on his original amendment. It was in fact Amendment No. 14 at Committee stage. The intention of that amendment, as I understood it, was that if a training board had not got enough money, the Treasury had to put the money in. I could see that. It seemed reasonable. The noble Lord has got it on the Marshalled List this time, and it is Amendment No. 13. Therefore, we are going to get a chance to run round that track again.
However, this amendment seems rather different. It is not dealing with deficits; it seems to be dealing with surpluses. It says:
"provide for the winding up of the industrial training board and may provide for the application for specified purposes of any
594
amount by which the assets of the board may exceed the liabilities …".
I do not quite see the connection. If we are to have an amendment to bail out a training board, which I would support, why do we also need an amendment which says that if the training board has a surplus then we have to instruct the Secretary of State to tell them what to do with that surplus. The amendment does not tell us what he should tell them to do with the surplus.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I should answer that question. First, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, did not vote with me because we did not take the amendment to a vote.
Lord McCarthy:I would have done.
Lord Mottistone: The noble Lord did in spirit, perhaps. I apologise if I have put down an amendment which is not as clear as it should be, but Amendments Nos. 3 and 13 were given to me on the advice of the CBI as a package. I understood that Amendment No. 3 was necessary in order to give validity to Amendment No. 13 in toto. It is for that reason that this amendment, which does not appear to be so directly on the point, is there, and that is why I directed your Lordships' attention to Amendment No. 13.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I should like strongly to support this amendment and try to reassure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, at the same time by directing his attention, particularly as I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has sought to do, to Amendment No. 13 and to Schedule 1. These make it plain that we are there dealing with amounts by which the assets of the board may be insufficient to meet its liabilities and the expenses of the winding up, as opposed to the earlier amendment to which the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, was particularly directing his attention.
The amendment which was closest to this last time was that moved by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has said. In my few remarks I do not want to repeat what I then said but rather address myself to the situation as it obtains on the ground. What happens is that companies have training departments, and those training departments have budgets to which they are expected to keep. In the short term training is an option, and there is an enormous temptation when times are hard for those budgets to be reduced in amount. That is achieved by reducing the number of staff who are doing the training. It is training itself which has suffered lately by redeployment of training staff, by early retirement and, in the case of some companies, even by enforced redundancy.
If now, apart from having to pay for the operating costs of training, companies may be required by a levy, from which there is no exemption, also to pay for the winding-up costs of boards to which, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, has already said they may earlier not have had need to subscribe at all because of the high quality of their training, then the quantity and quality of training are going to have to suffer further at just the time when trainers and training of high calibre are needed more than ever. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, most warmly in asking

595
the Government to accept this amendment. If they do not I can only suggest to the House that if the noble Lord presses his amendment, as I hope he will in those circumstances, it is supported by the House as a whole.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I should like to support this amendment and to ask the Minister to clarify what the Government's intentions on expenditure on training really are. If the Government want more money to spend on training it is an odd way to start; to remove quite a lot of potential money in order to pay redundancy payments for people in training boards. In the New Training Initiative, which comes from the Manpower Services Commission and to which presumably the Government give general support, it is clearly said that the MSC wants more monies spent on training. It cannot have it both ways. It cannot expect industry to pay more money for training, and at the same time to help itself—because that is really what it is—to pay a debt which the Government have incurred through their legislation and then charge up to industry.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, may I just ask the noble Lord whether he is wanting to press Amendment No. 3, because I still do not see the connection between Amendments Nos. 3 and 13? If he wants to press Amendment No. 13 I am with him, but he has not spoken about it.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, perhaps I could step into this difficulty between the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and my noble friend Lord Mottistone, though I am not sure whether I really should, because maybe their own fire would hit each other and I should escape unscathed. The facts are that the words in Amendment No. 3 are already in the legislation. Amendment No. 3 therefore works by leaving out words about the terminal levy. While the Government are not happy and do not accept the logic of the amendments moved by my noble friend, I have to say that they are extremely well drafted. In other words we do not have our squabble about the English that we had on the first amendment. There is nothing wrong with the drafting of my noble friend's amendments. What is wrong with them is perhaps the sentiments.
I will now turn to points of rather more substance. I hope to be able to answer the point a little more fully which the noble Baroness had just made to me. Since it is fresh in the minds of the House, may I say that I think again she is making a slight confusion between one's intentions over a field of activity, and the expenses and costs of possibly—I stress that—winding up a particular administrative structure which has been dealing with that activity. In other words, one can be totally sincere, not merely in sentiment but in digging into one's pocket as a Government, about additional training, while wishing to see a particular structure for dealing with training wound up. The terminating of any organisation involves some cost, and I shall argue shortly that it seems to us fair that there should at least be the possibility—we are only in possibility territory at the moment, if I may put it that way—that employers should pay a contribution here.
596
As my noble friend said, he moved a similar amendment in Committee. I argued then that the power to impose a terminal levy, which has existed since the 1964 Act first created these training boards, should be kept on, and I am still clear that I must ask the House not to remove this power. As I explained in Committee, power already exists to pay from public funds the liabilities of boards that are abolished; nothing going on in Parliament or at this stage of the Bill is altering that. I gave an assurance that we would take account of the very strong representations that were made, not only in this House but in another place, that the Government should not impose terminal levies on the abolition of a board. However, what I cannot do—I could not then and I cannot now—is give assurances that in all cases there will be no contribution from the individual companies concerned. Obviously Ministers are under great public expenditure constraints at the moment, and any money going finds a good home quickly enough in this economy.
Obviously employers dislike paying levies, and many employers would like to be free from boards without paying terminal levies. Indeed, employers do not want to have to pay the operating costs of boards where they continue, though under the Bill it has to be accepted that they will. It is the Government's view, reflected in Clause 2 of the Bill, that where boards remain, it is right that employers should pay their operating costs, as was the position in the period from 1964 to 1975, but we consider that Exchequer support of board operating costs has not been a success. Against that background, it does not seem to make sense that for those boards that are to continue, employers should be levied to pay for operating costs, but that if there is a net deficit on winding-up a board employers may not be levied at all in order to help pay for that.
I can see the force of my noble friend's argument that many companies have de facto been exempt from levy over recent years, and so have not had to contribute towards the industrial training board at all, whether we are talking about its operating costs or about the finance of grants to subsidise training. That will not be the case in future if the Bill goes through. Where a board continues, employers will have to pay through levy to finance its operating costs, most likely as a result of a board using the power under Clause 3 of the Bill to raise not more than 0·2 per cent. of emoluments on a non-exemptible basis; in other words, that the old exemption principle has been eaten into. This is very important because it is inconsistent with Clause 2 of the Bill (which he House has accepted) to deny the possibility of a terminal levy on winding-up a board.
While I acknowledge that in the recent past many companies have been exempt from levy on the grounds that they have been doing an adequate training job, in future employers will have to pay for the operating costs where a board is retained, and in this situation it seems not unreasonable that the Government should also have the power to ask them to help contribute towards the wind-up costs if they are going to gain fairly substantially by being outside the system altogether. We are, of course, not insensitive to the feelings of employers on this matter, and we are particularly sensitive to those employers who have

597
recently been exempt from levy, for the good reason that they are doing a good job in this field. Therefore we retain the power for the Government to pay the net costs of winding up a board, but we wish also to retain the power to ask for a contribution from employers for the wind-up costs. That, in our contention, spreads the balance of equity quite well, and hope that my noble friend and others who have spoken to the amendment will see that that makes sense. It does not introduce any new great argument of principle and I hope, therefore, that the amendment will not be pressed.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps at the outset I should try to put the mind of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, at rest and try to persuade him that this amendment is as necessary as No. 13. If he looks at the 1964 Act, as amended, in particular Section 9, which is the one we are seeking to amend, he will see—it is the Employment and Training Act 1973, subsection (3) of which we are seeking to delete, as well as subsection (4), which follows from it—that it starts
"An order under … this section shall provide for the winding up of the industrial training board"—
and this is the point
"and may provide for the imposition of a levy on employers in the industry, whether or not they are holders of exemption certificates "
and so on. What in effect we have done by the new subsection (3) to replace the old one is to take out the words:
"may provide for the imposition of a levy on employers"
down to "winding up" in the third line from the bottom; so we are really underpinning the removal from the measure of the authority of the Secretary of State, in making the order, to be able to provide for the imposition of a levy on employers in the industry to pay for the winding up. It is therefore consistent with and part of Amendment No. 13; if we had left this in and made Amendment No. 13 by itself, we should have got the schedule to the 1964 Act, as amended, right, without having got the main part of the 1964 Act, as amended. Thus, we can treat this as being a consistent pair and tackle the two amendment together. But if the noble Lord is not happy about that, perhaps he will raise it with me later and ask any questions.
As for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Gowrie, it is really all a question of fairness, and we in industry felt that the 0·2 per cent. to make sure the training boards were paid for was a tough blow anyway. As my noble friend knows better than most noble Lords, industry is going through very hard times just now and is finding it extremely difficult to make ends meet for everything, no matter what aspect of their business one turns to. be it investment or money for paying wages. We all know that industry is struggling. Yet here, at a time when it is struggling most, it is to be asked to pay extra money, on top of what it is already paying; and those of us who really believe that training is essential, as many people in industry do (not only training, but systematic training relevant to the affairs of the business) fear that to get over this, companies in their desperation will say, "Very well, 0.2 per cent. of a levy based on the emoluments of employees; but
598
that will have to come out of the training budget". I think that is what the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, was saying.
So this is a singularly bad moment. We have not made a great fuss about the figure of 0·2 per cent., because I know and the Government know that without something of that kind many of the training boards could not subsist, because, working on the old basis, they do not have the resources. We have not made a great fuss about that particular aspect, but if a training board continues it is going to give some advice and some help to companies. Even if the companies do not believe that they need such assistance, it is there if they do want it; and so such a training board does not need to be entirely useless, whatever people may think.
But, if the training board is to be wound up, then why on earth should the companies pay this money under these circumstances? It is not only unfair but in some way it is encouraging people to misuse the monetary resources which are available to them. I suggest that this is not something we should accept; that we should not accept the blandishments which the Government have offered so skilfully and disarmingly. I hate to do this to my noble friend, but I really do believe that this is an issue on which we should test the feelings of the House.
6.1 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 3) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided; Contents, 83; Not-Contents, 93.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

Amherst, E.

Jacques, L.

Ardwick, L.

Jeger, B.

Atholl, D.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Auckland, L.

Kennet, L.

Avebury, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Aylestone, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lawrence, L.

Beswick, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Birk, B.

Listowel, E.

Bishopston, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Briginshaw, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Brockway, L.

Longford, E.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Loudoun, C.

Caithness, E.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Collison, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCarthy, L.

Craigavon, V.

Mayhew, L.

Croham, L.

Melchett, L.

David, B.

Mishcon, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Mottistone, L. [Teller.]

Diamond, L.

Mountevans, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ogmore, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Oram, L.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Peart, L.

Greenway, L.

Phillips, B.

Gregson, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Grey, E.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Halsbury, E.

Seear, B.

Hampton, L.

Shinwell, L.

Hanworth, V.

Stedman, B.

Hooson. L

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Howie of Troon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hughes, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Ilchester, E.

Tordoff, L.

599

Underhill, L.

White, B.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Young of Dartington, L.

Whaddon, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Kimberley, E.

Allerton, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Alport, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Avon, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Bellwin, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Belstead, L.

Long, V.

Bessborough, E.

Lyell, L.

Boardman, L.

McFadzean, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Mancroft, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Mansfield, E.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Margadale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Marley, L.

Chelwood L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Cockfield, L.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Cottesloe, L.

Napier and Ettrick, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Newall, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Norfolk, D.

Daventry, V.

Northchurch, B.

Davidson, V.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

de Clifford, L.

Onslow, E.

De La Warr, E.

Orkney, E.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Orr-Ewing, L.

Dilhorne, V.

pender, L.

Donegall, M.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Eccles, V.

Ellenborough, L.

Portland, D.

Elles, B.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Redesdale, L.

Ferrers, E

Reigate, L.

Fortescue, E.

Romney, E.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Gainford, L.

St. Davids, V.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Gormanston, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Gowrie, E.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Gridley, L

Strathspey, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Swinfen, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Trumpington, B.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Henley, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Holderness, L.

Vickers, B.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Vivian, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Killearn, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Kilmany, L.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
6.10 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 36, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("Secretary of State").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Rochester Lord Rochester moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
("Revocation
Before exercising his powers under section 9(1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964 (as amended) to make, amend or revoke an Industrial Training Order for any sector or sub-sector, the Minister shall—

(i) consult with employers and trade associations, employee and trade unions representatives, and educational bodies
600
closely concerned with the sector or sub-sector, with the Manpower Services Commission and where appropriate the Departments of Trade and Industry, to ensure that the training arrangements, whether statutory or voluntary, within each sector or sub-sector are capable of—

(a) being the agent to oversee the collection and maintenance of manpower information relevant to training;

(b) identifying incipient skill shortages and other learning needs, and encouraging training of the quality required to meet those needs;

(c) promoting training relevant to organisational change and new technology;

(d) promoting vocational preparation and training schemes for young people in conjunction with appropriate educational and other bodies;

(e) facilitating the reform of apprentice and other training arrangements;

(f) developing the training of managers, professional and commercial staff, and employee representatives;

(g) acting as an agency for channelling Government funds for meeting national training objectives;

(ii) ensure that the sector or sub-sector should have the means of implementing these arrangements by—

(a) having continuing access to sufficient finance and qualified staff with appropriate administrative support;

(b) reviewing progress towards the agreed training objectives;

(c) having sufficient field training staff to discuss with employers the means of achieving the agreed training objectives;

(d) undertaking regular consultation between representatives of employers, employees and education;

(e) providing or procuring any training advice, consultancy or direct training services requested;

(f) maintaining adequate local, national and cross sectoral links;

