Sitting of 24 February 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
PRIVATE BUSINESS
  CITY OF ABERDEEN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
  Read the Third time and passed.
ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  Mr. Speaker: Before the first Question, may I appeal to hon. Members asking supplementary questions to cut out the preamble and get straight to the question? They will lose nothing and the House will gain a lot.
  SOCIAL SERVICES

    Appetite Suppressants
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services which appetite suppressants are supplied through the National Health Service.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Dr. David Owen): A doctor may prescribe any appetite suppressant drug which he considers appropriate for a patient.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: Will the Minister of State say what value the medical profession places on these preparations how much they are costing the National Health Service, and whether we should subsidise self-indulgence in this way?
    Dr. Owen: The cost to the National Health Service is £2½ million a year. The British National Formulary, which my Department issues free to all doctors, says that:
    "appetite suppressant drugs have little place in the management of the obese patient and there is no substitute for will-power".
    164
    This statement was quoted prominently in a circular to doctors issued by my Department last summer, in which reference was also made to the high cost of anorectic drugs.

    Private Hospitals and Beds (Licences)
    Mr. Nelsonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications for private hospital licences she has received; and when she anticipates granting the first licences for private beds outside the National Health Service.
    Dr. Owen: Twenty-nine developers have sought advice from my Department. As the House knows, the proposals published on 15th December envisage further discussions with the professions and representatives of the private sector about the possibility of ensuring by voluntary means that developments in the private sector do not endanger the service the National Health Service gives its patients. The consultations will cover the point as to whether any reserve powers that it proved necessary to take in the legislation might be exercised by the independent board. We are waiting to hear the reaction of the profession to the results of the recent consultants' ballot on these proposals. Meanwhile, it would be inappropriate for me to offer any assurances or indication whether or not particular development would qualify for a licence. My Department has advised all applicants accordingly.
    Mr. Nelson: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that under the Goodman proposals, the longer it takes to build new private hospitals the longer it will take to phase out pay beds? Does he further realise that by failing to approve or decline applications for licences, he is putting an effective blight on the development of new hospitals? Will he therefore initiate a major new hospital building programme?
    Dr. Owen: I appreciate the hon. Member's difficulties, but I think we must await the outcome of the discussions and the possibilities they represent.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: That is not good enough. Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that he is now standing on their heads the original proposals in the consultative document? Does he not accept the point made by my hon. Friend

    165
    for Chichester (Mr. Nelson) that, having made the phasing out of pay beds dependent on the provisions of private practice, any suggestion of quantity licensing to restrict the growth of private practice is wholly inappropriate?
    Dr. Owen: We have to try to reach a voluntary agreement on any provisions that would endanger the National Health Service—and there are some. One can envisage a very large hospital being built in a small town. That would impair the NHS. I would have thought the Opposition would be as concerned to stop that sort of development as are the Government.

    Pensioners' Organisations
    Mr. Peter Morrisonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she last met representatives of the pensioners' organisations; and if she will make a statement.
    Mr. Laneasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she last met representatives of the pensioners' organisations; and if she will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Mr. Brian O'Malley): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State met representatives of the British Pensioners' and Trades Unions Action Committee on 27th September 1975. On 28th October 1975 she received a deputation from the National Federation of Old Age Pensions Associations.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a single woman or widow aged 60, whose only income is her pension, is now above the income tax threshhold? What representations has he made to the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this matter?
    Mr. O'Malley: That supplementary question should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer who, in recent statements, has indicated his awareness of the type of problem to which the hon. Member refers.
    Mr. Skinner: Although we appreciate that strong attempts have been made in the Cabinet recently to oppose any massive cuts in his Department's expenditure, does my right hon. Friend realise that the
    166
    difficulties for pensioners lie not just in some of the matters affected by the White Paper dealing with public expenditure? Does he appreciate they are also affected by nationalised industries' prices, the lack of home helps, bus and rail fares, and many other things, and that they did not get the £6 pay increase in the autumn?
    Mr. O'Malley: The whole House—certainly this applies to hon. Members on the Government side—agrees on the need progressively to increase the real level of retirement pensions to bring to an end the massive dependence on means testing which is a characteristic of life today. It is significant that during the lifetime of this Government, pensions have risen substantially faster than prices.
    Mr. Lane: As many pensioners are still worried about rocketing prices in the shops—whatever the official statistics may say—how soon can they expect a Government announcement on the timing and amount of the next uprating?
    Mr. O'Malley: If the hon. Member does not rely on the official statistics that have been accepted by successive Governments, I wonder what kind of subjective judgement he makes. It is significant and welcome that inflation over the second half of 1975 was running at about half the rate for 1975 as a whole, and we are therefore well on target to reach the Government's aim of reducing inflation below double figures by the end of 1976.
    Mr. James Lamond: Does my right hon. Friend recall that in the White Paper issued last week a sum of £150 million a year in round figures is allocated for the progressive upgrading of pensions so that they may draw nearer to the proportion of average earnings that we wish them to be?
    Mr. O'Malley: As my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made clear, the position of pensioners is fully protected under the terms of the White Paper published last week.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When the right hon. Gentleman last met pensioners' organisations did he tell them that the Government intended to go back on the decision that Parliament forced on them last year to raise the earnings rule by £15 a week next year? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the White

    167
    Paper proposals will reduce the real value of the earnings rule in 1976–77?
    Mr. O'Malley: That is a piece of impudence from a party that tells us that the public expenditure cuts are not large enough and wants even larger cuts, which would inevitably increase unemployment. Any sane man or woman looking at the economic and financial circumstances of the country recognises that we have to take into account priorities, and that we have promised to dynamise the £35 earnings limit that will be reached in April 1976.

    Heating Allowance
    Mr. Boscawenasked the Secretary of State for Social Services if she will review the level of the additional heating allowance to supplementary and other benefits.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Social Services (Mr. Michael Meacher): Extra heating additions are payable only with supplementary benefit, under discretionary powers of the Supplementary Benefits Commission, which keeps the amounts of these additions under continuing review.
    Mr. Boscawen: If the scale allowance for heating was sufficient last November to cover normal expenditure, will it be sufficient when the cost of electricity is shortly increased by 12 per cent.? If it was sufficient last November, why was it necessary for the Secretary of State for Energy to give a piece of cynical advice to elderly pensioners by telling them that they could burn fuel now and pay their bills later?
    Mr. Meacher: The advice that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy gave to the fuel boards was widely welcomed throughout the country, certainly amongst pensioners. On the question of the level of the scale rate for supplementary benefits, the rates for national insurance and supplementary benefits have kept in line with earnings and have risen substantially faster than prices since the Government came to power. As a result, about £1,000 million extra, in real terms, has been put into the hands of pensioners. Furthermore, the extra additions over and above the scale rate of supplementary benefits
    168
    have increased even faster under this Government—by 83 per cent.
    Mr. Gould: Has my right hon. Friend seen in today's Press a report of the speech made by the Chairman of the Supplementary Benefits Commission to the effect that the basic entitlement rates of supplementary benefit should be raised so as to reduce the discretionary element? Is that not in line with the more fundamental point made by the Child Poverty Act Group, that we should be following a policy of "back to Beveridge" so as to reduce means testing to a minimum?
    Mr. Meacher: We are awaiting the recommendations that the Supplementary Benefits Commission will make to the Government. I cannot, therefore, comment on the Press report. On the general question of raising the scale rates so as to reduce discretion, the increase in the scope of discretionary powers in the hands of the Supplementary Benefits Commission has caused concern to the Commission. We have to decide on the general question of the level of scale rates and whether the increase in line with earnings since 1948 is sufficient or a more general review is needed.
    Mrs. Bain: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many people regard the process of going to the Supplementary Benefits Commission as a humiliating process? Is he aware that letters have appeared in the Scottish Press suggesting that old folk would rather freeze to death than go through that process? Is the Minister satisfied with the take-up of supplementary benefits?
    Mr. Meacher: The evidence to which the hon. Lady alludes is entirely contrary to the substantial increase in the number of elderly people who are now in receipt of extra heating additions. The latest provisional estimate is that the number is nearly 1 million—970,000—which, if it is correct, is 23 per cent. above the level of seven months ago. That indicates considerable success for the Commission in getting old people to claim their rights.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend realise that there are old people who, although they are happy that their gas and electricity will not be cut off, have bills of up to £100 or £150 which they will eventually have to pay? What are