(iii) publish an Industrial Training Order, as provided for in section 1(1) of the Industrial Training Act 1964, to cover the agreed industrial training arrangements for each sector or sub-sector.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, it might be for the convenience of the House if I speak to amendments Nos. 5 and 6 together. The Government wish to see training put on a voluntary footing wherever possible, retaining statutory training boards only when they judge that this is essential in the light of the Manpower Services Commission's sectoral review, which we understand is to be published in the next few days. On this side of the House many of us would prefer to build on the foundations already laid by existing training hoards. Recognising these conflicting views, the purpose of Amendment No. 5 is to seek a generally acceptable solution by ensuring that all sectors of industry have not necessarily a uniform training organisation, but training arrangements, which can apply to statutory training boards, where these remain, or operate on a voluntary basis under conditions appropriate to the sector concerned.
These arrangements would have to be capable of conforming to certain criteria, which are so framed as to encourage an approach to training that is not simply structural, but which is of an organic problem solving kind that focuses on objectives and achievements. The criteria are set out in sub-paragraphs (a) to (g) of paragraph (i) of the first new clause, and their introduction would have to be preceded by wide consultation. They are identical to those contained in a somewhat similar amendment which was moved at the Committee stage when they commanded general support.
So much for the aims that the amendment seeks to achieve. The means are contained in paragraph (ii) of the new clause. They, too, are substantially the same as those in the earlier amendment, and again they met with general approval in Committee. I would stress once more that these means are flexible and they are designed to accommodate the requirements of large and small individual companies. Perhaps their most important feature is that they seek to ensure the maintenance of adequate local and cross-sectoral links, and they thus recognise that training needs are related to the local labour market and they apply across sectors, rather than being identifiable only on the basis of individual industries.
In its revised form the amendment takes account of objections that were raised to the earlier amendment, in particular by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, who was critical of a paragraph which sought to place on the Secretary of State a duty to publish criteria for acceptable training arrangements in each industrial sector. At that time I endeavoured to assure the noble Lord that his fears were misplaced, but the best way of dispelling them seemed to be to exclude altogether the offending paragraph from the revised amendment, and so that is what has been done.
I would prefer criteria for each sector to be published, but that is not a matter of crucial importance. The only essential requirements are that training in future, whether it is carried out under statutory boards, or through voluntary arrangements, should be capable of achieving the objectives set out in paragraph (i) of the new clause, and that each sector of industry should have the means of implementing such arrangements in the way specified in paragraph (ii).
In the earlier amendment there was another paragraph that was not challenged in Committee. That paragraph sought to ensure that every major sector of the economy, including the public services, was provided with the training arrangements set out in the new clause. I continue to feel that training outside industry is woefully inadequate, but I am advised that if provision were made in the amendment for sectors of the economy other than industry, and a clause was accepted by the House, then in another place a further money resolution would be required. Only the Government can move such a resolution, and with the current pressure on resources they might be reluctant to move it. I do not want the amendment to fall eventually only for that reason, and because what we are all mainly concerned about is industrial training, a paragraph dealing with other sectors of the economy has therefore also now been taken out of the new clause.
If for a moment I may turn to Amendment No. 6 containing the second proposed new clause, I would say that the words in it first appeared at the end of the amendment moved in Committee. However, it, too, has certain funding implications, and that is why it now forms a separate amendment. I see no reason why this further clause should not be acceptable to the Government, because if training arrangements are to be capable of what is set out in paragraph (i)(g) of the first new clause—that is, of
"acting as an agency for channelling Governments funds for meeting national training objectives"—
602
or if, in the national interest, training arrangements are sanctioned by the Secretary of State in pursuit of objectives that go beyond the industrial sector concerned, either the Government funds will already be available, or the Secretary of State will presumably make them available to finance training for which he has thus taken a responsibility. Even so, the words in question now form an altogether separate clause, so that in the case of any unforeseen difficulty the second amendment, after being moved, could be withdrawn, or possibly need not be moved at all.
Returning to the first amendment, I hope that the revised form in which it is now framed will enable the noble Earl to accept it on behalf of the Government. In Committee he questioned the need for training arrangements to be subject to review in the courts and for the full panoply of the judicial system, as he put it, to be brought into play. I trust that on reflection he will feel that such language was hardly appropriate and that it is unlikely that these matters will be put to such a test. Certainly I would have thought that the risk of the law not being observed in this case is much less than it is in matters affecting, for example, the closed shop, picketing, and secondary action, on which the Government legislated last year with support from these Benches. But I am content that the same test should be applied in each case. The point is well put in A New Training Initiative, the MSC's consultative document, paragraph 47 of which states:
"Legislation works best when it supports or enforces what is widely regarded as desirable and acceptable".
I cannot put it better, and both the document and that statement are immediately relevant to this amendment.
It is indeed a matter of judgment whether or not there should be statutory criteria to safeguard the future of training in this country. That is the question which we must decide on this occasion, with rather more of your Lordships present than was the case in Committee. I would only remind the House that at the Report stage of the Bill in another place, where there was moved an amendment which sought to introduce statutory obligations far more stringent than those contained in this amendment, the basic principle that I am now advancing was supported by a number of Conservative Members of Parliament, who had participated in earlier discussions in the Standing Committee, and who clearly know a great deal about training. One of them suggested that the Government should themselves consider bringing forward a new clause having objectives similar to this one. The Government have not seen fit to introduce such a clause, but the House now has an opportunity to remedy that omission. Improvements in training have certainly been made since the 1964 Act, but in my view we must make sure that the ground thus gained is not now lost.
I suggest that there is one further positive point of great importance to be made in favour of including this new clause in the Bill; that the framework outlined in paragraphs (i) and (ii), and especially the need for each industrial sector to maintain adequate local, national and cross-sectoral links, might well prove helpful, even essential to the Secretary of State in the increasing attention that is now rightly being given by the Government, most recently I understand

603
by the Prime Minister only this afternoon, to training in this country, particularly in the case of young people.
My Lords, I think that I have just about finished. There was one other point I wanted to make, and it really enables me to end where I began. This amendment represents a sincere attempt to seek a consensus among us so that in future, irrespective of the political complexion of the Government of the day, there can be continuity of policy in this vital matter of industrial training. I beg to move.
6.21 p.m.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to support this amendment with every possible force, because it seems to me it has been moved with admirable modesty and clarity by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. I believe it is an unanswerable amendment. We are not asking for the specification of published criteria to define the aims or outputs for acceptable training arrangements, which was that part of the previous amendment moved at the Committee stage which, as has been said, was objected to by noble Lords on the other side. We are taking out the extension of the area to cover, for example, the public service; that has gone. We are moving as a separate amendment those parts of the original amendment which dealt with the raising of monies.
Therefore this amendment comes down to a simple commitment on the Government's part to a consultation process. It really specifies that before the Secretary of State abolishes an ITP he should carry out a consultation process. "Well", you might say, "that's in the Bill already". Yes, but it does not say in the Bill already what he is consulting about and what the certain things are he could be looking for in this consultation process. That is what this amendment does, and I should have thought the things put in the first part of the amendment about the collection of information, the identification of skill shortages and promoting vocational preparation where all things that the noble Earl in the first part of his Second Reading speech said that the Government support. Therefore I cannot see why there should be any objection to that part of the amendment.
The second part of the amendment merely asks the Government in the consultation process to ensure that the sector or sub-sector should have the means of implementing these kind of aims. It spells out again, I should have thought, a whole series of very simple, straightforward and non-controversial points which the Secretary of State would genuinely wish to take into account.
As was said by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, on Thursday the Manpower Services Commission, we believe, will unveil their sector by sector review. I should have thought that anyone would expect the Manpower Services Commission to be guided by these kind of principles. They would be very foolish if they were not, and I should have thought that the Secretary of State, in reviewing what the Manpower Services Commission does, would be guided by similar principles.
Therefore, the only possible reason that the Government can have for rejecting this amendment is because
604
they say, "Trust us; we don't want it written down, we don't want to be bound by it. We agree with it, but trust us". I suggest that we have here a very broad level of consensus which the Government ought to listen to. They ought to listen at least at one stage in this Bill to what is being said on this side of the House, and supported on the other side of the House, both here and, as the noble Lord said, elsewhere. It is the disease of not listening; it is the malady of not marking that is the defect of this Government, and I ask them to listen to this amendment.
6.24 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, both the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, in support, very fairly said that we were returning to the same ground we covered in Committee in a slightly more limited sense, as I fully acknowledge. I do not want to repeat my remarks at the Committee stage, particularly as, just as one should not seek a false consensus, one should not seek false confrontation.
I agree with most of what the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and indeed the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, have said. I think the difference is not simply that the Government are saying, "Trust us"; the Government are saying that it is really inconceivable that the kinds of criteria being mentioned in these debates would not be part of a consultation process by an operating arm responsible to Government and also responsible to a tripartite body like the Manpower Services Commission. But we have a deep philosophic suspicion, if you like, of confusing policy issues and practice issues in a legal statute.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, said: "Well, what about picketing? What about secondary action?". He reminded the House that he gave us his support for those provisions in the Employment Bill, now the Employment Act. I would respectfully suggest that that is a very different area. There, under our step-by-step approach, we were dealing with precise, agreed and targeted abuses. We were trying to prevent sin. Here, we are trying to encourage virtue. I think all of us agree that the law has a role in the prevention of sin; but whether a statute law has the same force in the encouragement of virtue I personally rather doubt.
If I may be allowed one general and possibly rather subjective observation, one of the irritations which modern Parliaments cause both the judicial system and the country as a whole is the tendency of successive Governments—and I do not think we are guiltless, though I think Labour Governments tend to be guiltier—to insist that one cannot govern, one cannot express or undertake a policy, unless one immediately gives it statutory force or effect. It is, I think, all part of the dubious principle of appealing to one's activists: "Of course we meant what we said, we made a law about it."
But, my Lords, good practice in industry, whether it is in the wages field—as I am sure the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, with all his experience would agree—whether it is in the field of participation and industrial democracy, or whether it is in the field of training, seems to me not to be achievable by statute law. Some of our opponents are giving the impression that if only one passes the right kinds of laws one could

605
legislate such evils as inflation or unemployment out of the system. Would that we could! There would be overwhelming majorities for such laws. But think of the disappointment when it was found that the law was operating in an area where it could not give very great effect.
The Earl of Longford: If the noble Lord will permit me, he may regard it as a quibble, but if he is going to talk about training he is getting quite close to education. After all, the principle of compulsion in education has long been accepted.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, what has been accepted is not compulsion as to what is taught or how the education is conducted but the age and broad structure, the age of the pupils and when they may leave school and the provision by statute for their schooling. I would suggest that that is a very different form of compulsion or form of statutory undertaking from what we are discussing here.
We come back to the fact that the various tests proposed in this amendment—litmus tests, if you like, with which I find myself in agreement—would be subject to judicial review. It seems to us that the right way to decide whether voluntary arrangements are adequate to replace a statutory board is for the Government to take a decision as to whether or not these arrangements are satisfactory; that the Government should take that decision in a publicly-informed way, based on the expert views of the Manpower Services Commission and based, too, on consultations and discussions with those closely concerned; and not by any manner of means, having taken that decision, to say, "Trust us", but to be answerable for that decision through Parliament in the ordinary way—and this is provided in the law as it is at present.
I should have thought, too, following something said by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, that no one with any experience of the MSC. whatever criticisms we can all make from time to time of that body, would imagine that it would not necessarily take tests of this kind into consideration, whether in a sector by sector review, as we shall shortly see, or whether as part of its ongoing work in this whole field. But, inevitably, any attempt to set out in statute the tests of the adequacy of voluntary arrangements will fail to make sense in some circumstances. For instance, paragraph (ii) of the proposed new clause requires the Secretary of State to ensure that each sector where a statutory board is going to be established or abolished should have the means of achieving training objectives by being able to undertake certain functions—and these are functions which are clearly within the power of any statutory board. But the Secretary of State cannot ensure anything as regards voluntary arrangements, because by definition these are voluntary, and if they are voluntary he simply does not have powers over them.
If I may take another important instance, the first new clause here presupposes a distinct training organisation for every sector of the economy with its own staff and administrative support. This is required before even rather minor changes of ITB scope are made. This might not be appropriate for some industries where there are a few large companies that do the industry's training adequately without outside inter-
606
vention. I think these two points about the text of the proposed new clause are not quibbles or pedantic, but demonstrate the very great difficulty we get into when we try to accept for the sake of argument the voluntary principle, as your Lordships did in Committee, but try to pin it down, as these amendments try to do, in statute.
Having said that, I should like to give some encouragement or some earnest to the House. The House will, I am sure, feel that the Government should give evidence that voluntary arrangements are adequate to meet essential training needs before any statutory training board is abolished, and I can give an absolute assurance that our intention is to do so. When my right honourable friend the Secretary of State first asked the Manpower Services Commission to review training arrangements, he spelt out quite specifically the criteria upon which his final decision would need to be based, and I do not think there is any disagreement between us as to the validity or good sense of the criteria. We have also gone further and spelt out some of the functions that we would expect voluntary training arrangements to have if they were to meet these criteria; for instance, monitoring training needs and arranging action to alleviate them, setting up-to-date training standards and working with unions and education bodies.
The commission, as we have been told and as I can confirm, has been examining the proposals for voluntary arrangements against these specified tests or criteria. They are perfectly free to bring other tests to bear. I expect their report will spell out what additional tests they themselves have applied. I am sure that that report will form an excellent basis for wide public and parliamentary consideration of future training arrangements; and the whole nature of training in this country, and the part that the MSC and the boards play in it, make it extremely difficult for any Government, even if they were so foolish as to want to do so, to ignore this criteria.
I am sure that that is the right way to proceed, and that the acceptance of these amendments would really intrude rather deeply into the voluntary principle without, as it were, in any sense changing what would happen in the field. With that, I would ask your Lordships to resist the amendments if they are pressed.
6.36 p.m.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, I very much hope that the House will support this amendment. I think we would all be encouraged by the latter part of the noble Earl's speech, in which he was indicating to us a real concern about the standards to be applied by the voluntary bodies, and for this, I am sure, we shall be grateful. But I do not think that that answers the point that we have made, requiring these standards to be embodied in the legislation. The reason why I say that is that I ask the noble Earl to think ahead as to what is likely to happen after these bodies have been established. The fact of the matter undoubtedly is that inside industry there are some people who have been leaders in training inside each sector—some firms which have been leaders, which have pioneered new training and who care a great deal to see that this should go on. There are others who do not care at all; who would have done nothing unless they had

607
been prodded. This goes for inside companies as well: there are always some people who are keen on pushing ahead and some people who want to drag their feet.
If these criteria are embodied in legislation, the pro-training lobby inside the industry and inside the company can point to it in the Act and say, "Look, you have got to do this because it is in the Act". When the first initial interest in the organisation has passed, unless there is something there to help the people who want to keep the impetus of training going and to have such a provision in the legislation, which is the greatest help to the people who want to keep the impetus going, then when all the other burdens crowd in on industry, when the Government have taken all this money out of the training budget with which to pay the redundancy payments, and when all the other things have happened, it is going to be increasingly difficult for the pro-trainers to beat the anti-trainers inside the voluntary body inside the organisation. To have it in the legislation would greatly help the voluntary people who want to push training.
Lord Kilmarnock: The noble Earl referred to the Government's philosophy, and the Government are in a philosophical difficulty over when, where and how far to intervene in many aspects of our national life. Laissez-faire is nostalgically pursued. In this context it is called voluntarism, and then a stream of qualifications and modifications of the beloved principle have to be introduced to meet the realities of the 'eighties. Against this background it seems to me that the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is of positive help to the Government. He has withdrawn his suggestion of national criteria put forward at the Committee stage, thus taking account of the objections advanced both by the noble Earl and by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. Personally, I think such criteria will have to come in the not too far distant future. But on this occasion Lord Rochester has avoided any attempt to undermine the central principle of voluntarism. He has, so to speak, given it the benefit of the doubt, and has provided, or is putting on offer, a very useful mechanism for buttressing it and for providing it with certain safeguards if and when it fails to live up to the Government's expectations.
I said at Committee stage that I thought it unfair of the noble Earl to describe Lord Rochester's amendment at that stage as a straitjacket. It might have been better described as a corset the strings of which might have been tightened only if the anatomy began to sag. This is not even a corset; it is a nice loose-fitting garment to which the Government should not take exception. If all goes well, it might not even need to be taken off the shelf. Yet I think it may be useful to the Government in a number of ways.
As regards (i)(a) and (b) concerning collection of manpower information and the identifying of incipient skill shortages, there can be no doubt that this sort of information is vital if the MSC is to do its job. This has been stressed in all its recent reports. How on earth is it to do this in sectors where an ITB never existed without some sort of statutory underpinning such as is provided here.
Then again we have sub-paragraph (i)(d), which may be of considerable assistance in the implementation of
608
the Government's declared intention to improve the youth opportunities programme. We shall welcome whatever improved training provisions for school-leavers the Secretary of State has been able to obtain from his colleagues, on which we understand an announcement has been made in another place this afternoon. I am only saying that Lord Rochester's new clause will make it easier for the Government to put their good intentions into effect.
Next, subparagraph (g) is important. It appears from the MSC's last corporate plan and from its annual report, for 1980–81 that the proposed saving of £90·8 million on the board's operating costs is to be spread over two years, that is £45·4 million in 1981/82 and 1982/83 respectively. That still leaves £53·7 million in the kitty of each of those two years will be devoted to the category "services to industry training bodies". Much of this will presumably be made up in training grants which ran at something like £35 million in 1980–81. These grants were spread over all the boards, some of which, at least, will fold if their operating costs are to be withheld. How is this money, therefore, to be administered in such cases other than by the consultative arrangements Lord Rochester's amendment provides? Incidentally, it is interesting to note, or I was interested to note, from the small print in table 9 of the MSC's current report that only about one-quarter of the so-called operating costs are in fact spent on administration, that is, only some £12 million across all the boards; the rest goes on training and advisory services other than those contributed by the Government through the MSC. That seems a modest cost to pay for the nearest thing we have to a national training network.
The Government may be coming to the same conclusion themselves. It was reported in the Observer yesterday and in the Financial Times this morning that the Government were going to set aside an extra £20 million over two years for the ITBs. One wonders what for. Is it possible that this Bill is being overtaken by events before it becomes law? We await enlightenment. In the meantime, I suggest to your Lordships that for so long as we are obliged to dwell in this area of uncertainty the new clause proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, is a thoroughly sensible safeguard, and I hope that Members from all sides of the House will support it should the noble Lord decide to press it to a Division this evening.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I very much appreciate the sense that is behind the production of this amendment. Indeed, sub-paragraphs (i)(a) to (g) are exemplary in their summing up of what is needed as the basis for good training, and I entirely agree with that; but I hope the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, will not wish me to go any further in his support in view of his great kindness in supporting me in Amendment No. 3, because I so much agree with my noble friend the Minister. It is not for us to backseat drive through this sort of technical detail. Really, you are covering two things; you are covering the statutory bodies which remain, and the voluntary bodies.
As you know, I had the great privilege to be the first director of the distributive industry training board. If there had been something like this in the 1964 Act I would have been appalled and so would my board. We

609
were proud of our independence to serve our industry, to find out its needs and help them to satisfy them, and we did not want to have this sort of thing. One of the joys of the 1964 Act was that it did not go into that sort of detail. It had its broad criteria, and nobody would object to that, but they were much broader than this. So I think even a training board, particularly when it has been going for nearly 20 years in some cases, would not wish suddenly to be told to do things that it probably thought of 15 years ago. Furthermore, when it comes to the voluntary training organisations, for the very good reasons that my noble friend advanced, they are even less likely to want to take to this sort of "busying" from a centralised body.
When we sit in Parliament we tend to develop a sort of air that our deliberations are so splendid that everybody must at once think they are good. Most of the people in the country think they are absolute nonsense. I am very sorry about this. And if they do not think they are nonsense they say, "I had thought of this already. What are you telling me to do it for?" So fundamentally I disagree with this, and I would certainly not joint the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in the Lobby as he kindly did with me just now.
There is only one thing that comes out of the Minister's contribution to this debate that did worry me very much indeed. If I understood him aright, in order to make a sort of sop to the mover of this amendment he said, "Well, of course we will be taking jolly good care to see that the voluntary bodies do all the right things", or words to that effect. I may be misquoting him, and he will forgive me if I do, but perhaps I can once again remind him, as I did in the Committee stage, of his remarks to me at Second Reading. I am quoting from col. 1303 of the Official Report, of 15th July, which in its turn quoted from col. 140 of 30th June. My noble friend then said:
"He asked me whether the Government were requiring a collective training organisation in all cases. The Government will not necessarily insist on collective training organisations in all cases".
I do hope that my noble friend can reassue me that this is still the view of the Government and that it will not be necessary for companies in particular types of industry, where they take a particular form which we discussed in Second Reading, to feel that it is obligatory for them to have a centralised voluntary organisation of one sort or another. If he could reassure me, I should be grateful.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. I tried to make it clear—he must check this carefully with Hansard tomorrow—that voluntary is voluntary, but that of course the Secretary of State has spelt out the criteria which the MSC can look at and which he will take into account as he examines their advice about whether or not a board should be wound up. But I do not think I was in any way soppier than that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, but perhaps I should just finish by saying that basically this is a great conundrum. If you come to think of it, there are very few areas where this sort of thing is being
610
inflicted on people. For example, if you take the qualifications for personnel officers, which the noble Baroness knows better than anybody else in this House, that is not in a statute. That is laid down by the Institute of Personnel Management, by agreement with its members, but it does not appear in statute, and I think perhaps it is going a little far to put this into the statute. I think it needs more to be in a relevant part of the qualifications for personnel managers or training officers. That is the sort of place where these details need to be.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken. If I may endeavour to respond to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, first, while his views are fresh in my mind, I find it rather difficult to follow his argument. If it is that all these things are already within the compass of statutory boards, I cannot see why he should oppose their being included in a clause such as this. However, the difference in the situation now is that the Government are seeking wherever possible to introduce arrangements on a voluntary basis, and it is that situation with which we have to contend. I should have thought that everybody would feel that the arrangement spelt out in this first clause was essentially flexible—it might even be said to be loose—in the form of a framework. It does not even amount to an organisation. The operative word in the clause is really "arrangements"—that there should be training arrangements.
We are in a position where there have been statutory training boards; there have been statutes going back to 1964. We are not starting in a green field. The aim of the Government, as I understand it, is now to circumscribe those statutes severely. What I am concerned about is that once the law has been modified in this way, we shall go back in degree at least to the situation which obtained before 1964. In a time like the present with severe recession—and this was the comment made both by my noble friend Lady Seear and myself in response to Lord Mottistone's amendment—we may go back to a situation where training is reduced, to the great detriment of the nation.
So far as the noble Earl is concerned, I do not think that I need to respond to his criticisms concerning voluntarism. That was done by my noble friend. But he talked, as I understood it, of the distinction between large and small firms and said that it is all very well to have these arrangements with large firms, but what about the small ones? The industry I know best from experience is the chemical industry. I should think it perfectly possible for that large number of small firms which are within the chemical industry to come under the scope of the Chemicals and Allied Products Industry Training Board, as it is called, to be accommodated within arrangements such as those suggested. They could be accommodated by external training resources, by services provided by consulting agencies, by staffing through consultants with good track records in training, and so on. I will not weary noble Lords by amplifying this aspect.
The essential point I want to make—and I come back to the point I made at the beginning—is this: we are in circumstances where many people are saying, "Let statutory training boards continue", and many others, particularly the Government, are saying "Let

611
there be more voluntarism". We are seeking to take advantage of the opportunity in this vital area to gain some co-operation.
Last Friday the Secretary of State, as the noble Earl well knows, called for a second industrial revolution. That was to be based on co-operation between the Government, unions and management. Here we have a glorious opportunity to obtain that co-operation and to involve representatives of education as well. There is the further opportunity (to judge from the attitude taken in another place by a number of Conservatives to the issue underlying this amendment) to gain at least a measure of agreement in this vital area between the political parties. I am sorry that the Government do not seem minded to reach what I should have thought was a reasonable consensus in this matter, and I feel obliged, in the light of the support that I have received from many quarters, to press this amendment.
6.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 5) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 67; Not-Contents, 91.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Amherst, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Ardwick, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Auckland, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Aylestone, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Beswick. L.

McCarthy, L.

Birk B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Bishopston, L.

Mayhew, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Byers, L.

Ogmore, L.

Caradon, L.

Oram, L.

Collison, L.

Peart, L.

David, B.

Phillips, B.

Davies of Leek, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L. [Teller.]

Diamond. L.

Donnet of Balgay L.

Rochester, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L.

Ross of Marnock, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

Seear, B.

Ewart-Biggs, B.

Stedman, B.

Gifford, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Gregson, L.

Stewart of Fulham, L.

Grey, E.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Hale, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Hampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Hanworth, V.

Tordoff, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Underhill, L.

Hooson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hughes, L.

Whaddon, L.

Irving of Dartford, L.

White, B.

Jacques, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Janner, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Jeger, B.

Young of Dartington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airey of Abingdon, B.

Caithness, E.

Allerton, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Alport, L.

Cathcart, E.

Avon, E.

Chelwood, L.

Bellwin, L.

Cockfield, L.

Bessborough, E.

Colville of Culross, V.

Boardman, L.

Colwyn, L.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Craigavon, V.

612

Craigmyle, L.

Mancroft, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mansfield, E.

Daventry, V.

Marley, L.

de Clifford, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Dilhorne, V.

Mottistone, L.

Donegall, M.

Mountevans, L.

Dundee, E.

Northchurch, B.

Eccles, V.

Onslow, E.

Elles, B.

Orkney, E.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Ferrers, E.

Pender, L.

Fortescue, E.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Gainford, L.

Portland, D.

Gardner of Parkes, B.

Rankeillour, L.

Gormanston, V.

Rawlinson of Ewell, L.

Gowrie, E.

Redesdale, L.

Gridley, L.

Reigate, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Romney, E.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

St. Davids, V.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L. [Teller.]

Holderness, L.

Shannon, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Skelmersdale, L.

Killearn, L.

Stanley of Alderley, L.

Kilmany, L.

Stradbroke, E.

Kimberley, E.

Strathspey, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Swinfen, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Lane-Fox, B.

Trumpington, B.

Lauderdale, E.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Loudoun, C.

Vickers, B.

Lyell, L.

Vivian, L.

McFadzean, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Mackay of Clashfern, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
[Amendment No. 6 not moved.]
Clause 3 [Exemption from levies]:
7.3 p.m.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 19, leave out ("or") and insert ("by them and, if and only if, the employers concerned so wish, those").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I should like to talk to Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10 and 12. At Committee stage I had somewhat similar amendments down and my noble friend was persuasive on the fact that he required the powers to extend training as one of the criteria for levy exemption beyond the employees of the particular company concerned; that is, beyond those in the employ of the company to those in employ in the industry. I sought to have "and in employ in the industry" removed. My noble friend persuaded me that in the case of what are known as "transferable skills"—which at the time I pointed out that I thought were pretty mythical anyhow—assuming for the moment that they exist, it would be necessary to have these extra powers which the Government have added to the provisions of the original 1964 Act, as amended in 1973. So in order to accommodate my noble friend—and I hope that this will appeal to him and make him sympathetic to my amendments—I have left it in, as it were, so that it should cover those in employ within the industry but not within the company, but that their training should be voluntary; that is, that companies should