    169
    the Government doing about that? There is no point in the Secretary of State for Energy telling us something if complementary arrangements have not been made to meet the bills of those old people.
    Mr. Meacher: I accept the general point that my hon. Friend made. On our side we have been concerned to provide a policy that is complementary to the policy of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy, which we welcome. That policy is a better form of liaison between the Supplementary Benefits Commission and the fuel boards. If supplementary benefit recipients in exceptional circumstances are having difficulties with fuel payments, exceptional needs payments are made available. If there are not exceptional circumstances, but if hardship would arise from disconnection, new arrangements have recently been implemented for deductions from the allowance, week by week, to ensure that large lump payments are avoided. That is a condition for ensuring that there is no disconnection.
    Mr. Ridsdale: Is the Minister aware that old people, unlike the Government, like to live within their incomes? In my part of the world, where there are considerable numbers of old people, there is a strong force of opinion in favour of an increase in the supplementary allowance rather than the offer of credit.
    Mr. Meacher: That is why I said that special arrangements will be made for weekly or monthly payments, to get over the problem of very large payments having to be made at fairly irregular intervals.

    One-Parent Families
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she will start the new level of supplementary disregard for one-parent families.
    Mr. O'Malley: As soon as it is practicable to do so.
    Mr. Durant: Is the Minister aware that 280,000 families are in urgent need and that it is time we had some positive news? Is not this a miserable concession, which will mean little in real cash terms?
    Mr. O'Malley: The hon. Gentleman should read the newspapers. The organisations that represent the interests of lone parents welcome the change that is being made. The hon. Gentleman should bear in mind that principal legislation is necessary before this can be done.
    Mrs. Hayman: Is my right hon. Friend aware that he is correct in saying that this is a welcome advance for families on supplementary benefit where the lone parent can work part-time? For other families, where the lone parent is not working full-time and is not benefiting from child interim benefit, will the Minister offer some long-term addition?
    Mr. O'Malley: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for correcting the view expressed by the hon. Member for Reading, North (Mr. Durant). My hon. Friend will bear in mind that we have increased supplementary benefit scale rates pari passu with the equivalent national insurance rates. In that way the financial position of one-parent families has been fully protected against inflation.
    Mr. Kenneth Clarke: When the Minister read the newspaper to which he referred my hon. Friend, did he notice the comments of the National Council for One Parent Families, which said that the child interim benefit
    "is causing widespread confusion, resentment and anger."
    Will he confirm that, as his departmental estimates make no provision for added expenditure on the new child benefit in April 1977, the anger is likely to get worse, and that all standard rate taxpayers with more than two children will be made increasingly worse off by the new arrangements?
    Mr. O'Malley: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the child benefit scheme will come into operation. Arrangements are being made to bring it into operation in April 1977. The hon. Gentleman, even taking into account the party political battle which takes place in the House, should not impugn the good faith of Ministers or hon. Members, or their intentions on the subject.

    National Dried Milk
    Mrs. Chalkerasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps she is taking to replace National Dried Milk

    171
    with more acceptable and safer brands of proprietary dried milk.
    Mr. Meacher: I hope shortly to be able to announce arrangements to supply proprietary brands of modified milk free of charge to those entitled to free supplies under the present scheme.
    Mrs. Chalker: Will the Minister undertake, first, to consult the obstetricians and paediatricians—which he did not do when the Government removed National Dried Milk for babies under the age of six months—before making any recommendation which, like the last one, may stir up a great deal of fear and unhappiness amongst mothers and doctors who get the wrong end of the stick through Press reports?
    Mr. Meacher: As the hon. Lady has rightly acknowledged, the anxieties that were generated were largely due to the sensationalist way in which certain persons in the Press tended to treat my announcement. As for consultation, following the report of the Chief Medical Officer's Committee on medical aspects of food policy in 1974, we set up a further committee to examine this matter. That committee reported in December 1975. We certainly have undertaken very full consultations on this highly technical question.
    Mrs. Ann Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is most important that his Department continues to supply a form of National Dried Milk? Will he say what steps he is taking, and when the results of those steps will be known, to produce a new formula for National Dried Milk that will be in line with the guidelines issued earlier by his Department? Will he also give an indication of the relative cost of a new formula for National Dried Milk, compared with the proprietary brands that have approval at present?
    Mr. Meacher: I have said that we are considering the option of reformulating National Dried Milk. I am having consultations on this issue with my right hon. Friends responsible for the health departments of Scotland and Wales. There are some difficulties. I cannot at this stage tell my hon. Friend what the cost is likely to be. However, I hope that in the interval prior to its introduction we shall be able to give full protection to needy
    172
    families, in terms of getting the type of modified milk powders that they require.
    Dr. Vaughan: I am glad to hear the Minister agree that his Department's handling of this matter has created needless alarm. Is it now his intention to amend the Welfare Food Order 1975?
    Mr. Meacher: We are undertaking consultations with the manufacturers in order to make the necessary amendments to the Welfare Food Order 1975, to ensure that needy families will be able to obtain modified milk powders under the present arrangements. However, even prior to those consultations they were able to obtain modified milk powders at a price that represents the cost to the health authorities plus a 10 per cent. handling charge. That price is substantially below the commercial price.
    Mr. Cryer: Will my hon. Friend assure the House that the reformulation of National Dried Milk will be introduced as a matter of great urgency? Is it not true that the abandonment of National Dried Milk is a victory for the manufacturers of proprietary baby foods? Does he recall the Adjournment debate, some time ago, in which I pointed out that many of these manufacturers were abusing their position by foisting proprietary baby foods on mothers so that the babies became hooked? Is it not a matter of real urgency that National Dried Milk, which certainly was cheaper, should be replaced?
    Mr. Meacher: My hon. Friend is right to point to the considerable price bargain that exists for mothers who purchase National Dried Milk, because a 20 oz. pack costs 20p, whereas the price of a 16 oz. pack of a modified proprietary brand may range between 60p and 85p. Therefore, there is still a substantial price advantage. We have not withdrawn National Dried Milk, precisely because there is no health risk beyond the first six months of life. Therefore, it remains a considerable price gain for mothers who use it. I cannot add to what I have already said about the reformulation of National Dried Milk. We intend to proceed on this matter.

    Abuses (Prosecution)
    Mr. Lawrenceasked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many

    173
    cases of suspected social security abuse were investigated in October, November and December last year; how many prosecutions were proceeded with in each month; and how many persons were found guilty in each month.
    Mr. O'Malley: No record is kept of the total number of fraud investigations, nor can monthly figures be given for prosecutions, but, on provisional figures, the total number of prosecutions for all benefit offences in 1975 was 15,000, and about 98 per cent. of these resulted in convictions.
    Mr. Lawrence: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling that too much of the taxpayer's money is being given to people who are cheating the system? Does he consider that the number of prosecutions and convictions satisfactorily reflects the extent of the abuse? Is he satisfied that he has enough inspectors, or people who are qualified to supervise the operation of the system, to stamp out the abuse in future?
    Mr. O'Malley: We are deploying substantial staff resources on anti-fraud and anti-abuse measures. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that the administration of the social security system should be seen to be under sufficient control. However, at the same time it should provide a humane administration for the vast majority of claimants, who are genuine and need help. I hope that neither the hon. Gentleman nor his hon. Friends would attempt to use or to build up the arguments about abuse in this House or, indeed, the country, so as to produce a backlash that could mean a worsening in standards for genuine claimants, who form the overwhelming majority of those who use the resources of my Department.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Will my right hon. Friend confirm that successive independent inquiries into this matter have revealed that the fraud amounts, at most, to about £3 million or £4 million a year? When answering this question, will he provide the figures for fraud in connection with income tax, which I understand amounts to not less than £400 million every year? If Opposition Members were to ask questions about fraud in connection with income tax rather than social security we would take much more notice of them.
    Mr. O'Malley: My hon. Friend is right to point out that on the basis of such evidence as we have only a tiny minority of people try to abuse the system. It would be utterly wrong for a Government to change the methods of control so as to deter genuine claimants from receiving the benefits to which they are entitled.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: One does not need to allege fraud. Does the Minister agree that the rules require further consideration? Has his attention been drawn to the case of Mr. Desmond Adams? Have we now reached the stage at which a man is entitled to have his motoring fine paid for by social security?
    Mr. O'Malley: I have a note on the case to which the right hon. Gentleman has referred. If the right hon. Gentleman will read the Sunday Express again—I think that article is contained in that newspaper—he will see that the headline refers to social security. In fact, it has nothing to do with my Department. The article is dealing with a local authority social services department. The right hon. Gentleman should be careful before he makes inaccurate statements.