613
be asked to undertake the training of people not specifically in their own employ but within the industry only on a voluntary basis. That is the sense of Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10.
In the case of Amendment No. 12, it seems to me and to those in industry who advise me that if the Government are asking a company to take on extra people who are not specifically their own employees—and indeed some of the bigger companies certainly have the resources to do this—it would be only reasonable for the Government to pay for that. The object of Amendment No. 12, which is in effect a new one from the Committee stage because I had not thought of adding the point at that stage, is to say: "Yes, all right: let us have training of people in the industry and let us have it done on a voluntary basis, but when we do let the Government pay for it." I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, my noble friend has indeed modified the amendment he moved in Committee, which then sought to preserve the present situation under which the criteria for getting exemption from levy have to relate to the needs of particular establishments of employers. He is now proposing to allow these exemption criteria to relate to the wider needs of industry only if individual employers agree. I am indeed most grateful to him for trying to move towards the Government's position. I can assure him that the Government are sensitive to the views he has expressed and to the fears of some parts of industry that wider exemption criteria will be used to make them pay for unnecessary training. We do not think that these fears are likely to be realised, but, if they were, the Government could prevent levy exemption proposals from being put into action. That is why I should not think that my noble friend's amendment would be necessary.
We propose in Clause 3 of the Bill to allow training boards to set exemption criteria which relate beyond the needs of individual employers to the total needs of their industries. We do this in the belief that some boards would need this power to meet needs which would not be met if, as it were, one totted up the whole sum of training done by individual employers.
As paragraph 9.19 of Outlook on Training said, in some industries which have a relatively high proportion of employess with transferable skills requiring lengthy training, it may not be possible for a board to ensure that enough people are trained if their board is required by statute to exempt employers wholly from a training levy. The industries in which statutory boards are most likely to be retained are probably those with training needs that cannot in fact be satisfied by the sum total of individual employers' efforts. So giving boards the power to set exemption criteria going rather beyond the needs of individual employers seems to us to be a useful lever in industries of this kind. It would give boards leverage over employers to raise their training provision or to get more levy to finance the training needed.
What my noble friend proposes, in our view, would tend to undermine this. If employers were given the choice, as he would like, between having exemption and not having it, they are pretty well bound to opt for exemption, and therefore the boards would have no
614
leverage whatsoever. I have tried to justify why that leverage would be necessary. But I would again stress, as I constantly do in respect of this Bill, that Clause 3(1) is an enabling provision. It does not mean that boards are obliged to put forward proposals for exemption certificates based on these wider criteria which we have been discussing. They can, if they consider it appropriate, still propose that their exemption criteria should continue to be restricted to the needs of the individual establishment. I would certainly envisage that some boards would not need to set exemption criteria going beyond these individual establishment needs. If a board did propose to do so and if, in our view, it was unnecessary to do so, we simply would not approve their proposal.
I can assure my noble friend, however, that we will proceed with the greatest caution on this matter and will take very full account of any views expressed to us by industries where wider exemption criteria are proposed. I hope that that assurance might lead him not to press this amendment.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, may I just ask my noble friend whether he spoke to Amendment No. 12 as well, or has he a little more to say on that subject?
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I was speaking to the package of Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9 and 10. I rather anticipated that Amendment No. 12 would be taken separately, but I am grateful to my noble friend for correcting me. He took Amendment No. 12 with his first package. All I have to say about Amendment No. 12 is that the legal powers already exist for grants to be made to employers, and already are used to channel Government money to those employers who provide training which goes beyond their immediate needs. So we have certainly no intention of withdrawing those powers.
Indeed, though this goes a little wider, the Government are spending £30 million a year in grants as of yesterday—rather more as of today—through the MSC and ITBs, to employers for the kind of training that my noble friend has in mind. In fact, whenever, looking back to our debates on the last amendments, we talk about voluntarism this is not, with respect to the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, laissez-faire. It is a mixed economy and the Government intervene at the margins very substantially indeed. I should like to be on record with that.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, I am deeply grateful to my noble friend, particularly for his concluding remarks. I shall read with great care the report of what he has said, and will see that it is widely read in the appropriate quarters. My Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 8 to 13 not moved.]
Schedule 1 [Miscellaneous amendments to Industrial Training Act 1964]:
7.14 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie The Earl of Gowrie moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert—
("and

615
(c) for subsection (3) there shall be substituted—
"(3) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (5) of section 1 and subsection (5) of section 9 of this Act, an order under either of those sections may vary or revoke an order under subsection (2) of this section.".
4A. At the end of section 12(1) of that Act there shall be inserted the words "and the order imposing the levy shall make provision as to the time within which such an appeal may be made".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a technical amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Mottistone Lord Mottistone moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 12, line 28, at end insert—
("( ) (a) For paragraph 3(a) of the Schedule to that Act there shall be substituted:—
"(a) a number of persons appointed after consultation with such organisations or associations of organisations representative of employers engaging in the industry as appear to the Minister to be appropriate;
(b) an equal number of persons to those described in subparagraph 3(a) above appointed after consultation with such organisations or associations of organisations representative of persons employed in the industry as appear to the Minister to be appropriate."
(b) Paragraph 3(b) to the Schedule to that Act shall be designated "3(c)".
(c) In paragraph 5 to the Schedule to that Act, the first paragraph reference shall be to paragraph 3(c).").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, at the Committee stage there was an exchange between myself and my noble friend the Minister and, indeed, the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. Both eminent noble Lords on the Front Benches sought to persuade me that the worries that I had over this part of the Bill were unfounded. However, I read very carefully the report of what they had to say and I came to the conclusion that the Bill as it stands could create the condition which we had in the distributive industry training board in 1971, when we had an equal vote of the employers' side and the trade union side—that is, nine people each—and there was an impasse which eventually had to be settled by the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 3(a) says that there shall be an equal number of employers' representatives and employees' representatives, and we are talking about a majority of those two. If the levy is to go up, the employers will all gang together to prevent that happening, so they will be equal to the others and there will be an impasse. If the levy is to go down, the trade union side will, in the normal course of events, all gang together so that the other side will not be able to outvote them. It seems to me that unless you split the definition of employers' representatives and employees' representatives, so that the added bit of paragraph 5 refers to paragraph 3(a) and employers only, you will not get this marginal majority for employers which both my noble friend the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, told me you do get. My Lords, I beg to move.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I have absolutely no objection to this amendment, except one—that it does not seem to me to be needed. I agree with my noble friend that it is desirable where employers are providing the money for boards—operating costs as well as money for grants and other training expenses—that employers should have a controlling voice in the way in which
616
that money is raised. It is, if you like, the John Hampden principle as we put it at Committee stage. In Committee in another place we accepted an amendment which achieves this.
Paragraph 7 of the schedule to the 1964 Act empowers an industrial training order to regulate a board's procedure. All industrial training orders do, in fact, do this and Schedule 2 to each order, which concerns matters relating to the appointment of members and board proceedings, requires there to be a majority of people entitled to vote before a motion is carried. On matters relating to the imposition of a levy, only employer and union representatives can vote. The amendment in paragraph 5 to paragraph 5 of the schedule to the 1964 Act is not intended to override this requirement, but to be read alongside it, so that in addition to a majority of all the members entitled to vote, a majority of the employer members must vote in favour. Therefore, my noble friend's point, with which I heartily agree, is met and his amendment is not necessary.
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, will look at the position last time. I still maintain that there was a difference between us, but that he was wrong. But if he will look at the position now, there is no difference between us and, as the noble Earl has said, it does not really matter whether we have his words or the words that are proposed in the Bill. The present position is, in effect, a kind of 2X + Y situation; that there should be an equal number of employers and trade unionists, plus a number of educationists. What he is proposing is that there should be a number of persons who are employers and an equal number of persons who are trade unionists. There is, in effect, no difference.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, the only difference is the reference in paragraph 5 to paragraph 3(a) which, without my amendment, talks about the totality of people, excluding the chairman and the educationalists. My splitting of it, putting the employers into paragraph 3(a) without altering paragraph 5 (except in another respect to make it conform) would push the point more firmly. The matter is not of sufficient importance, because in the event overriding control is very difficult to exercise, for me to wish to push it any further at this point. Perhaps, though, my noble friend would get his officials to have a rather closer look at it to see whether or not something is lacking in this area. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Then, Standing Order No. 43 having been suspended (pursuant to Resolution of 21st July), Bill read 3a, with the amendments.
7.21 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill do now pass.
Moved, That the Bill do now pass—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord McCarthy: My Lords, I want to pause just for a moment at this stage, at this time of night, to specify, as I see it, the nature of our disagreements.

617
As I understand it, there is no disagreement about the definition of training needs. A definition of training needs has been given in the amendments moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rochester. It is not all that different from the specification of training needs put forward by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, in his Second Reading speech. There is no real disagreement that we need the institutions to produce this training and that we need an expansion of the quality and quantity of training. There may be some slight disagreement between us as to how far training is collapsing—what is happening to actual training—but there is no difference between us about training needs. The difference is about how.
We on this side of the House, not only the representatives of my Party but also, I believe, the representatives of the Liberal Party and the Social Democratic Party, are saying that if you look at most of the other countries in Western Europe—at Sweden, France and Germany, at our major competitors—you will see that training needs are met by an increased involvement of the State. Whether the money is raised through a levy or through taxation, the Government have to take an increasing responsibility for specifying and achieving training requirements. This has been the case since 1964. Even at the top of the boom, private industry could not provide the training needs. That is more than ever the case today. This is the way in which most Western European countries are reacting to their own training crisis.
The Government reply is "voluntarism" or, as the noble Earl has said on several occasions tonight, "intervention at the margin"—a phrase he used during our Second Reading debate—to oil the wheels of industry. This seems to us to be nonsense. It seems to us to be quite implausible to believe that the training needs of this country can be solved by the Government intervening at the margin. We do not think that this is what happens now. Nor do we think it is what the Government announced in another place. We think it is a complete illusion to believe that intervention at the margin is going to deal with the problems of training in this country.
The most strange differences between us are the assumptions which the Government themselves—a Conservative Government, a laissez-faire Government, a profit-oriented Government—foster upon industry: that industry will do this training, that industry will train when there is no commercial reason why they should. The fact is that very large and profitable companies in this country live by poaching. The whole of commercial television poaches skilled labour from the British Broadcasting Corporation. Almost all of the small airlines poach from British Airways and the Royal Air Force. The fact is, as noble Lords on this side of the House have said in the past, in the good old days everybody poached from Metro-Vickers until Metro-Vickers found that it was not worth their while training for everybody else.
There is nothing wrong in this. There is no reason why any firm should train anyone if there is no commercial justification for it. Whether or not a firm trains people depends upon where they are in the product market, whether they are a product leader, upon their internal promotion policy, upon the situation
618
in the labour market. It has never been the case that we could rely upon firms, looking after their own profit maximisation and commercial interests, to create the volume and type of training that this country needs. And this has not been the case in any other major European country. Even the Government see this now, although they have got this Bill and have to justify it and explain it in some way.
If one thinks of what is in the new training initiative, what the Government are suggesting for vocational preparation, for retraining the redundant for the so-called knowledge skills, it is impossible to believe that these things will be achieved without an increasing interest of the Government and an increasing involvement of the Government in the training process. Yet next Thursday, if they stick to their guns, the Manpower Services Commission will publish their sector review. They are bound to say that some boards are essential and should go on. But we do not know what the Secretary of State will say. The future of those boards will still hang over. We shall not know until the Secretary of State pronounces.
The commission are bound to say that it is too early to say whether or not some boards should continue. Much depends upon the effect of the depression on training and upon the length of the depression, which we do not know. Much depends upon the demands of the new training initiative which is not yet off the ground. Time will be required to see what sort of voluntary associations are likely to develop, if indeed the Secretary of State decides to abolish a particular industrial training board. Therefore the only result, at a time when this country needs increasing involvement in training, will be a period of doubt and of confusion.
Industrial training and industrial training boards have been put by this Bill in a position not unlike the characters in the third act of Outward Bound who knew that they were doomed but who did not know until they got to the end of the voyage what the examiner was going to say: whether he was going to tell them to go up, down, sideways or back to life. The difference is that in Outward Bound there was only one examiner who, in the third act, gave his decisions. But here we have three examiners. First, we have the Manpower Services Commission; then we have the Secretary of State; and at the back of it we have the Government themselves, because the Government themselves have today, in ways that we do not have detailed knowledge of in this House, unpacked a package of industrial training measures. Some of those measures undoubtedly will involve more money for industrial training boards. Some of them will involve a very considerable increase in the activity of industrial training boards. Yet, thanks to this Bill, industrial training boards are looking towards a further period of doubt and uncertainty. Meanwhile, this irrelevant, divisive, ambiguous, nonsensical Bill gets a Third Reading.
Lord Rochester: My Lords, may I say just a few words which have not, I think, been said by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy. I am sorry that we have not reached a greater measure of agreement. We on these Benches continue to feel that there is a continuing place for the law in terms of the operation of arrange-

619
ment, as I tried earlier to say, applicable either to those statutory training boards which remain or on a voluntary basis which will ensure that training goes on in a satisfactory way. The arrangements that we had in mind were loose. The requirement was only that they should be capable of doing certain things, rather even than that those things necessarily in every case should be done. But we have argued that out; there has been a representative vote on it and the Government have won through. I fear that in the increase in training that there is bound to be in the times in which we live, they will come to regret that there is not, under a system of voluntarism (if we may call it that) some framework within which they can operate and I think we shall all come to regret it, but there is a genuine difference of opinion here and that is that.
I should like to conclude on a happier note by thanking the noble Earl for the courtesy which he has shown, as usual, in the handling of this Bill, and particularly for the way in which he supplied us with notes on it. I always find them very helpful—not that they really were on this occasion because I think I handed them to my noble friend Lady Seear at an earlier stage and they are probably buried in the recesses of her capacious briefcase, so I have not made much use of them since. However, we appreciate the kindness of the noble Earl in that regard.
Lord Mottistone: My Lords, perhaps I may briefly say that this is an enabling Bill. I do not agree with the strictures of the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, at this stage. The question is how the Government use the enabling Bill and perhaps I may leave my noble friend with the thought that industry is very concerned on two points. One is money that we have talked about and the other is unnecessary back-seat driving in this general area. I hope that in drawing up the orders in due course this concern will be given the fullest possible consideration.
Lord Kilmarnock: My Lords, we on this Bench would like to associate ourselves with most of the misgivings which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and also to associate ourselves with the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, in his remarks and express our appreciation of the notes which have been circulated by the Government to make easier the consideration of this Bill.
I always have it in mind that it was a Conservative government which introduced the 1964 Act and also the 1973 Employment and Training Act, both of which made provisions for training in this country which are now largely being abandoned. We must hope that before long the Government will see their way to return to the basic principles which they themselves helped to establish in those two Bills.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am grateful for the thanks which have been expressed in regard to the notes on clauses and for the kind words which the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, used about me. I am only sorry that I have not made one thing clear and perhaps I may take two minutes at the end of the consideration of this Bill to try to make it clear.
We have tended too literally to go down the road of a
620
rather imagined division—a division between the proponents of laissez-faire or voluntarism and the proponents of intervention. It is not good enough for the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, to quote me out of context about intervening at the margin. Some margin! It is a very big margin indeed when we think of the total costs that devolve on Government. But there is a piece of jargon in my trade which is known as "deadweight" and which is roughly the tendency of Governments to ask taxpayers to pay for services or activities for which other bodies would be prepared to pay in any case unless they find that the Government obligingly come along and help them out. Successive Governments have to take that into account as they try to stimulate activity. I am not against stimulating activity in this way, by subsidy or by intervention. Most of my work as a Minister in a large spending department, with a budget approaching £2 billion in these days, is interventionist in character.
What slightly grieves me is the implication, particularly in the speech by the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, that because of a difference—I would suggest that it is a rather minor difference—about the interpretation of statute law and the role of statute law in a plural industrial society, and in respect of the proceedings of a plural industrial society, there is in some way a tearing up of a cherished Conservative principle for some temporary adoption of a Liberal principle (using that term in its 19th century sense rather than the sense in which it has come to be known). Nowadays Liberals are thought of as being rather an interventionist party, whereas they used to get government off the backs of the people whenever they could.
Baroness Seear: My Lords, if I may intervene for a moment, of course Liberals—and even his great master, Adam Smith—always accepted that there were circumstances in which intervention had to be supported.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I think all of us accept that and certainly the earnest of the Government's intentions in this regard is not simply their rhetoric, although I for one welcome any progress away from invervention, because we have had too much of it. The real earnest is the money that is being spent. Certainly I do not think we can be accused of not taking these responsibilities at all seriously. All I am trying to say is that what we put into statute and what we put into policy may not be distinct, but there may be a distinction or difference of view as to what you should exercise in policy and whether that exercise of policy should be framed in statute.
The only other thing I wish to say is that behind this Bill is a fact of our society. It is that we had industrial training procedures which allowed those who behaved themselves, who trained well, who serviced the needs of their industries—and others, because poaching has a productive part to play in the ecology of the forest as well as causing difficulties—to opt out of it. That was an exhausting and bureaucratic and expensive procedure, given that so many people were allowed to opt out of it and that the level of exemption was so high. We think that, as a result of the passage of this Bill, the intervention will not simply be at the margin, but it will be where it counts. Under the Secretary of State it will still largely be in the hands of an operating