    Poverty Trap
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations she has received over the poverty trap from organisations working in the poverty field.
    Mr. Gristasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what recent representations she has received over the poverty trap from organisations working in the poverty field.
    Mr. Meacher: None, Sir.
    Mr. Bottomley: I am surprised at that answer. Do the Government intend to reduce the number of families suffering in the poverty trap? What steps do they intend to take to deal with the elements that make up the poverty trap?
    Mr. Meacher: We have already confirmed improvements to non-means-tested benefits, namely, the non-contributory invalidity pension, the mobility allowance and the child benefit. We have also increased the family allowance, for the first time since a Labour Government last increased it. We did that last April.

    175
    That shows a measure of our determination to get rid of this problem.
    Mr. Hooley: Is my hon. Friend aware that the latest child benefit for lone parents exemplifies this trap very well? There have been bitter complaints that some parents will be worse off if they claim this benefit and that a great many others will be only marginally better off by doing so.
    Mr. Meacher: Over 250,000 one-parent families are expected to make some gain as a result of the child interim benefit, and probably 45,000 will gain the full amount. The reason why the child interim benefit is not disregarded for supplementary benefit purposes is that the family allowance, which it replaces, is not disregarded either. It would be most odd to disregard the child interim benefit in April 1976 and not to disregard the child benefit in April 1977. The other reason is that, as a Labour Government, we do not want to entrench people more deeply in means tests.
    Mr. Grist: Will the Minister confirm that the Secretary of State for Education is proposing to introduce a new means-tested benefit for school transport? Will that not make the position even worse? What are the Government proposing to do to get out of this ludicrous situation and to make sure that it does not continually recur?
    Mr. Meacher: I have indicated that the money benefits that we have introduced will not make the problem worse. As for the question whether the benefit to which the hon. Member refers—which, of course, is a matter for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education—makes the poverty trap worse, given that there is a run-on of benefits, and that they will not be adjusted immediately but will continue until the end of the year, when there is normally an increase in the income limits, there will be no worsening of the poverty trap.
    Mr. Molloy: In view of the representations by the Conservatives that we should increase public expenditure in one direction or another, and given that, on the other hand, they want public expenditure cut in all spheres except one—defence—will my hon. Friend have consultations with the Secretary of State for Defence
    176
    to see whether he can contribute any cuts in defence expenditure, thus satisfying one of the desires of the Conservative Party?
    Mr. Meacher: The best action that the Conservatives could take, if they were serious about ending the problem of the poverty trap, would be to change their leader, because she seems determined to cut public expenditure and to increase defence spending.

    Drugs (Prescriptions)
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she intends to introduce legislation on drug prescriptions.
    Mr. Farrasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what proposals she intends to make to limit the prescription of certain proprietary drugs.
    Miss Fookesasked the Secretary of State for Social Services when she intends to introduce legislation on drug prescriptions.
    Dr. Owen: We have no plans to add to the statutory provisions governing National Health Service prescribing.
    Mr. Neubert: With 3 billion tranquilisers being prescribed every year in England and Wales, is there not a danger that if we picked up the man in the street and shook him he would rattle? Should not something more be done to control this costly cascade of pills down the public gullet?
    Dr. Owen: I agree with the hon. Member's concern. Everything possible should be done to cut the prescribing bill. We are trying, by means of information to the doctors and the general public, to reduce the level of drugs prescribed. Unfortunately, however, this bill is constantly rising for the National Health Service.
    Mr. Christopher Price: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is concern over the controlling of the prescription of drugs not only by general practitioners, where there is some control, but in hospitals? Is he further aware that this concern exists particularly over drugs prescribed for psychiatric purposes? Will he watch very closely the increase in

    177
    the number of these drugs being prescribed and the price charged by the manufacturer?
    Dr. Owen: Concern is expressed from time to time at the over-prescribing of drugs in psychiatric hospitals. There is a very difficult question of balance for doctors in dealing with disturbed patients, but wherever cases have been brought to our attention we have tried to look into them. The Hospital Advisory Service has psychiatric hospitals within its remit and is able to make representations.
    Mr. Farr: Has the Minister studied the text of last week's White Paper? From it he will discover that unless the bill for prescribed drugs is limited in some way the new hospital building programme will have to be considerably slashed, because of the shortage of funds.
    Dr. Owen: I do not know whether the Conservatives would be prepared to support the Government if they introduced proposals to limit prescribing by doctors. One of the problems is that the cry often goes up about clinical freedom, and we must accept that that is a valid argument. The family practitioner service is exempt from some of the cash controls, because it is a demand-oriented service and it is difficult to put it within a rigid framework. I do not think, therefore, that the case to which the hon. Member has alluded will arise.
    Mr. Loyden: Does the Minister agree that one aspect that needs examination is the degree of drug pushing by private drug manufacturers? Will he consider whether the drugs industry should be nationalised? That would provide a most acceptable solution to the problem facing the National Health Service.
    Dr. Owen: Labour Members have for long believed that there is a case for greater public ownership in some of those industries which carry a major public health responsibility. My hon. Friend should not underestimate the effect that the voluntary price restraint scheme has had over the years in reducing the profits of the drug industry. Those profits were unacceptable in the early 1960s, but are now at a level which is much more commensurate with the normal profitability of other sections of industry.
    Mr. Grylls: Does the Minister accept that it is important to preserve the clinical
    178
    freedom of doctors to prescribe what is in the best interest of the patient, and that that is what the health service is all about? It would be revolutionary and undesirable to intervene in the judgment of doctors in these cases.
    Dr. Owen: I believe that we should carry the medical profession with us on this. The comments made by hon. Members on both sides of the House are often reflected in concern in the profession. It is not altogether revolutionary to make these suggestions. There are a number of countries with tougher restrictions than ours. Great advances can still be made, however, by educating the prescribing doctor and by creating a greater public awareness of the cost of various medicines. We are pursuing negotiations with the industry on both those counts.

    Social Security Pensions Act 1975
    Mr. Tim Rentonasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further consultations she has had with the pensions industry about the implementation of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.
    Mr. McCrindleasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations she has had with industry over the working of the Social Security Pensions Act 1975.
    Mr. O'Malley: We keep in regular touch with the TUC, the CBI and the pensions organisations about the implementation of the Act. The most recent meeting with the pensions organisations was on 15th January.
    Mr. Renton: Is the Minister aware of the profound disquiet at the present arrangements for contracting out, since they will discourage pension schemes that offer above-minimum benefits? Will the Minister point out to the TUC that if pension funds are forced to invest in nonviable State enterprises our retired citizens will inevitably receive lower occupational pensions?
    Mr. O'Malley: I am not aware of the existence of profound general disquiet of the type that the hon. Member suggests. I think that his Front Bench will confirm that I am right in that. I understand the problems of the industry in regard to

    179
    the effect of the counter inflation policy after 31st July. Although this is primarily a matter for the Department of Employment, I have indicated to the pensions interests that we should be very pleased to receive representations and to have consultations with them in the discussions leading up to the counter-inflation policy that will take effect after next August.
    Mr. McCrindle: Does the Minister accept that the Government's current incomes policy is a considerably restricting factor in the development of occupational pension schemes? Will he therefore put maximum pressure on the Chancellor of the Exchequer so that when we move into the next phase of the incomes policy a positive encouragement is given to the development of occupational pension schemes?
    Mr. O'Malley: I do not think the hon. Member is being quite fair on this. As from 31st July this year, employees and employers will be able to implement schemes which have the effect of providing half pay on maturity and on final salary basis. Those are high and hitherto unattained levels for large numbers of the work force. I recognise some of the problems inherent in a situation of this kind and I shall be pleased to hear the detailed views of the pensions industry on this matter.
    Mr. Patrick Jenkin: I greatly welcome what the right hon. Gentleman said, especially about the consultations concerning the next stage of the incomes policy. Does he agree that it is rather miserly to restrict the improvement in benefits to the minimum contracting-out level? Will he take an open view on this matter, because this is a process that could properly proceed without damage to the Government's incomes policy?
    Mr. O'Malley: Millions of people would not think it miserly to have half their final salary or pay on retirement. They do not have anything like that at present. The right hon. Gentleman must recognise that contributions to pension funds have an effect on unit labour costs, just as other forms of pay have an effect. Pensions and pension funds are deferred pay. Nevertheless, I have made it clear that we are prepared to listen to the detailed views of the industry on this sub-
    180
    ject, because specific instances—for example, those affecting back crediting—can produce difficulties. We are prepared to discuss these matters with the pensions interests.