621
arm which is tripartite in character and which is not known for any philosophical attachment to laissez-faire, which is to say, the Manpower Services Commission. What we are doing is to cut out dead wood and dead weight in the interests of economy.
On the subject of economy, if we were to take on totally what the noble Lord, Lord McCarthy, and his party propose—I think the noble Lord, Lord Kilmarnock, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, and the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, are a little more ambiguous about this (not merely at the margin; even if it is a substantial margin)—that money would affect industry somewhere else. We should have to act in terms of higher levying of one kind or another, higher taxes of one kind or another or higher borrowing and higher interest rates of one kind or another. So many industries in this country have proved themselves capable of dealing with training; our training difficulties tend to be in declining industries where new training procedures and new training needs are beginning to be identified.
Therefore, the sum total of my view is that it would be misleading to put this Bill through Parliament with the air that there is a very strong disagreement between the various parties or people concerned about training. There is some disagreement about the role of statute, but I think where the need for better training and more cost-effective training is concerned we are already on the same side.
On Question, Bill passed and returned to the Commons.

Deep Sea Mining (Temporary Provisions) Bill [H.L.]
7.40 p.m.
The Earl of Gowrie: I beg to move that the Commons amendments be now considered.
Moved, That the Commons amendments be now considered.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
[References are to Bill [81] as first printed for the Commons].
Amendment No.
1 Clause 2, page 3, line 39, at end insert—
"(ee) requiring any exploration or exploitation of the hard mineral resources of the licensed area to be diligently carried out;"
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 1. This amendment takes account of the points made by the Opposition during the Commons Committee stage. It is intended to prevent companies sterilising large areas of the deep seabed by obtaining licences for several sites but carrying out little or no development work on them. Including diligence requirements in the list of possible terms and conditions for licences underlines the importance attached to this principle and indicates that the Government intend to license only serious applicants who can be expected to make good use of their licences. We have moved towards the Opposition view on this, and I hope, therefore, that the Commons amendment is acceptable. beg to move.
Moved, That the House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, we on this side of the House accept that this is an amendment which does have some effect in improving the Bill. Therefore, we would not oppose it and would advise its acceptance.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
2 Clause 6, page 5, line 22, at end insert—
"or
(iv) to avoid a conflict with any obligation of the United Kingdom arising out of any international agreement in force for the United Kingdom.".
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 2. Here again, we are trying to meet a point raised by the Opposition in another place. The amendment is drafted to reflect closely the language of the American Act which refers to
"international obligations established by any treaty or international convention in force with respect to the United States".
The stated intention of the Opposition was to reflect the similar provisions in the American and German Acts. That seems good sense where we are dealing with international waters. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, we on this side of the House are very glad that this amendment was passed by the Commons and is being accepted by the Government. It is a very important matter that any obligation undertaken by the United Kingdom with regard to deep sea mining should be in agreement with any international conference conclusion. Unfortunately, at the present time the Government of the United States has shown no agreement at all in going ahead with the international conference on deep sea mining. We feel that it is extremely important that what we do in this country should be in agreement with international conventions.
We hope that the Government will bear in mind that it is important that this Bill, which, as was stated by my noble friend Lord Kennet and also my noble friend Lord Ritchie-Calder during Second Reading in this House, is not really a Bill of great importance, does not run counter to any international agreement that may be reached. Therefore, we would support this amendment and I suggest that your Lordships should agree to it.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
3 Clause 10, page 7, line 16, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (2A) below,"
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 3. These are Government amendments and modify in two respects the provisions of Clause 10 relating to the accounts of the Deep-Sea Mining Fund which are to be prepared by the Treasury and laid before Parliament. They provide that no accounts need be prepared until the first payment is made into the fund, and provide therefore a limited measure of

623
flexibility in the length of the first and last financial years. I beg to move.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

COMMONS AMENDMENT
4 Clause 10, page 7, leave out lines 23 and 24 and insert—
"(2A) Subsection (2) above shall not have effect until the first payment into the Fund is made in pursuance of subsection (1) above.
(2B) In subsection (2) above, "financial year" means a period of 12 months ending on 31st March except that the Secretary of State may direct that—

(a) the first financial year for the Fund shall be of such period not exceeding two years and ending on 31st March as he may specify in the direction; and

(b) where an order under subsection (5) below is made, the last financial year shall be of such period not exceeding 12 months as he may specify in the direction;

and, where a direction is given under paragraph (b) above, subsection (2) shall apply in relation to the accounts for that last financial year with the substitution for the reference to the end of the month of November of a reference to the end of the eighth month following the end of that year.".
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I beg to move that the House doth agree with the Commons in their Amendment No. 4.
Moved, That this House doth agree with the Commons in the said amendment.—(The Earl of Gowrie.)
Lord Wynne-Jones: My Lords, this amendment again is one with which we do not disagree at all. I think it would be appropriate for me to say at this stage that we on this side of the House have been very appreciative of the trouble that the noble Earl has taken in dealing with this Bill all the way through. We consider that, although the Bill is a trivial Bill and is in fact an unnecessary Bill, nevertheless it is not, if properly interpreted, a thoroughly objectionable Bill. May we remind the Government that this question of the bed of the deep sea, the ocean bed, is the common heritage of mankind.
Lord Lloyd of Kilgerran: My Lords, it may be appropriate at this stage if I add my welcome to this Bill for what it is worth as a temporary measure making interim provisions pending international agreement. I support the amendment, No. 4, which has just been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. I should like to congratulate him, if I may do so, for having skilfully piloted this interesting Bill through all its stages in this House, and thank him for his courtesy to myself throughout the Second Reading and Committee stage. I am also grateful to him for the sympathy he adopted towards one of my amendments dealing with the safety of divers and the people concerned with the mining arrangements at sea, and for bringing in on behalf of the Government an amendment which covered the theme of the amendment I had put forward from these Benches.
The Earl of Gowrie: My Lords, I am most grateful for what has been said. Even modified rapture from he noble Lord, Lord Wynne-Jones, is rapture to be welcomed. I have certainly enjoyed the Bill very much in that it has taught me quite a lot about a mysterious
624
and exciting world which we hope will be of increasing financial relevance to all mankind.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Furniture Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1981
7.49 p.m.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I beg to move that the draft Furniture Development Council (Dissolution) Order 1981 which was laid before this House on 23rd June 1981, be approved.
My Lords, the Furniture Development Council came into being on 1st January 1949. It is the most long-lived of the development councils set up under the Industrial Organisation and Development Act 1947. The order setting up the council allocated to it a wide range of functions. Over the years, however, in part because of newer organisations that came into existence, the functions actually carried out by the council have dwindled, and since 1968 its sole function in practice has been to collect a statutory levy on furniture manufacturers, the proceeds of which are passed to one of these newer organisations, the Furniture Industry Research Association, known as FIRA.
Last year the Government decided to seek the views by ballot of the companies in those few industries for which statutory levies still existed, to establish whether or not there was a clear balance of opinion in them in favour of the continuation of a compulsory collection. This was done because, at that time, all but five out of 40 different industry research associations, so far as they were supported on a collective basis by their industries, received such support on a voluntary basis. So those industries having statutory levies were balloted.
The present proposal to discontinue the statutory levy in the furniture industry and to wind up and dissolve the Furniture Development Council results from the expression of opinion within the furniture industry. The present draft order provides for the winding up and dissolution of the Furniture Development Council and the abolition of the statutory levy at the end of 1982. For the year 1982 itself the order provides for the level of exemption from liability to pay the levy to be increased from a chargeable turnover of £3,000 per annum to £200,000 per annum. This provision will give early relief from payment of the levy to the smaller firms in the industry. In addition, the order also contains provisions to facilitate the winding up and dissolution of the Furniture Development Council. I shall come to those provisions later.
Out of the industries that were balloted, the furniture industry was the only one where there exists a development council which collects the levy rather than the levy being collected by the Government themselves. The existence of the Furniture Development Council means that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is required by the 1947 Act to consult every five years with the council and with organisations representing both sides of the furniture industry on the question whether the council should remain in being and, if so, whether the development council order should be amended in any respect. These consultations were not due until this year. But the views of the council and

625
those other organisations needing to be consulted were sought both last year and this and have been taken into account as well as the results of the ballot of levy paying companies.
The council was in favour of the statutory levy and so of its own continuation. There were divided views among the other organisations consulted. But of the levy payers who voted in the ballot a clear majority—63 per cent.—were against the continuation of the statutory levy. It is because we believe that the views expressed by this clear majority should be respected that the Government have brought forward the present order which we are considering today. The abolition of the statutory levy would end the remaining raison d'être for the Furniture Development Council. This is why the order also provides for the winding up and dissolution of the council.
Perhaps I might emphasise at this point, to avoid any confusion in the minds of noble Lords, that it is because the industry favoured the abolition of the statutory levy that we are proposing the dissolution of the Furniture Development Council. This does not come about because of the Pliatzky Report, the report on non-departmental public bodies. That report referred to the Furniture Development Council as a body to be wound up as expeditiously as possible. But it was made clear that this depended on the outcome of the review of statutory levies then being undertaken. It is the outcome of the levy review, not the Pliatzky Report, which has promoted the present order.
The furniture industry has voted against the continuation of the statutory levy. We think it right to pay heed to its wishes. However, strong representations have been made to the Department of Industry that it would be wrong to discontinue the statutory levy without giving FIRA time to adjust. To do so would be damaging to the future of FIRA, which in recent years has depended on the statutory levy for 40 per cent. of its income. Having considered those representations, we believe that it is right that there should be a period for adjustment to the system of non-compulsory funding of FIRA that will follow from the replacement of the statutory levy. The views of the council and FIRA have been sought on the time needed for this adjustment and, having heard what they have had to say, the Government agree with them that the levy ought not to be completely abolished nor the council dissolved until 31st December 1982.
The draft order provides for this, so giving FIRA time to adjust. I should add that many in the industry have made clear that they value the work done by FIRA, and we hope and expect to see FIRA continuing to draw financial support from the industry, though the support, would be given on a non-compulsory basis as is the case in nearly all other industries. The furniture industry has voted against the continuation of the statutory levy, not against FIRA. FIRA has much to offer the industry, as I am sure the industry appreciates I should also like to pay tribute to the Furniture Development Council. Over the years the council has carried out its tasks with great efficiency and the vote is no criticism of them.
I referred earlier to the order containing a provision
626
to give early relief to the smaller firms in the industry. It does this by providing with effect from 1st January 1982 that those companies whose designated turnover does not exceed £200,000 will be exempted from the levy from that date. FIRA has arrangements in hand to enable those smaller firms within the industry who will obtain early exemption from the levy to retain access to FIRA's services by voluntary subscription if they so choose, although it is not intended that they shall retain free membership of FIRA once not paying the statutory levy.
I also referred earlier to the other provisions of the order. As when other development councils have been wound up and dissolved, the draft order provides for the orderly winding up and dissolving of the council. It provides for the residual property, rights and liabilities to vest in the Secretary of State after the council's dissolution. It provides for the council's accounts. It also provides for the imposition and recovery from the industry of charges to meet the council's liabilities and winding up expenses should the council's assets be insufficient for this purpose. It does so because the 1947 Act requires this. The council has already made clear its intention to conduct its affairs in a way that will avoid any need for such a supplementary levy on the industry. Lastly, the order also provides for the application of surplus moneys, after the liabilities of the council and its winding up expenses have been met. My right honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State made it clear in another place that such surplus moneys would be passed on to FIRA.
We expect the council to complete as much as possible of the winding up of its own affairs. After the dissolution date, when the remaining rights and obligations will vest in the Secretary of State, the Secretary of State will arrange to complete all outstanding business. It is certainly not our intention that the work carried out by FIRA should cease. Quite the contrary. This is why the Government have been concerned that the transitional arrangements shall allow FIRA to get off to a good start without the statutory levy.
I have already made clear that the vote was a vote against the statutory levy not a vote against FIRA. Noble Lords will wish to know that, in addition to the support which FIRA. has obtained from the industry through the statutory levy, the Government already provide substantial support for FIRA. In recent years this Government support, given by way of cost-shared contracts for specific programmes of work, has accounted for 17 to 20 per cent. of FIRA's income. This support is not linked to the existence of the statutory levy. Your Lordships will be glad to know that, under present research and development policies, the Government would expect to continue to support work at FIRA in the same way as in the past, if suitable proposals for support are put by FIRA to the Department of Industry's research and development requirements boards. The director of FIRA is aware of this.
Those who pay the furniture levy have been consulted and most no longer want a levy to continue on a compulsory basis. After 1982, with the abolition of the levy, FIRA will be put in the same position as the great majority of other research associations which carry on their affairs without a compulsory levy on

627
their industries. Like them, I anticipate that, like them, FIRA will continue to do useful work for the industry with which it is associated, and will win the freely given support from the industry, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft order made before the House on 23rd June be approved.—(Viscount Long.)
8.1 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, first, I should like to thank the noble Viscount, Lord Long, for his clear and detailed explanation of the purpose of this order. He did so at a very impressive gallop, but did brush a few fences in his progress, for which I forgive him. However, I cannot agree with him that the work of the development council has decreased or is not now necessary.
The Furniture Development Council costs the taxpayer nothing. In other words, it has done the Government's job for them. It has collected the levy, part of which—as the noble Viscount has said—is passed over to the Furniture Industry Research Association, which may stand to lose 40 per cent. of its funding as a result of the Government's ill-advised decision to bring in this order.
As a result, the association will have to rely on voluntary funding. The research association has carried out, and still is carrying out, valuable work for the industry since the 1950s. The development council itself has proved its worth to the industry and has advised and helped many manufacturers with technical advice on woodworking, upholstery, hard-wear, materials, plastics, production, management and costing. It is now moving into micro-processor and robotic applications in the industry. It has banks of information on machines and materials which are second to none in the world. A considerable amount of technical data is on file and available. I want to know—and I put this question to the noble Viscount—what will happen to all this valuable material on the dissolution of the council?
I agree that there has been consultation with the industry and that a majority against the levy—and the noble Lord stressed that it was against the levy and not the council—was obtained, although it was by no means a unanimous decision. One can understand the desire of some sections of the industry to get rid of the levy for financial reasons alone. It is a small-scale industry with many small employers scattered around the country, especially in the South East, and a fair proportion in London. It has been hit hard by the Government's monetary policy. High interest rates, the high value of the pound and increasing foreign imports have dealt a serious blow. Some 130 furniture firms went out of business in 1980. Employment fell by 11,000 last year, and approximately 18,000 workers are now on short time.
One can understand the modification of the statutory levy, but not its abolition. To wind up the development council, with all its valuable work, is not wise. In fact, in my view it is an act of stupidity on the part of the Government which can only have a harmful effect on the industry. The Furniture Industry Research Association will, I understand, continue—and, I have been assured of this by the noble Viscount. That was an assurance, which I would have sought. It will have to depend on voluntary funding. Will this be sufficient?
628
Am I correct in assuming that there is no chance whatever of a Government contribution? The noble Viscount gave a hint on this, but he was not very specific. I ask that question, because there are a number of matters needing urgent research involving public safety and protection on which the Government have responsibility for action. I need only quote to the House the example of the use of plastic foam in furniture, where there is, indeed, great public anxiety.
Finally, in another place this order was fully and somewhat heatedly debated at an extremely late hour on 8th July. In fact, it continued into the early hours of the 9th, but as we know from Hansard the sitting of the 8th July continued well into the morning of the next day. Incidentally, this was debated—and I make a point here—before the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments had concluded its review of the order. This is just another bit of evidence of the legislative muddle which the Government are in. However, the order was approved in another place without a Division, and under those circumstances, and bearing in mind the custom of this House, we shall, very reluctantly, not oppose it.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Coslany, for his contribution to this important order. I am only too happy to say to him that for once it was not the Government twisting the council's arm; it was that the council itself wanted to wind up, and let FIRA control the system.
Lord Wallace of Coslany: My Lords, I do not think that the noble Viscount is correct. If he will refer to the debates in Hansard of another place for 8th July, he will find that the chairman of the council bitterly complained about it and another Member said that it was an act—I forget the exact expression, but it was extremely strong. I do not think that it was the council. Surely it is the Government who have reached this decision based on the levy finding.
Viscount Long: My Lords, I have already discussed the way in which the ballot went and it is what the industry wanted. The industry is going through a very difficult time, with high rates of interest and so on. In the furniture industry if there is a change of design you might miss out on orders or for the next three years you might get more orders from abroad. I was in the timber trade, so I know how the situation fluctuates from there being good exports to there being too many imports from Russia, Sweden or Finland. At the moment, the industry is experiencing difficulty.
There will now be a voluntary funding and it will be up to FIRA, with all its experience, to bring in the levies voluntarily through the industry itself. This is what it intends to do, and, with the best will in the world, I am sure that it will do so. I am certain that the industry will back FIRA. If I may enlighten the noble Lord, in my view there is no reason to believe that the useful and necessary work at FIRA will be abandoned because the statutory levy is to be abolished. I do not believe that that will happen. If the work is useful and necessary, there will be every incentive for companies to pay for it in order to reap the benefits of FIRA's work. These arrangements will come into

629
existence at the end of 1982 and with all its experience I am sure it will carry on successfully.
The noble Lord was worried where the information will go and what will happen to it. It is there at FIRA and the industry will benefit from it. I do not worry about that. Much work that FIRA already does is not funded from the proceeds of the levy but on other bases, such as contracts with manufacturers, consultancies, and so on. The testing of material is one example. In the furniture trade, with new technology, new paints, new machinery, celluloses, and so on, that is an important part of what they are going to get. FIRA'S equipment for testing materials was grant aided by the department's Research and Development Requirements Boards. This type of assistance will still be available for any appropriate new work. I have tried to answer as much as I can of the noble Lord's questions. I have every confidence that FIRA will be able to deal with the situation without a compulsory levy required by the Government.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Namibian Independence: Policy
8.11 p.m.
Lord Hatch of Lusby Lord Hatch of Lusby rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their current policy on bringing independence to Namibia. The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be wondered why at this stage in the Session the question of Namibia should be raised. I fear that unless we have a clear statement made by the Government tonight, we have no assurance that over the next ten weeks, which will be crucial weeks in this issue, events may not take place without our having the opportunity of investigating the Government's policy. May I draw the attention of the Government immediately to the special responsibility which Britain has in the issue of Namibia.
When Namibia was mandated in 1919 by the Treaty of Versailles it was mandated to His Britannic Majesty. In others words, it was passed over from the control of the Germans to the control of Britain, although the South Africans, not at that time independent, were to conduct the actual details of administration. Those mandates that were invented after the First World War laid down that the material and moral wellbeing and the social progress of the indigenous people should have priority in the administration of those territories. In fact, Britain was given the responsibility of ensuring the material and moral wellbeing and social progress of the people of Namibia.
As we know, the South African Government was given virtually free control for many years over the administration of what was then South West Africa. During that time there were a whole series of land removals—removal of people from land that they had traditionally farmed. Indeed, in as late as 1933 if it had not been for the opposition of the United Nations Mandates Commission South Africa would have incorporated Namibia into what was then the Union. After the second war, with the coming of the policy of apartheid—which really is nothing further than an extension of the pre-war policy—more people in the
630
world woke up to the fact that this philosophy that had been supported by the South African white electorate in the election of 1948 was now being applied to the people of Namibia. The Europeans in Namibia, who are something just over 10 per cent. of the total population, were given six elected members to the South African Assembly and two senators, all of them to be Union nationals.
During the 1950s this policy of the South African Government of regarding what was then South West Africa as at least potentially a part of South Africa continually strengthened. In the 1960s there sat the well known commission known as the Odendaal Commission, which confirmed all that I have just been saying. It laid down that in South West Africa there were to be Bantustans as in South Africa itself. It was based upon tribal division; on ethnic communities. Despite the attempts of various countries—in particular Ethiopia and Liberia as original members of the League of Nations—on the international scene to stop the development of this policy by South Africa, it was not until 1966, when the General Assembly declared that the presence of South Africa in South West Africa was invalid, that the international community took the matter into its own hands. This was confirmed five years later in 1971 by the International Court of Justice, which declared that the South African presence was illegal.
That might be taken as our starting point of the modern history and the modern policy towards Namibia. Here was an independent country, South Africa, claiming that it had the right to incorporate into its territory as a fifth province people who were not to be consulted, people who had been declared to be protected by the international community and after 1971 by international law; and vet there was no sign that the South African Government had any intention of taking any notice.
I wonder why? Why is it that the South Africans wanted to include South West Africa within their territory? I would suggest that there are two reasons. I was told on my first visit to South Africa that the most important reason was that it was known that South West Africa was very rich in minerals. In fact, I was told that it had the largest iron ore field in the world, although that had not been exploited. But what has happened since does bear out the economic argument, because today 54 per cent. of the gross national product of Namibia goes in company profits. And who holds these companies?—the South Africans, the North Americans, and the British. They are Consolidated Diamond Mines; Tsumeb, the metal company; Rössing, the RTZ uranium company, with a nice little side line of fishing off Walvis Bay. That was the first reason.
The second reason was strategic. The South Africans wanted to push their borders as far away as possible from Capetown and Pretoria as they saw the advance of African nationalism from the North. By annexing South West Africa they would gain several hundred miles in moving their borders northwards. In any case, the South Africans had now to devise some form of strategy to meet the new international threat to their declared intentions of annexing South West Africa.
Since then, the policy of the South African Govern-

631
ment has been two-fold, to procrastinate whenever possible and to subdue the opposition to their rule in that country. From 1971 to 1973 there was a desultory dialogue with the United Nations; they then turned to what they called the "internal solution", and the Turnhalle Conference dragged on for two years, from 1975 to 1977; and then in 1977 the South Africans appointed their administrator-general who had virtually dictatorial powers under the South African Government. Within all of that there was the continual oppression of those who objected to South African policy. One recalls—it was only three years ago—in May 1978 the Kassinga massacre in which between 800 and 900 people were killed. That happened only nine days after the South African Government had accepted the Western Group's proposals; and this is where I suggest we find the key to South African policy: internal suppression linked with the postponement of any international decision-making.
So we go on to the holding of the internal elections, which again were based on the tribal theory and were rejected by the United Nations; the setting up of government departments under the administrator-general; the creation of the national assembly; the declaration of self-government in July of last year; the setting up of an independent Civil Service which includes 10,000 South Africans; last year the introduction of conscription for black males between the ages of 16 and 25; and in April of this year, the creation of a South-West African independent police force.
It was only at the beginning of this year that the South Africans again showed how they linked together their internal strongman tactics with the delaying of any international decision-making when they broke up the Geneva Conference by refusing to agree to a cease-fire. But meanwhile, what about the countries surrounding Namibia—Angola, Botswana and Zambia? If noble Lords have been in any of those countries, they will know that for years they have been the subject of continual attacks by, in particular, the South African Air Force. They have lost men, women and children and much of their infrastructure and installations by what is nothing less than international aggression. What has happened to the men and women whom one can compare with people like Robert Mugabe and Joshua Nkomo in Zimbabwe; people like Herman ja Towo, who has been on Robben Island since 1968 and who was one of the founder members of SWAPO; and many others, running into hundreds, who have been not only listed but named both by Amnesty International and the Defence and Aid Fund?
Where do the British Government stand in this situation? We became part of what was known as the Western Contact Group from 1977 onwards and we took part in the drawing up of Resolution 435 which made provision for United Nations-supervised elections and for United Nations forces to be present during the electoral period. Ourselves, along with the West Germans, French, Americans and the Canadians, as the Western Contact Group, were tacitly a bargain with the Front Line African states. The tacit bargain was—I am sure there is no piece of paper to prove this—that if the Western Contact Group could deliver South African acceptance of the United Nations'
632
plan, then it was the responsibility of the Front Line states to persuade SWAPO to agree to United Nations-supervised elections. The Front Line states have delivered; we have not. The Front Line states persuaded SWAPO to agree to United Nations-supervised elections; we have not persuaded or coerced the South African Government to accept that same plan which has been laid down by the United Nations.
One reason why, it seems to me, the Western Group has so far failed is that the South Africans were doing very much what Ian Smith was doing two years before them. While Ian Smith was waiting for a Conservative Government in this country and refusing to negotiate because he believed a Conservative Government would give him greater opportunities, the South African Government were waiting for the Democrats to be defeated in the United States and for Reagan to become President. At present, it looks as though they were probably right from their point of view because we now learn that the Reagan Administration are attempting to strengthen Resolution 435. What does "strengthen" mean in this context?
Those of us who have had experience of regularly meeting officials in the State Department and seeing the business world of America, know very well what it meant when the Reagan Administration came in and how the forces in the United States have changed in their attitude towards South Africa. We have seen that the so-called strengthening of Resolution 435 means nothing more than its dilution; it means nothing more than the proposal to hold a conference before elections, whereas the United Nations' plan has always laid down that the constitution shall be determined by the elected representatives of the people of Namibia.
I was very alarmed when I read that in the last couple of weeks in another place a spokesman for the Government declared that the British Government gave fullest support to the American plan to "strengthen" Resolution 435. We have a right to know tonight whether the Government confirm or deny that they are supporting an attempt to change Resolution 435 in the way that has been suggested from within the Reagan Administration. That same Administration publicly declared after the Geneva conference that it might abandon its negotiating position if there was no realistic prospect of success. That can mean many things—but I know what it means in South Africa. In South Africa, it is a signal to hold on until the Reagan Administration in the United States can settle its southern Africa policy, with the promise that this will be settled in a way much more favourable to the white régime than in the past.
It has been suggested that the Reagan Administration will place one condition on any action or persuasion in Pretoria—the withdrawal of the Cubans from Angola. That has nothing to do with the issue of Namibia. The Cubans are in Angola because they were asked there by the Angolan Government. They were asked there in order to defend Angola from the South Africa invasion. There were no Cubans in Angola before the South Africans had invaded that country. May I suggest that this is one of the most dangerous issues that we are facing in the world today. So far as southern Africa is concerned I can tell your Lordships that no country in southern Africa will