    Hospital and Local Government Services
    Mr. Michael Morrisasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what further cuts she proposes to make in the capital programme for hospital and local government services in 1977–78.
    Dr. Owen: The details were published last Thursday in the White Paper on Public Expenditure (Cmnd. 6393).
    Mr. Morris: Given the salutary reading from that White Paper, is the Minister aware that in Wellingborough and certain other towns all the general practitioners work from a privately financed and run health centre? Does that not offer a formula for the future financing of health centres, thus releasing resources for hospital building?
    Dr. Owen: My experience is that general practitioners are constantly making demands for capital grants for health centre buildings which we cannot totally satisfy. The Government have given this subject high priority and will continue to do so. The idea that there is a large private sector wishing to take up health centre building is not my experience.
    Mr. Corbett: Is the Minister aware that 70,000 of my constituents will be deeply incensed if they have to wait another five years after the start of the new town for a new hospital in Hemel Hempstead? May I press him and his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to seek cuts in wasteful motorway programmes and defence expenditure before lengthening hospital queues?
    Dr. Owen: The Public Expenditure White Paper reflects a choice of priorities, high on the list of which is health and personal social services. They are given higher priority than the motorway programme or the defence programme. The Public Expenditure White Paper reflects Socialist priorities. Perhaps it is not understood sufficiently in this House that the growth of expenditure in the National Health Service will be 2·7 per cent. and

    181
    in personal social services 3·9 per cent. over the next year. Over the following three years, the growth will be 1·8 per cent. and 2 per cent. for the National Health Service and personal social services, respectively.
    Mr. Michael McGuire: Is my hon. Friend aware that the planned hospital for Skelmersdale New Town, several years ago, was given the title of "the best buy" by his Department? The land is still available and the Government are under an obligation. Does he not agree that the Government have an obligation to build a new hospital, because that would give the much needed vote of confidence that the people demand from the Government?
    Dr. Owen: I understand my hon. Friend's concern, particularly about the employment situation in Skelmersdale. I have promised to look into the question of the hospital building programme. In the last analysis it must rely on the overall priorities of the regional health authority concerned. There are other aspects, such as Skelmersdale's being a new town, which I shall examine.

    Hospital Ward Closures and Staff Levels
    Dr. Vaughanasked the Secretary of State for Social Services what consultations she has had with the medical and nursing professions before closing wards and reducing staffing in the National Health Service.
    Dr. Owen: Temporary closures of hospital wards and the levels of staffing in the National Health Service are matters for individual health authorities in England. There are established procedures for consultation regionally and locally between the authorities and the medical and nursing professions, and also the other health service professions, on these matters.
    Dr. Vaughan: I am glad to hear that the Minister agrees that proper consultations are taking place. Will he undertake to have urgent consultations with the Royal College of Nursing following the announcement in the Press today that
    "Unions push nurses off committees"?
    Nurses are being prevented from carrying out their statutory job on committees solely because they belong to the Royal College of Nursing.
    Dr. Owen: Nurses are already represented on area and regional health authorities. The Royal College of Nursing is represented on staff organisations and on the Whitley Council. I shall gladly look into individual complaints, but overall the representation on staff organisation is a matter for the staff to determine.

    MINISTER FOR OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT (SPEECH)
    Mr. Blakerasked the Prime Minister whether the public speech by the Minister for Overseas Development, in Oxford, on 6th February, about the need for leadership amongst young people represents Government policy.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Wilson): My right hon. Friend was discussing the trends of political opinion among students and other young people, Sir. No question of Government policy arises from his speech.
    Mr. Blaker: The Prime Minister will recall that his right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development referred to the report by the National Executive of the Labour Party about the danger of Trotskyist influence in the party. Does the right hon. Gentleman agree with that report? Does the fact that it has been shelved mean that it is Labour Party policy not to put the Reds where they usually are—under the bed—but to sweep them under the carpet.
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear that there is no Government responsibility in these matters, and, in certain aspects of what is going on, no sense of responsibility in other ways, either. However, if the hon. Gentleman wishes to pursue the matter outside Question Time, where it does not arise, I shall be happy to send him a copy of the speech that I made on the subject.

    ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
    Mr. Wardasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 5th February to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on industry and commerce.
    The Prime Minister: I did so, Sir, on 10th February.
    Mr. Ward: Has my right hon. Friend seen today's unemployment figures, which show a continuing rise—students apart—over the figures that he described as a tragic waste in his Birmingham speech? Does he accept that although measures already taken are welcomed in my constituency there is deepening concern that further measures are needed soon if a deterioration in the job situation is not to be found in the domestic electrical appliance industry?
    The Prime Minister: In the speech that I made at Birmingham I referred to some encouraging signs. In that I was supported by most industrialists present. I said that the unemployment problem would take longer to deal with. Although we cannot draw too much from one month's figures, my hon. Friend will have noticed today that against an average weekly increase of 10,600 unemployed in the last three months of last year, the weekly increase in the past five weeks has been just over 4,000. It is still an increase, but less that some expected. My hon. Friend will note that unfilled vacancies have started to increase, overtime has risen, and short time working has fallen. However, I have not changed the view that I expressed at Birmingham, that it will take some time before employment figures fall.
    Mr. Wyn Robertsasked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech, on 5th February 1976, to the Birmingham Chamber of Commerce on economic policy.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply that I have just given, Sir, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).
    Mr. Roberts: In his speech the Prime Minister urged industrialists to invest now and be ready for the upturn. To what extent is that possible, bearing in mind his admission in the same speech that the public sector is overloading resources and that the Government are not planning cuts until 1977–78?
    The Prime Minister: Intelligent industrialists, such as those whom I addressed, see advantage in going for
    184
    investment now and not waiting until constraints appear in a period of recovery.
    Mr. Loyden: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the twin problems of unemployment and rising living costs are bearing heavily upon the working class of this country, which means that they are carrying the greater burden of the economic crisis that we face? Does he not agree that the Government should alter policy directions to take that into account?
    The Prime Minister: A very large proportion of the people of this country, at different levels of income, have suffered both from unemployment and inflation which are two closely connected questions. They are a result, first, of worldwide inflation and depression—the reasons for which hon. Members know—and, secondly, of particular factors in this country which began well before this Government came to office.
    Mr. Speaker: Mr. Peter Morrison.
    Mr. Peter Morrison: Question No. Q3.
    Mr. Morrisonasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on economic policy, on 5th February 1976, in Birmingham, to the Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today, Sir, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).
    Mr. Morrison: Does the Prime Minister recall his reference in that speech to
    "cruel delusions perpetrated on the British people"?
    Does he not agree with me and, indeed, some of his hon. Friends, apparently, that the cruellest delusion of all is the fact that unemployment, on a seasonally adjusted basis, is rising still, thanks to a Labour Government?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not agree at all with the hon. Gentleman's carefully prepared supplementary to the wrong Question, because I answered that particular point in answer to the previous Question, which he thought that he was asking.
    Mr. Pardoe: Has the Prime Minister seen the forecast by the Henley Centre