633
accept this attempted change in Resolution No. 435. But for as long as it lies on the table and is being thrown around, for as long as the Namibia issue remains not settled, and for as long as the Namibian people are not enabled to elect their own Government and to decide their own constitution, every part of southern Africa is being kept in a state of suspense, and a great deal of the work that was begun hopefully in respect of co-operation between the countries of southern and central Africa is being held up.
Secondly, there is an even deeper threat behind this. It has been suggested that part of the Reagan Administration's plan for the future is to create a South Atlantic treaty organisation which would include countries such as Argentina, Brazil, Chile and South Africa. Where does the British Government stand on that prospect? It is an open question and one that is being openly discussed in the United States, because if that kind of organisation were created then the signal would have gone to the third world that the Reagan Administration, with the support of the British Government, is prepared to support any friends, however oppressive and however barbarous they may be, so long as they will fit in and agree with the policies of the United States and Great Britain.
The question of sanctions has been raised and I will say only this about it. Comprehensive sanctions against South Africa are impossible. I say this quite bluntly, and I say it just as openly in Africa as I do here in London. Sanctions are impossible—and I am supported in this argument by Robert Mugabe—because the countries around South Africa cannot at the moment exist without trade with South Africa. I have pointed out that the manufacturing and mining industries of Namibia are controlled by South Africans—but they are also controlled by the North Americans and the British. There is a growing feeling in Africa—which I share completely—that it is the responsibility of the Western industrial nations, who have their investments in South Africa and who control very largely the economic activities of South Africa, to say that unless the South Africans will obey international law, then we will apply the necessary sanctions to their economic system.
Finally, we are facing here an issue which concerns the status of international law, the authority of the United Nations and of the International Court of Justice. In short, we are facing an issue in which one country with its distorted philosophy is defying the rest of the world community and the clear declarations which have been made about the future of Namibia.
8.37 p.m.
Lord Caradon: My Lords, I have no intention this evening of going into the detail of this case, which has been presented so fully and so ably. When I saw that this proposal was to be brought before your Lordships' House this evening, I was anxious to support that action. For a matter of a decade or two, I have been closely involved in the matter which we have discussed. I do not particularly wish to remember it now, but at one time I was appointed Commissioner of Namibia. That appointment did not survive the complaint made by the Soviet Union at that time—but for a day or two I did expect that I might be spending
634
a great deal of time in dealing with problems of Namibia.
I have undertaken a tour of southern Africa at the request of the leaders of Namibia, although I was refused permission to enter South Africa or Namibia on that expedition. So for a long time I have been concerned with this main issue and two or three thoughts crossed my mind as I listened to the full and able exposition which has been put to us this evening. First is the thought that the weapon of delay is one that we so often attempt to counter—whether it is in Cyprus, over the unanimous resolution of the United Nations not being carried out; in the Middle East, where another unanimous resolution has been left to rot; or in Namibia, where the decisions of the United Nations have been ignored and in effect condemned by refusal to act.
Yes, delay is the weapon of those who wish to maintain indefinitely the tyranny of South Africa over the territory of Namibia. Now that the other neighbouring territories, which at one time provided a sort of fence around South Africa have changed, all the more anxious is South Africa to maintain its control of the remaining territory of Namibia. Delay has been the purpose, continues to be the purpose, and is sometimes the most difficult of all the policies to counter. It is so simple to convince people that it is easier to do nothing than to take courageous action, and it will I believe be the endeavour of South Africans and those who are apt to support them to maintain the long delay, which in my own experience goes back for a couple of decades.
The other thought—it is scarcely necessary to emphasise it still further this evening—is that this is an issue of such overwhelming importance to the future of the world. We talk about the relations between the rich and the poor and the north and the south. I can think of no issue which is of greater consequence than the issue of Namibia. It is a comparatively small country, or if not a small country, a thinly populated country, but it is now top of the list of priorities if we are to secure an answer to the racial questions of Africa, which are among the most important issues of the whole world.
So we now have to consider what can be done and what should be the part of our country. I think it is so that the five western powers, who have been endeavouring perhaps to tackle this question for a matter of years, have failed to give it the urgency and the importance which would justify courageous action, and I believe that our country carries part of that responsibility. We have heard tonight a reference to the part which the United States has played, or will play. I would be a little more hopeful perhaps. My impression is that the new administration in the United States in many matters started out with ideas, purposes, based on ignorance and prejudice, and I like to think that week by week we see changes taking place as they have to face up, with due experience, to the action which is required. I would not put it beyond possibility that the administration in the United States can learn the dangers, the necessities, of the situation in Namibia and Southern Africa.
However, I believe that the primary responsibility must be the responsibility of this Government. If this Government which, as we have heard, carried

635
the original responsibility for the administration of Namibia, refuses to take the lead—leaves it to the Five, leaves it to the Americans, leaves it to indefinite delay—then I believe that in the end it will be we, our Government, our country, who have failed in their primary responsibility. We are I believe primarily responsible in Africa to ensure that this survival of racial tyranny should not be permitted. The authority of the international community and the United Nations should not be flouted. We should move towards a situation in which South Africa must realise that it must abandon its delaying tactics in Namibia, and must turn its attention to its own grave problems which have to be tackled if it is not to face appalling consequences for itself and indeed for many neighbouring territories.
So I believe that it is right and necessary that at this time the matter should have been raised as it has been this evening. I believe that within a few weeks there is to be a major consultation in New York in anticipation of the forthcoming General Assembly, at which for 10 days or more countries of Africa and of the third world will be coming together to give their undivided attention to this, possibly the most important problem for the future of the world. It is essential that in this country there should be a feeling of our own obligation, and I think that we, in our influence on the United States and on the other members of the Five, can play a belated, but an honourable, part.
8.45 p.m.
The Earl of Bessborough: My Lords, unlike the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, I am very much of a new boy in Namibia, and I cannot match the wide range of his experience in these matters both at the United Nations and in our own colonial service in the past. Therefore I was rather hesitant to speak this evening, but a friend of mine urged me to do so. I have to admit that I have never been to Namibia. I should very much like to go. I know a little about it. I know about its resources in uranium and diamonds. I was interested to see the Question on the Order Paper, and in a sense I am speaking in order to instruct myself, as much as to instruct other noble Lords.
Very briefly, it seems to me essential that any procedure for bringing about independence in Namibia should be fair for the whole of the population. If Resolution 435 remains the general basis (I emphasise the term, general basis) for achieving independence, then the United Nations should give clear evidence of its impartiality—whether it can do this I do not know; it might be too much to ask—well in advance of the implementation of the scheme; otherwise it would not be fair and just.
As Mr. Dirk Mudge, the leader of the Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (the DTA) said recently,
"It would be unfair if the referee was to wear the shirt of one of the competing teams".
In my view the DTA will have to have a meaningful role in the negotiations. It also seems essential that Resolution 435 should be amended to give guarantees to all minority ethnic groups to safeguard their constitutional future after independence.
Whatever might have been suggested on the other side of the House, it does not seem to me that the
636
Democratic Turnhalle Alliance (the DTA) are in any way puppets of the South African Government. They appear to be a party of unity, and to be representative of all the 11 ethnic groups within the territory. They claim, I think justifiably, to be a party of the liberation—but they have chosen the way of democracy, rather than of terrorism. I believe that the alliance have made remarkable changes in the territory during their short period of authority, removing among other things—and this is of primordial importance—all laws based on race.
If I look at SWAPO, I have to accept that they are a military and political Marxist organisation. But we simply do not know how representative that organisation is. To make my remarks extremely brief, I should like to say that Nujoma is not in my view a Mugabe, and indeed Namibia is not Zimbabwe. I hope my noble friend can assure me that these points are being borne in mind by Her Majesty's Government.
Briefly to summarise, I believe that President Reagan should send out a presidential envoy, rather like he did Mr. Habib in the Middle East, and I believe that envoy should assert a presence in Windhoek to assess Namibian development needs. I believe there should be constitutional guarantees for say 10 years by the United States, the United Kingdom and South Africa, with a multi-national guard under a three power council. The envoy should mediate reconciliation between Luanda and Savimbi and then recognise and give aid to a United Angola. That envoy should help negotiate a coalition government in Namibia. The United Nations could then supervise and ratify independent elections which, in the nature of things, would be a celebratory refendum. My last essential point is that the American envoy should call a final conference and proceed with those who attend and can stay the distance. We must leave it in this case for the United States to take the lead, unlike the lead which we took in Zimbabwe.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, our discussion tonight is extraordinarily appropriate. Next week officials of the Western Powers will be meeting in Paris to make preparations for the full meeting of Ministers in September before this House resumes. Therefore this is the last opportunity which we have to express our view on these matters before those decisions are reached. It is quite extraordinary in international affairs that over the years South Africa has been able to defy not only the decisions of the United Nations but the decision of the International Court of Justice that its occupation of Namibia is absolutely illegal.
The discussions have been going on for years, and quite clearly the Government of the Republic of South Africa has sought delay after delay after delay, because every delay was to her advantage. During that time she set up a national assembly following an election which not only the United Nations but the Western Powers refused to recognise and said was illegal, setting up in Namibia tribal authorities reflecting her own plan of Bantustan, using her power to imprison political opponents. At this moment there are 60 people imprisoned in Namibia under the Terrorist Act. This is all proceeding in a territory which not

637
only the United Nations but the International Court of Justice have declared is quite illegally occupied by South Africa. The noble Lord, Lord Hatch of Lusby, has gone into great detail which I do not want to repeat.
I now come to quite immediate events. The long negotiations of the five Western nations—Canada, France, the United States, Western Germany and Great Britain—have recently been supplemented by direct negotiations between the United States of America and South Africa. What their decisions are we only vaguely know. The United States describes them as strengthening Resolution 435 of the United Nations. I am a little disturbed that 10 days ago at Ottawa the five Western nations declared that they are considering measures which would complement and strengthen the existing United Nations plan. My Lords, that suggests that proposals have now been made by the United States of America, now given support by the five Western nations, which will qualify Resolution 435 of the United Nations.
I want to be constructive. Of the three points which were adopted in the statement by the five nations at Ottawa, undoubtedly the most controversial was the first, throwing doubt on the impartiality of the United Nations. One accepts that there is some case here; the United Nations has declared in favour of SWAPO as the only representative political organisation in Namibia. If there are to be elections under United Nations auspices, quite clearly the supervising body of the United Nations ought not to be on the side of one party. That difficulty has been met by decisions of SWAPO and of the front line states; both have said that in election circumstances the United Nations' declaration in favour of SWAPO as a representative of the people of Namibia should no longer apply and that in an election the United Nations itself should declare that they should withdraw in the election period from that position and so give an opportunity for an impartial supervision of that procedure. When earlier on in this House I suggested that that was a solution, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, welcomed the idea. I should like to know from the Government tonight whether anything has been done to carry out that suggestion to meet the difficulty which was endorsed by both SWAPO and the front line nations.
My Lords, unless a solution is reached there is going to be a terrible situation in Africa. The whole of the African continent will be lined up against South Africa. What is to be our attitude in that kind of situation? We shall lose any sympathy or support from the peoples of Africa if we come down on the wrong side. I beg the Government, through its officials in Paris next week and at the ministerial conference in New York preceding the new United Nations Assembly, to be urging there a course which will bring Namibia to independence—bring it through an election; bring it through an impartial supervision by a United Nations force whose composition would have the confidence of the people. Let them do that, and then we may be saved from the terrible situation which there will be in Africa unless this position is resolved.
9.1 p.m.
Lord Gifford: My Lords, I am very sorry that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is not here to answer the
638
Question which my noble friend has posed, and I hope that his absence from this House is not an indication of any lack of concern with which the Government view the problem which has been raised this evening. Because, as other noble Lords have said, there can be no other conflict in the world today which bears more menace for the future than the conflict that is already in progress over the future of Namibia; and there can be no other conflict in which the rights and wrongs according to international law are so clear as they are in the conflict of Namibia.
My Lords, if international law has any meaning at all, South Africa, through its illegal occupation of Namibia, must be branded as an international criminal. It is not only the illegal occupation; it is the imposition of South Africa's own racist policies—bantustans, or homelands, as they are called—outside its borders, upon a country in which it has no right to be. It is there in breach of its mandate, in defiance of the International Court of Justice and in violation of the resolutions of the Security Council.
Because of the repression of which my noble friend has spoken the people of Namibia have had no other option but, through their liberation movement, SWAPO, to take up an arms struggle—an arms struggle as legitimate in international law as the arms struggle of those peoples and those countries which were occupied by the fascist forces of Hitler. I thought the noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, was less than helpful in his references to terrorism when he was speaking of the struggle which the people of Namibia have been carrying on through an organisation which clearly bears, and will be proved to bear, the support of the overwhelming majority of the population.
My Lords, because of that struggle, because of the repression of the South African Administration, their leaders and their members have been executed, have been tortured and have been imprisoned upon Robben Island. Because of their struggle the amazing figure of 100,000 South African troops are now in occupation of a country whose population is only a little over 1 million. Nobody wants a protracted war, but the occupation of Namibia is storing up to come the bitterness of a guerrilla war which, unless the nations of the world can act, is going to lead to a spreading and increasingly bloody war.
What is less well known is that South Africa is not just responsible for a repression of the people within Namibia. It is extending its brutality deep inside the independent neighbouring states of Zambia and Angola. My noble friend spoke of Kassinga—Kassinga, where hundreds of Namibian refugees were massacred. Kassinga is in Southern Angola. So is Lubango and Xangongo, where in September 1979 South African jets came and bombed, leaving 56 Angolan dead and 175 wounded. So is Kunene, where South African land and air forces invaded in June 1980, leaving 378 civilians killed. These are just examples of a war which is continuing to this day and which the world hardly talks about. Who are the terrorists in such a war? I say it is those who invade and those who wreak acts of violence upon civilians in neighbouring states.
My Lords, I do not think that any amount of dialogue or contact or discussion or honest broking is going to have very much effect upon the policies of the South African Government. The pre-implementation talks