    185
    for Forecasting that in the next boom—in 1978—if it comes, the lowest level of unemployment will be 850,000? Does he accept that forecast, and does he recognise that it is bound to come to pass unless the norm for the next phase of the pay policy is zero?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept that estimate, but I think that all of us have observed that for about 20 years now the period of boom has been shorter and the unemployment figure, at the peak and the trough of the boom, has been growing worse. This is one reason why, as I said in answer to a previous question, I think that I was right in that speech in calling for people to even out their investment decisions and to start investing before the constraints on the boom appear.
    Mr. John Mendelson: The Prime Minister may be correct in not accepting just any wild forecast that cannot be soundly based for a period of 14–16 months ahead, but does he not now accept that the further figures of 22,000, in the basic figure of these seasonally adjusted figures, is a very serious development, as shown in the figure published today? Does it not mean that he must now ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer urgently to take measures—because it will take 12–14 months before new jobs can result from such measures—to have controlled reflation and certain import controls which are now absolutely inevitable?
    The Prime Minister: I do not agree with the final prescription of my hon. Friend. I do agree that a figure of 22,000—even though at a much lower rate of increase than recently—is very serious. In referring to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, my hon. Friend will be aware that he has announced measures in the House within the last two weeks which could not possibly have affected the figures published today.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister has referred several times to the need to have resources for new investment, but bearing in mind that the taxpayer will have to pay extra taxes to meet the interest on the debt mountain that his Government have created, where does he think those resources will come from?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady will be aware of a significant improvement of liquidity in industry over the past year. She will no doubt have seen that last Saturday there was a comment on this very question of hers, in which it was said that
    "The real shock has been the debt service burden. It is not one for which the Government can be blamed altogether since it is partly because of the Chancellor's admirable determination not to print the money required."
    The right hon. Lady's Government printed money and started off the inflation.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Once again the Prime Minister has avoided the question. Is he aware that his Government, in the next four years, will be spending more—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The preambles of other hon. Members have been so long this afternoon that they nearly drove me to sleep. The right hon. Lady is entitled to be heard.
    Mrs. Thatcher: The Prime Minister's plans are for the Government to spend more, to borrow more and to tax more. Where, therefore, will the resources be found for investing more in private industry?
    The Prime Minister: I have made it clear—from the improved liquidity and from the very substantial help given by the Government for investment and reorganisation, which I understand—unfortunately, I missed the programme last night—the right hon. Lady said she would cut out this year, including the money for Chrysler, Leyland and the regeneration of British Industry under the National Enterprise Board.
    Mr. Heffer: In relation to the extra money that is being made available for industrial investment, will my right hon. Friend indicate whether this was to be through the channels of the National Enterprise Board, as was laid down in the 1973 Labour Party programme and manifesto, or is it once again to be a case of general moneys being made available to industry, with no public accountability whatsoever? Is my right hon. Friend also aware that in Birmingham on Saturday there was a demonstration, organised by the West Midlands Trade Union Congress Regional Council, which indicated the antagonism of the trade

    187
    unionists in that area to the policies being pursued by the Government at present in relation to their cuts?
    The Prime Minister: Indeed, I read my hon. Friend's speech on that occasion, although I do not necessarily agree with it. However, with regard to the earlier part of his question, if he had listened—as I am sure he was trying to do—to the answer that I gave to the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, or if he had heard that answer, he would have heard me say that while it is the policy of the Conservatives, which they have announced, that all this money for investment through the NEB should be cut out in order to cut Government expenditure, we were going ahead with it and it was a very significant part of our programme. I should have added to that the very large sums announced by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer in the Budget and on two occasions since then for helping with restructuring, modernisation and new investment in a number of industrial sectors which are falling behind.
    Mr. Thorpe: As that Birmingham speech contained a note of optimism on the part of the Prime Minister, what message of hope will he give to the 1,400 school leavers who have been unable to gain employment since they left school in Coventry last July?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is apparently getting a little topographical, for some reason that I have not fully understood. The answer is, of course, the measures announced to the House by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer—I think supported by the right hon. Gentleman—two or three weeks ago. However, the right hon. Gentleman will no doubt have noticed when he was there that had we followed the prescription of certain parties opposite on Chrysler and Leyland there would have been many, many thousands—tens of thousands—more unemployed in Coventry and the surrounding area.
    Mr. Brittanasked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech to the Birmingham Chamber of Industry and Commerce on 5th February 1976, on economic policy.
    The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Member to the reply which I gave earlier today, Sir, to my hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward).
    Mr. Brittan: That answer has inevitably lost the first bloom of youth. However, does the Prime Minister agree that there was a reference to
    "cruel delusions perpetrated on the British people"
    in that speech? Does he not agree that the most cruel of all delusions recently perpetrated on the British people was the suggestion in the White Paper of last week that there are going to be real cuts in public expenditure, as compared with what was actually planned by the previous Conservative Government?
    The Prime Minister: No, Sir, I do not accept that. I am becoming increasingly disappointed with the supplementaires put by members of the syndicate—as the whole House is, I think, becoming concerned about the way in which they are hogging Question Time, to the detriment of other hon. Members.

CIVIL SERVICE COLLEGE
Mr. StonehouseQ6. Mr. Stonehouse asked the Prime Minister when he intends to open the new buildings at the Civil Service College.
The Prime Minister: In June, Sir.
Mr. Stonehouse: In the Prime Minister's speech on that occasion, will he repeat the sections of his famous speech at Eastbourne when he referred to the growth of bureaucracy in municipalities, draw attention to the growth in the non-industrial Civil Service, of 30 per cent. since he became Prime Minister 12 years ago, and explain what he is going to do about this growth of bureacuracy?
The Prime Minister: This question was answered yesterday by my hon. Friend the Minister of State, Civil Service Department. In a speech that I made last week—a copy of which I have already placed in the Library—I gave the figures for the 10 years of the 1960s and the first five years of the 1970s, showing a constant increase. I also explained some of the reasons for them, and what the Government are doing about it.
Mr. Baker: Has the Prime Minister seen that in the White Paper the savings in the Civil Service are expressed in money terms and not in numbers? Does that imply that some of the savings may be made at the expense of restricting the rights of Civil Service pensioners to inflation-proof pensions?
The Prime Minister: I have already referred to a speech that I made last week to the Civil Service unions and others. There is a copy in the Library. If the hon. Gentleman studies my speech he will find the answer to his question. I made specific reference to pensions. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Minister of State was dealing with this matter in some detail.

RHODESIA
The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): I will, with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a statement on Rhodesia.
The House will be aware that there has been increasing evidence that the talks in Salisbury between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo have not so far achieved agreement and that the gap between the two sides has seemed still to be very wide. Shortly after Mr. Nkomo's recent visit to London to see my right hon. Friend, there were some indirect indications that Mr. Smith had reconsidered his position about some British involvement in the negotiations for a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia.
My right hon. Friend therefore thought it right to send a message to Mr. Smith seeking clarification of his attitude. At the same time he made it clear that he would see no rôle for the British Government unless he was satisfied that Mr. Smith was ready to go very much further to meet current African proposals for an early transition to majority rule. My right hon. Friend naturally emphasised the serious consequences for all the people of Rhodesia of the end of the prospect of a negotiated settlement.
In the light of the reply received last weekend, my right hon. Friend has decided to send a representative to Salisbury in order to assess Mr. Smith's position. A former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth
190
Office, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, is accordingly leaving for Salisbury this evening. The Government are grateful to Lord Greenhill for agreeing to undertake this task.
The purpose of Lord Greenhill's mission is purely exploratory. He will try to find out whether Mr. Smith's attitude is now such that there is any real possibility of our helping to promote a settlement which would provide for an early and orderly transfer of power in Rhodesia. He is not taking with him proposals, nor will he be in a position to negotiate or take part in substantive discussions about a possible constitutional settlement. In the light of Lord Greenhill's report, my right hon. Friend will consider whether there is some way in which Her Majesty's Government might usefully become involved.
Mr. Maudling: I thank the Minister of State for making a statement. In the light of the debate that is about to open, I shall confine my comments to saying that we have great respect for Lord Greenhill and hope that he will be successful.
Mr. Faulds: Will my right hon. Friend bring to bear whatever pressure the British Government can exert for the inclusion of Bishop Muzorewa in any talks that may follow from the proceedings that are now about to open in Salisbury?
Mr. Ennals: I cannot say that there are new proceedings about to open. As I think the House knows, there is due to be a meeting tomorrow between Mr. Nkomo and Mr. Smith. Questions of further negotiation after that and any possibility of British involvement must entirely await the visit of Lord Greenhill.
Mr. Thorpe: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in view of past experience the Government are right to be very cautious in their approach? Is he also aware that it is always unwise to talk about a situation presenting the last chance? However, does he agree that for once the Prime Minister of South Africa was right when he said that the alternative to a peaceful solution was too appalling to contemplate, and that the option of a permanent solution is still open to Mr. Smith although he has not much time left?
Mr. Ennals: I think that the right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. If there is no successful negotiation, the consequences could be very grim for all the people of Rhodesia. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we must be cautious. As I said in my statement, the purpose of Lord Greenhill's visit is to ascertain whether Mr. Smith is now genuinely prepared to accept a settlement which is generally acceptable to the mass of the people. So far there has been no sign of that, but naturally we would welcome a change by Mr. Smith at this late hour. However, we must await the outcome of Lord Greenhill's visit.
Mr. Arthur Bottomley: I prevail upon my right hon. Friend once again to reconsider the sending of an emissary to Rhodesia. I believe that to do so is playing to Mr. Smith's game of delaying tactics. Is my right hon. Friend aware that if the Rhodesian Europeans are to have a future—I want them to have one—something much more urgent is required? I believe that we have to leave the affair to the Southern African Prime Ministers. Will my right hon. Friend ask the four Southern African Prime Ministers to consider reconvening the Victoria Falls Conference, and ask Mr. Smith to include in his team Mr. Garfield Todd and Sir Roy Welensky?
Mr. Ennals: I agree that the situation is very urgent. If all that we were able to do at this moment was to call upon the leaders of the other African States to reconvene a conference, they would be in exactly the same difficulty as we are. We have as yet not had an indication of whether Mr. Smith is prepared to make the great leap forward which is necessary. With respect to my right hon. Friend, I think that most hon. Members would welcome a settlement if it can be achieved. I believe that they would want the British Government to take some part if there is reason to believe that it could be of value. If not, I think we must recognise that there is the imminent danger of guerrilla warfare. The situation, as my right hon. Friend said, is very urgent.
Mr. Ian Lloyd: As the Government have doubtless taken a long, hard and cold look at the experience elsewhere in Africa during the past 10 years, and as they obviously set great store by majority
192
rule, will the right hon. Gentleman define whether he believes that majority rule will, in any recognisable West European sense of the word, lead to a democratic régime in Rhodesia or anywhere else?
Mr. Ennals: I shall not embark upon any surmising. The people of Rhodesia are entitled to majority rule, and that is the view of both sides of the House. The result of majority rule will eventually be for history to determine. No one can doubt that the present situation, in which a minority totally rules over a majority without the opportunity for the majority to have its views heard, is totally unsatisfactory.
Mr. loan Evans: Will my right hon. Friend ensure that in any British involvement in negotiations towards bringing back the illegal régime to legality there will be no British involvement in defending an illegal régime?
Mr. Ennals: I think it is true that some people who supported UDI now seem to be suggesting that we have a constitutional responsibility to protect them. I do not believe that any British Government would commit British troops to a war on behalf of the minority against the majority.
Mr. Goodhew: But what is the right hon. Gentleman saying? It seems that he is repeating what he said in a speech on Thursday of last week. In a Written Answer yesterday, however, he confirmed that the Government are still responsible for the territorial integrity of Southern Rhodesia, a Crown colony. How can he go back on that?
Mr. Ennals: I am not going back on that. I have said on a number of occasions, as has my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, that the House has a final responsibility for the moment when Rhodesia can become independent in a legitimate sense. We recognise that we have a continuing responsibility for Rhodesia, but we are under no obligation to underpin white supremacy or to support an illegal régime. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that it is wrong that I should repeat a statement, I must tell him that the statement was made on behalf of Her Majesty's Government. I think it was right to repeat it today.
Mr. James Johnson: Does my right hon. Friend accept that Lord Greenhill is merely a fact-finding plenipotentiary? Will he tell us what can be done at this moment without the involvement of the two Heads of State of Tanzania and Zambia? Can Lord Greenhill do anything without the good will, the consent and the active support of Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia?
Mr. Ennals: I agree with my hon. Friend. During the past year or more we have kept closely in touch with President Kaunda and President Nyerere. My right hon. Friend has seen both Presidents, and so have I. In recent days we have kept the two Presidents closely informed of the present situation. They know that we are sending an emissary. They understand the position of the British Government—namely, that whether or not we can be hopeful will be determined entirely by the response that the emissary gets from Mr. Smith.
Mr. Luce: Does the Minister accept that the Soviet—and for that matter the Cuban—objective is not only to exacerbate racial tensions in Southern Africa but to force the West to identify itself with white regimes and for the Soviets to appear to identify themselves with the black regimes? Since this is contrary to the interests of the Western world, and, indeed, contrary to the interests of the Africans, of Europe and of Rhodesia, will the right hon. Gentleman ask Lord Greenhill to ram home that situation to the Rhodesian community and urge it to reach an early settlement?
Mr. Ennals: I have great sympathy with the point mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. It is Soviet policy and we must be certain that we do not fall into it. Some Conservative Members in recent statements suggest that they are falling into that Soviet trap. However, it is not the task of Lord Greenhill on this visit to force home points of view, however much that needs to be done. His task is to explore Mr. Smith's intentions and to report back to Her Majesty's Government.
Mr. Whitehead: Will my right hon. Friend take account of the fact that in a recent broadcast in Salisbury Mr. Smith talked not about a change of power but
194
about a change of tactics? Does my right hon. Friend agree that if the principle of "no independence before majority rule" means anything, it should mean the accession of Mr. Smith to talks now instituted by the British Government rather than to our being invited by Mr. Smith to talks which may draw us into defending an illegal regime?
Mr. Ennals: I assure the House that we shall not be drawn into that position. I agree that the statement made on television by Mr. Smith yesterday or the day before was not encouraging. It justifies us in the caution that we are now showing. As for whether there should be talks confined to those between the British Government and Mr. Smith, we shall not again become directly involved in negotiations between ourselves and Mr. Smith without the total involvement of the African people.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose——
Mr. Speaker: We have a foreign affairs debate still to come, and I have a ruling to give to the House. Therefore, we must proceed with our business.

QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE (MR. SPEAKER'S RULING)
Mr. Speaker: I have considered the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in regard to an order made by a court prohibiting the publication of information relating to proceedings before the court. The hon. Member asked me to consider the matter from the point of view of parliamentary privilege, on the grounds that the order had the indirect effect of preventing him from ventilating certain issues which he considered should be made public.
I have taken into account the provisions of the Administration of Justice Act 1960, under which the court made its order, and the extent to which communications between hon. Members and their constituents have been held to enjoy the protection of parliamentary privilege.
There is no doubt that in any proceedings in this House in which the hon. Member took part he would enjoy absolute privilege, and I am sure that the House would be jealous to prevent

195
any erosion of freedom of speech in Parliament, by the courts or anybody else. However, I do not, in this case, consider that the operation of the Act of 1960 raises issues which would justify me in giving precedence to the hon. Member's complaint over the Orders of the Day.
My ruling does not, of course, prevent the hon. Member from seeking to have the issues raised by this case considered by the House by other means, should he wish to do so.
Mr. Gorst: I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, and I accept it completely. It still leaves some doubt in my mind as to precisely what an hon. Member may do outside the precincts of the House. For example, it was drawn to my attention shortly before coming into the Chamber—and I have not been able to check it—that the Lord Chancellor, at an earlier stage, was involved in a judgment by Mr. Justice Lane in which much greater protection was offered to a Member of Parliament in a similar situation. I wonder whether you could give me some guidance whether the general issues raised could still be considered by the Committee of Privileges.
Mr. Speaker: The House can decide whatever it wishes to send to the Committee of Privileges, but I cannot say that the privilege that extends to Members of Parliament also extends to constituents. I have gone into the matter very deeply during the course of the morning and have been advised about precedents and so on. Therefore, the ruling which I have given must stand.
Mr. English: I do not in any way dispute your ruling, Mr. Speaker, but is it not desirable that the Leader of the House should bring forward for consideration the Report of the Joint Select Committee of both Houses of Parliament on the Publication of Proceedings in Parliament? That matter has been considered for an inordinately long time by the Government and should be discussed by both Houses because it deals with the point at issue.
Mr. Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. No doubt his observations will be noted.

QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS
Mr. Madden: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You confessed earlier that you found it difficult to stay awake during Question Time. Clearly this was due to the fact that the first 21 Questions were tabled by Conservative Members and because there was a repetition of Questions to the Prime Minister tabled by Conservative Members. To avoid any suspicion that the Conservative Central Office is organising a closed shop among those who prepare the Order Paper and to protect the interests of all Back Benchers, are you prepared to make representations with a view to introducing some generally understood rules as to the preparation of the Order Paper? The situation as it now exists is a complete bagatelle and, as we experienced today, has worked against the interests of all Back Benchers.
Mr. Speaker: It is a matter of luck whether hon. Members are first when tabling Questions. However, this afternoon, despite an appeal made at the beginning of Question Time for hon. Members to cut their preambles to their supplementary questions, there were a number of very long supplementary questions to the Secretary of State for Social Services. Therefore, the House has only itself to blame if it reaches, as we did today, only Question No. 15.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Ordered,
That, at this day's Sitting, the Business of Supply may be taken after Ten o'clock and that if the Motion in the name of the Prime Minister for the Adjournment of the House is not disposed of by Ten o'clock it shall not lapse at that hour and may be proceeded with, though opposed, until Eleven o'clock.—[Mr. Stallard.]

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
Ordered,
That Commission Document No. R/1131/75 relating to Forestry Measures to be referred to a Standing Committee on Statutry Instruments, &c—[Mr. Stallard.]

SOLICITORS ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT)
3.48 p.m.
Mr. Ken Weetch: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend the Solicitors Act 1974 so as to allow persons other than solicitors, barristers and notaries public to draw up certain documents.
I seek to amend the Solicitors Act 1974, particularly Section 22 which relates to those persons who are allowed to conveyance property for fee, gain or reward. In a nutshell, I seek to argue that the classes of persons allowed to conveyance registered property or land with a registered title should be significantly widened.
I am aware that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has announced that the subject of conveyancing will be embraced by the Royal Commission on the legal profession. I could have rested on that announcement and taken the matter no further, but I welcome the setting up of the Royal Commission with certain qualifications. Frequently, the Royal Commissions have been used as an instrument of delay, and there are many problems concerned in legal matters where the shoe pinches very badly and where we need reform. I am suggesting that it might be a very good idea if we had a quick interim report on conveyancing matters.
I first want to make a number of broad remarks about the present position which will perhaps put the purposes of the Bill in a proper context. There is now, without any shadow of doubt, very considerable and justifiable dissatisfaction with the high conveyancing charges which have to be paid by ordinary people up and down the country in connection with moving house.
I make this point not only because of the scores of bitter letters I have received but because it is a matter of public record. In 1969 and 1971 reports were published which stemmed from the investigations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes, and the conclusions of those reports were broadly threefold.
The first conclusion was that there was a need for fundamental reform. The second conclusion was that charges were too high. The third conclusion was that charges were excessive in relation to the
198
work done, especially in connection with the work relating to registered property, where, it was stated in the reports, a mass of purely routine work was involved, with standard answers to standard questions on standard forms, which emerged, like a winding journey of a country bus, through long-winded standard procedures.
After these reports, nothing was done to alter the situation except to abolish scale charges in 1973, and this brought no improvement at all. In fact, a report by the Consumers' Association in the summer of last year indicated that the situation had further deteriorated.
The whole situation stems from monopoly power effectively given to solicitors in Section 22 of the Act of 1974, and before that under Section 20 of the Act of 1957, in relation to preparing certain documents of transfer.
I am putting to the House that this monopoly power has had quite iniquitous effects for every householder who wishes to move. First, there are excessive charges. Secondly, it enables the Law Society to hound competitors, who can offer the same service at half the price, through the criminal courts of this land for nothing more than trying to offer an alternative service. Thirdly, it provides a feather bed of such comfort that it has prevented any significant improvement in the reform of the conveyancing framework.
Conveyancing still belongs to the era of medieval history and the putting-out system, rather than to a modern property-owning industrial democracy.
In the Bill I seek to bring about reform by concentrating attention on registered land only. I am advised by solicitors—and this is the best advice I could get from the legal profession itself—that conveyancing property with a registered title is technically very much simpler and that the problems likely to arise would not for the most part be legal. In fact, I am advised that the whole purpose of the Land Registry is to make the process simpler, with lower costs for the consumer.
Unfortunately, this is not occurring in relation to lowering the cost. One serious aspect of the Consumers' Association report was that charges for conveyancing registered and unregistered land were

199
coming closer together. If the purpose of registration is to make things cheaper, this trend, if continued, would mean that the Land Registry could be closed down altogether, because, in relation to lowering the cost to the consumer, its efficacy is diminishing.
In removing registered land from the monopoly—which is what I seek to do in the Bill—I am able to anticipate the argument that conveyancing is far too esoteric a matter for ordinary mortals, however intelligent, to understand and to put into operation. There may, indeed, be difficult questions with unregistered land with an abstract of title, but having been provided with a system of registration to make things simpler, I am suggesting that advantage should be taken of it by the consumer.
I am, therefore, proposing that persons other than solicitors, barristers and notaries public should be allowed to conveyance registered property under certain safeguards, and I am proposing that registered land be totally taken out of the monopoly.
This brings me to my final point. I cannot, within the confines of a Ten-Minute Bill, construct an edifice of detailed supervision and control, but I am suggesting that advantage should be taken of a very important piece of consumers' legislation already on the statute book—the Consumer Credit Act. Any-
200
one who wishes to convey registered property must possess a licence issued by the Director-General of Fair Trading under the Consumer Credit Act. Before this is issued, all persons or companies have to be scrutinised in a very detailed way on all matters affecting competent professional and financial probity.
In the Bill I have settled for half a loaf, and without any Biblical miracle it should grow into a whole loaf, because, as time goes on and more and more land is registered, the monopoly will die a natural death. This would be in the interests of consumer freedom, lower prices and structural reform, because the present stifling restrictive practice should die, and when it does, there will be few mourners at its funeral.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Ken Weetch, Mr. John Horam, Mr. Sydney Bidwell, Mr. Russell Kerr, Mr. Bruce Grocott, Mr. Mike Noble and Mr. James Wellbeloved.

SOLICITORS ACT 1974 (AMENDMENT)
Mr. Ken Weetch accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Solicitors Act 1974 so as to allow persons other than solicitors, barristers and notaries public to draw up certain documents; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday, 21st May and to be printed. [Bill 74.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY
  SUPPLY
  [10th ALLOTTED DAY]—considered