639
in Geneva proved that. The representatives of SWAPO at Geneva behaved with exemplary moderation and restraint. The South African delegation was determined to wreck that meeting. Why? It was because, of course, they do not believe in democracy; they do not believe in the multiracialism for which SWAPO has always stood. Those who talk about guarantees for the whites in Namibia fail to realise that the people of Namibia are not infected by the same obsession about racial separation as are those who woo South Africa today.
In this situation I do not see that there is likely to be a peaceful solution unless the international community makes it clear that it will use the weapons at its disposal—not the weapons of war but the weapons which can shorten and reduce the horror of this escalating war. My plea tonight is for the Government to change their policy and to take seriously and to support the call for comprehensive mandatory sanctions against South Africa to be imposed by the Security Council under chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter.
My Lords, in May of this year an international conference on sanctions against South Africa took place in Paris. One hundred and twenty-four Governments took place. The Secretary-General of the United Nations took part. The United Kingdom was not represented, except unofficially through invited individuals such as myself. I had the honour to be elected rapporteur of the Political Commission of that conference, and I feel it is my particular duty to seek to convey to your Lordships the significance of the conference's declaration.
The conclusion of the conference was:
"The conference affirms that the sanctions provided under chapter 7 of the United Nations Charter universally applied are the most appropriate and effective means to ensure South African compliance with the decisions of the United Nations. The choice is between an escalation of conflict and the imposition of international sanctions, if all other attempts to reach a peaceful settlement have failed".
That quotation does not convey the weight of the statement by the overwhelming majority of the world community that was represented: a statement of their desire to work together to secure peace in southern Africa. That statement does not reflect the growing impatience and resentment at the Western powers who, at the Security Council, imposed the veto upon the imposition of sanctions.
Sometimes it is said that sanctions cannot be imposed because of their effect upon the front line states. As my noble friend said, the front line states are in no position to take the initiative in imposing sanctions, but if and when the United Nations by its proper organs imposes mandatory sanctions the front line states will know how to play their part, as Zambia and Mozambique showed when sanctions were imposed against Rhodesia.
There is a possibility of influencing both South Africa and the United States by a change in attitude both of the French Government under their new President and of the British Government, who are two of the three powers which imposed the veto. It became clear to me in Paris that, quite apart from the moral issues, it was in our interests to ally ourselves with independent Africa and not with South Africa. The more we cling to our support for South Africa, the more we shall be disgraced in international circles
640
which matter to the future of our own people.
I hope that in the end we can learn something from the tragedy of the Namibian people. If their independence cannot be gained by concessions from South Africa, as I think it cannot, it will have to be won, on the one hand, by the actions of the liberation movement, which would be long and bitter, or, on the other hand, by the united resolve of the rest of the world in imposing economic sanctions which can hurt, which is a way of reducing the bitterness which otherwise is to come.
9.13 p.m.
Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Hatch has waited for nearly three months for this Unstarred Question to be answered. I am very glad indeed that his patience has at last been rewarded because this is a very important and, indeed, highly dangerous situation which is brewing in Namibia and throughout the whole of southern Africa. He should, of course, have been supported in this debate by a deeply-experienced and knowledgeable Front Bench spokesman, but owing to the tragic loss of my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts I shall try to speak briefly, although, I am afraid, much less adequately than he could have done, and with much less detailed knowledge than the very powerful speeches we have heard tonight.
My noble friend Lord Hatch gave a very full account, an historical account, of the Namibian situation, and one can summarise it briefly for the Government in these terms: Namibia has of course never been legally a part of South Africa. In 1966 the United Nations terminated the South African mandate; in 1971 the International Court of Justice declared South African occupation was illegal and that South Africa should withdraw. In 1976 the Resolution was passed demanding that the South African illegal administration should be ended. It stated that it was imperative that the peoples of Namibia should be enabled to decide their own future by means of free elections under the supervision and control of the United Nations. That is the position, in my view, which every British Government should maintain.
Many noble Lords have referred to the terrible happenings in Namibia: the appalling massacre at Kassinga; the illegal imprisonment of Namibians, not only in their own country but in South Africa as well; the stepping up of military aggression including something which I do not think has been mentioned, the use of nearly 3,000 international white mercenaries. One of the most dangerous things that the DTA (Democratic Turnhalle Alliance) has done has been to make conscription compulsory for the blacks into the security forces, which are of course South African. Until January of this year only whites were subject to conscription in Namibia, but now all races living south of the Northern territories are being conscripted. This is turning a guerrilla war into what is a civil war, with all the terrible implications that we know is held by that. My noble friend Lord Gifford also referred to the very dangerous extension of the war by South Africa into surrounding countries like Zambia.
I do not want to repeat the very powerful speeches that have been made, but I should like to ask the Minister who is to reply some questions to which I think the House is entitled to full answers. We were

641
told that Namibia was to be discussed at Ottawa. The noble Lords, Lord Brockway and Lord Caradon, referred to this. All we gathered from the summit's report was that the ministerial talks in Europe this week are paving the way for discussions in New York in September. We assume that this is within the framework of the Security Council's Resolution, No. 435, undiluted, and we should like confirmation of that this evening.
The Observer newspaper reported on 19th July that at the ILO the United Kingdom had voted to support the liberation movement in Namibia. We should like confirmation of that vote and we should like to know what proceeds from it. We should also like to know what is the approach of the Government to the United Nations decree about the protection of the natural resources of Namibia. That is one of the key questions.
Then we come to the subject which I think most noble Lords have mentoned: the attitude of the new American administration. I tend to agree with my noble friend Lord Caradon perhaps a little more than with the more pessimistic view of others of my noble friends. Since they became a more experienced administration they seem to have modified their views on Namibia a little. Nevertheless, The Times reported on 23rd July that the American talks with South Africa in conjunction with the five nations contact group would try to ensure that the United Nations maintained impartiality between SWAPO and the DTA. The noble Earl, Lord Bessborough, mentioned impartiality. However, as my noble friend Lord Brockway explained, this is an unfortunate word to use in this connection, since SWAPO and the front line states have endorsed the fact that they will treat with all nations, whereas the DTA have specifically excluded SWAPO from their so-called Bantu-stance style of Government. So impartiality does not seem to enter into it very much.
If the noble Earl will forgive me, I think it was a pity that he brought in the so-called "linkage" argument with Angola and Namibia, because this seems to me to be not only highly dangerous but quite irrelevant. We are encouraged that Mr. Richard Luce, the Minister of State for the Foreign Office, said on 19th June that Britain regarded Resolution 435 as the only basis for a solution to the Namibian issue, and we would like to have that confirmed.
On these Benches we have some hope that the new French Government may strengthen the five nation contact group in its negotiations, since the French declared aims are: first, to end trade with Namibia; secondly, to stop public sector investment in South Africa; thirdly, to end incentives for private sector investment; and, fourthly, to tighten existing arms embargoes. I should like to plead with the Government to listen to the very eloquent plea made by my noble friend Lord Brockway about the meetings which will take place next week and also at the United Nations in September.
Above all, it is essential that progress should be made quickly. I thought my noble friend Lord Caradon made a marvellous phrase when he used the words, "weapon of delay". This has always been a weapon used against people trying to get their independence and it is particularly dangerous at the moment in this situation, because the delay is being used in
642
many ways as described by noble Lords, but in particular it is being used by the internal Government led by Mr. Dirk Mudge, as was referred to by the noble Earl. You will all have had propaganda sheets from the Namibian authorities. On 13th July there was one which said:
"More power for the Council of Ministers: Mr. Danie Hough flew to Pretoria earlier this month to have talks with the South African Prime Minister and the discussion will centre on the possibility of extending the executive powers of the Namibian Council of Ministers. Repeated demands have been made by Members of the Council of Ministers for more authority to run the country".
This is what happens when delay follows delay. Namibia becomes more and more consolidated with South Africa—with all the dangers that implies.
I should like to say in this connection that the New York Herald Tribune, a very realistic paper, had a good quote last month in which it said:
"The first priority of the Reagan people in Africa, as of their predecessors, is to find an internationally acceptable path to independence for Namibia.
"A Western plan for elections, supervised by the United Nations and leading to independence, was one of the notable examples of leadership by Carter administration".
I should like to add to that. My noble friend Lord Gifford spoke eloquently about sanctions. He also said that Prime Minister Mugabe of Zimbabwe took a very realistic approach to this, which indeed he does, and the front-line states. Nevertheless, they express concern at any suggestion to deviate from the resolution which calls for elections supervised by the United Nations leading to independence.
I do not want to delay the House any further. We on these Benches believe that the peoples of Namibia should be able to determine their own future by free and fair elections supervised and controlled by the United Nations. We believe that the United Kingdom should stick firmly to the undiluted Resolution 435, which has been accepted by the majority of the international community, and we should like the Government to give us that assurance tonight.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, I do not think that at this hour of the night it would be very helpful for me to go over the ancient history, as it were, which was so ably described by the noble Lord, Lord Hatch, in his introduction to this small debate on his Unstarred Question on the Government's attitude to the future of Namibia. However, it would be fair to say that, despite the setback over the disappointing failure of the Geneva talks in January this year, the five have not abandoned their efforts.
When the Foreign Ministers of the five met in Rome on 3rd May, they agreed that the Namibia issue had been on the international agenda for far too long and they committed their governments to vigorous action in the effort to bring Namibia to early independence. It was agreed that the United States Government should take the lead in seeking to establish with the South African Government what were the reasonable requirements for South African agreement to implementation of the United Nations plan.
To this end there have been a number of exchanges between the United States and South African Governments over several weeks, including a visit by the

643
South African Foreign Minister, Mr. Botha, to Washington in May and a United States mission led by the American Deputy Secretary of State, Mr. William Clark, to South Africa, Namibia and Zimbabwe in June. Most recently, while in Ottawa for the economic summit last week, the Foreign Ministers of the five met again to review the results of these exchanges. The Ministers considered possible measures to complement and strengthen the existing United Nations plan and to provide the confidence necessary for all parties to succeed. This has been a feature of this evening's debate and, if I am allowed to do so, I shall get back to it a little later on.
It is, of course, too early to say anything publicly about the nature of the measures which are currently under consideration, except that, as your Lordships may have seen from the statement issued after the Ottawa discussions, the Five Ministers agreed that officials should meet this week in Paris to do urgent and detailed work on them. Following the talks in Ottawa, we have been in contact with the front-line African states to explain that our objective is to work out concrete proposals for discussion with them and with the other parties and governments concerned in the effort to secure general agreement on implementation of the United Nations plan.
Of course, the independence of Namibia is long overdue. Nobody would dispute that. Indeed, in 1978, it was generally believed that a Namibia settlement would pave the way for the eventual independence of Zimbabwe. In the event, Namibia has proved the more intractable problem. The failure of the Geneva talks led in April to the meeting of the Security Council at which the United Kingdom, France and the United States vetoed four draft resolutions calling for economic sanctions against South Africa. These vetoes by the western Permanent Members of the Council evoked some criticism. But there is, in fact, a fairly widespread recognition that economic sanctions against South Africa would not advance the cause of independence for Namibia and, indeed, would cause great harm to the economies of many African and western countries, including our own. There is no viable alternative, apart from years of violence and misery, to patient negotiation designed to overcome one by one the remaining obstacles to agreement.
The noble Lord, Lord Hatch, spoke about United States policy in this area, and the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, later spoke a little more charitably about it. As I have said, the United States has recently been taking the lead in discussions with South Africa with the agreement of its partners in the five, who include, as well as ourselves, Canada, France and the Federal Republic of Germany. The current initiative is one of the Five as a whole—I must emphasise this; even though it is one member of the Five who, on this occasion, is having the talks, it is representing the Five nations as a whole—and this is made clear by the communiqué, which has already been referred to tonight, issued after the recent Ottawa meeting of Heads of State. This spoke:
"… of the five's agreement upon the urgent need to continue the effort to bring about the independence of Namibia in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435."
This is something which has not changed. My noble friend Lord Bessborough asked about the need for the
644
United Nations to demonstrate its impartiality. We have supported the right of the democratic Turnhalle Alliance to be fully involved in the negotiations and to speak in the United Nations Security Council. However, it is naturally up to the people of Namibia themselves in free and fair elections to decide who they wish to represent them in government. This is the goal of our Government's policy.
My noble friend also put forward some interesting proposals at the end of his speech. Like all the points raised tonight, I shall most certainly want to reflect upon them and study them further. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, as did other noble Lords, stresssed the delay in achieving the independence of Namibia. The Government, I can assure him, share this frustration, but we also believe that negotiation, however frustrating and long drawn out, is the only way—as, indeed, was the case in what was Rhodesia and is now the independent country of Zimbabwe. Nobody would deny that that was a long drawn out road to independence. We want to make absolutely certain that we achieve a just, lasting and internationally recognised settlement. Neither sanctions nor violence will bring about the early and democratic independance of Namibia.
The noble Lord, Lord Gifford, spoke of South African occupation of Namibia and of military raids into sovereign States, such as Zambia and Angola. The United Kingdom Government have frequently condemned such raids and called for South African withdrawal, but the imposition of sanctions, as the noble Lord suggested, is we feel absolutely no answer. Sanctions, as I have said before, would merely drive South Africa further into isolation and make it impossible for us to secure a peaceful solution.
The noble Baroness, Lady Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, asked about a vote in the International Labour Conference in Geneva recently on a revised declaration by the International Labour Organisation on apartheid. I can confirm that the United Kingdom representatives voted with our 10 partners in the European Community in favour of the draft declaration. This vote signalled our support for the thrust of the declaration which was a condemnation of apartheid, especially in the labour field. The ten made a joint explanation of their understanding of certain aspects of the declaration. This declaration included references to various measures of assistance for liberation movements recognised by the Organisation of African Unity in its technical field of competence within the International Labour Organisation.
The noble Baroness asked for an assurnace that proposals being discussed by officials in Paris this week are consistent with Security Council Resolution 435. I think the communiqués issued in Rome in May and in Ottawa last week make it clear that the settlement will be in accordance with Security Council Resolution 435 and under the aegis of the United Nations.
A major objective of the Government's foreign policy is and will remain the achievement of an agreement on a cease-fire and a settlement leading to the independence of Namibia on internationally acceptable terms. As I have explained, the British Government do not play the same leading role that we did in the negotiations leading to the independence of Zimbabwe. These aims are important not only because the Namibian people have the right to an end to bloodshed and

645
suffering, a right to self-determination under a Government and system of their own choosing, but also because while the Namibian conflict continues it will aggravate instability in the whole of Southern Africa. Here I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. This in turn affords opportunities for the Soviet Union and its allies to extend their influence throughout that region.
It has not been lost on the Governments and peoples of Africa and on other countries of the Commonwealth and the United Nations that while the western five have worked and will continue to work patiently and doggedly for peace and agreement, the best that Moscow and its friends have to offer is guns and bombs. Agreement on Namibian peace and independence will be a great blow to those who seek to advance their interests by fanning the flames of war and a great triumph for all who seek a peaceful, just and stable future in Southern Africa.
Despite all the frustrations, the disappointments and the setbacks, all of us in the West and our negotiating partners in the African front line States are, I think, entirely agreed about the need to continue our efforts. We do not underrate the difficulties. There is no certainty that we shall succeed. We have listened with extreme care this evening—and will study it with even deeper care—to all that has been said in your Lordships' House, and I promise that the points will be carefully noted. We have no intention of abandoning this task, and we are confident that in the end an independent Namibia will take its place among the free nations of the world.
Lord Brockway: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, sits down, will he say whether the Government have considered, as the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, promised on the last occasion, the proposal that in order that there shall be impartiality during the election the United Nations should, before the election, withdraw their support from SWAPO, and that the United Nations force for supervision during the elections should be of such a character that there would be no doubt about its impartiality? Is not this the way out of our difficulty?
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, the point which the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, has raised is still very much under consideration, but as I have tried to explain over the whole gamut of my remarks this evening, there is still a long way to go before we get to that point, and to that extent at least, there is time still to make up our minds on that proposal.

British Transport Docks Bill
Reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.
London Transport (No. 2) Bill
The Queen's Consent signified, reported from the Unopposed Bill Committee with amendments.