  FOREIGN AFFAIRS (EAST-WEST RELATIONS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Stallard.]
  3.58 p.m.
  Mr. Reginald Maudling: I should like to start by saying how sorry we are to hear that the Foreign Secretary cannot be here today. We wish him a very speedy recovery from his influenza.
  The issue we have chosen for today's debate, East-West relations, is a very broad one. People may say that it does not enable us to focus acutely enough on all the particular issues, but we thought it right to make it a broad debate because there is no greater issue before the House of Commons than East-West relations, because recent developments in Central and Southern Africa have made discussion urgent, and because discussion of these events cannot be taken in isolation. It must be considered in the broad context of East-West relations and of developments since the Helsinki Conference.
  My first proposition, therefore, is a simple and familiar one, but it is essential to state it again and again. The world is divided between East and West, divided between the NATO Powers and the Warsaw Pact Powers, and no one but a lunatic would seek for anything but coexistence, mutual disarmament and growing co-operation between them, because the only alternative would be co-destruction.
  May I recall again the scale of the danger? It is so great that sometimes it bemuses us; it is difficult to understand. It is calculated, I think accurately, that, in a full-scale nuclear war between the two alliances, in a few days casualties would be numbered in hundreds of millions. There would be a return overnight to the Dark Ages. There can be no precedent in history for that situation. It is, however, entirely within the physical and military capacity of either of
  202
  the super-Powers to do this to mankind within a few hours. That is a totally new and horrific situation, which must be the basis for all that we say and do in foreign policy.
  In this new situation we must apply the lessons of the past, and particularly those of the 1930s. That is absolutely right, but they must be adapted to the new circumstances. Subjugation of our island by a Communist dictatorship would be as evil a fate as subjugation by Hitler, but then we knew that we could win a war and survive a war. Now, we could still win a war, I believe, but what would survive of mankind is a little more difficult to foresee.
  Therefore, our safety rests upon convincing any possible aggressor that, whatever the course of a battle, the consequence for him would be suicidal. That means demonstrating two things—first, that our own defences in the West will be strong enough to inflict upon the aggressor a mortal wound, whatever he might be able to do to us; second, that we have in the West the united determination to use our joint defences if, tragically, that becomes necessary.
  That, to date, NATO has done. That surely has been the foundation of NATO to date. The fact that NATO has succeeded and held together and been strong is the reason why we have had peace between the great Powers and why we have today—hard though it sometimes still is to believe—the prospects of future peace between them.
  All this, in my view, shows why detente is necessary and why defence and determination are essential to detente. I could not put the position better than Dr. Kissinger did the other day when he said:
  "…in the nuclear era…the use of force threatens utter catastrophe. It is our responsibility to contain Soviet power without global war, to avoid both abdication as well as unnecessary confrontation…We must strive for an equilibrium of power, but we must move beyond it to promote the habits of mutual restraint, co-existence and ultimately, co-operation. We must stabilise a new international order in a vastly dangerous environment, but our ultimate goal must be to transform ideological conflict into constructive participation in building a better world.
  This is what is meant by the process called detente'—not the hunger for the relaxation of tension, not the striving for agreements at any price, not the mindless search for friendly

  203
  atmosphere which some critics use as naive and dangerous caricatures.
  The policies pursued by this administration have been designed to prevent Soviet expansion, but also to build a pattern of relations in which the Soviet Union will always confront penalties for aggression and also acquire growing incentives for restraint."
  That seems to me a good statement of what we in the Western world should be aiming at.
  It was in that spirit that we on this side welcomed the Helsinki Conference and the Helsinki Agreement. We said two things at the time. First, we said that nothing in any paper agreement should justify the standing down of a single NATO soldier. The Government at the time—the Minister of State himself, I remember—agreed entirely and rightly with that. Secondly, we said that the proof of the pudding was in the eating. We hoped that it would be good, but we could not be sure until we had tasted it. That was our attitude to Helsinki.
  What has happened since? Frankly, the performance of the Soviet Union has been disappointing. I want to take four areas in which I believe this to be true—first, what is known as Basket III; second, political co-operation; third, the Soviet naval build-up; fourth, Central and Southern Africa. All those things go together. They are all part of the background against which detente can be expected to succeed or to fail. I cannot avoid the impression that the meeting of statesmen at Helsinki was not accompanied by a similar meeting of minds. There may be valid and genuine reasons for this, which we must examine, but to ignore that fact would be a perilous thing to do.
  Basket III comprises questions of human freedoms, free movement of people and ideas, reunification of families and freedom of movement for the Press. The West attaches much importance to these matters. The Russians must know that. It should not have been difficult for them to make a move on this front, but there has been little sign of it to date.
  I have some personal experience of these matters. I have written twice to the head of the recent Soviet parliamentary delegation to this country about cases of individual Jews in the Soviet Union,
  204
  about whom great concern is felt by constituents of many hon. Members. I wrote recently in reply to a letter from the Minister Counsellor of the Soviet Embassy referring also to the concern in this country for human individual freedoms. I have received, I am sorry to say, no reply. It is difficult to conduct a dialogue with those who do not answer.
  The second matter is the question of continuing political aggression, of which, I suppose, Portugal has been the outstanding example in recent months, although other possibilities can certainly come to mind. It is, I understand, the view of Mr. Brezhnev that Helsinki did not mean a truce in the war of idea. That is an over-simplification. One cannot say that war with tanks and guns is out but war with ideas is in. Between the two lies a vast spectrum of possibilities. Ideas can be as deadly as bullets, at the Russians know as well as anyone. I remember what Churchill said about the plague bacillus which was exported to Russia. The Soviets themselves take defence against ideas as seriously, we know very well, as they take defence against war.
  But if détente is to mean anything, we must have a meeting of minds. Of course the proponents of both philosophies, Communist and free world, must continue freely to propagate their views—as Chairman Mao rather surprisingly said, but did not carry out—to enable men to choose freely between them. But it is quite different to use money, men and propaganda to subvert the constitutions of countries on the other side or to destroy the unity of the other alliance.
  Mr. Stanley Newens: Like the CIA in Chile.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: You are out of your Chinese mind.
  Mr. Maudling: It may be difficult to do this in terms of law or politics, but it is emphatically not true in terms of detente, if detente is to mean anything at all.
  Third, I come to the question of defence, with which my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour) will deal more fully later.
  Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I think that the whole House follows the

  205
  right hon. Gentleman's argument. It is clear that there should be no subversion on any side. But would the right hon. Gentleman make a distinction between the activities of the Russians and what happened in Chile? Would he not agree that we as democrats should condemn activities of this kind irrespective of whether they come from the Soviet Uuion or from America or anywhere else?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not want to get involved in Chile for the moment. This is a serious issue which I am trying to take seriously. If we are to have detente between the two great alliances, neither should try to subvert the other; and I do not see much sign of any Western Power having much success in creating subversion inside the Soviet Union's boundaries.
  I come to the next point—defence—with which, I hope, my right hon. Friend the Member for Chesham and Amerstam will deal later if he chatches your eye, Mr. Speaker. We understood that the Helsinki Conference and the Helsinki Agreement would be followed by progress in the SALT and mutual and balanced force reduction talks. We said that the resounding Helsinki declarations would not mean very much unless we were able to get ahead with disarmament, and particularly nuclear disarmament, over the whole range of mutual and balanced force reductions. I am sorry to say that progress in this field since then has been very little and very disappointing. Meanwhile the Soviet arms build-up has continued particularly in the naval sector.
  It is only right to explain, so that the Soviet Union should know, why we in particular, with our history and experience, feel concerned about this naval build-up and its importance to Britain. Historically, attacks on this country have been seaborne because we are an island. Attacks on Russia have been over land, and we know that many thousands of Russians died in fighting off German attacks on the ground. It is hard to believe that it is necessary for the Russians to deploy a massive naval apparatus merely to defend themselves against a seaborne invasion over the Polar ice-cap. This is difficult for us to understand.
  The Russians may say that the expansion and growth of their fleet and its
  206
  deployment throughout the warm waters of the world is purely defensive. It is only right to point out that it is very difficult for many in this country to believe this claim.
  The fourth point is Africa, which in many ways is the most alarming development. The presence of a vast army, in the Prime Minister's phrase, of paid Cuban soldiers with Russian political and logistic support to impose the will of one faction inside Angola was a wholly new phenomenon, and I do not see how it can possibly be regarded as consistent with the spirit of detente. As we know, a quite grave situation has now arisen.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Would the right hon. Gentleman take into account the apparent intention of the South African Government to have detente in Southern Africa, and how does that square with their regular troops in Angola?
  Mr. Maudling: It is less important to look at the past than at the future, but the past has its lessons. There appeared at one time to be a most peculiar alliance supporting the non-Communists in Angola against the Communist factions there, comprising China, the United States, Zaire and South Africa. China withdrew early. The United States was paralysed by the dispute between Congress and the Administration, and the South Africans made a move, which I believe was unwise in that struggle, which had the effect of driving into Communist arms African countries which otherwise would have been more moderate. What matters is what happens now in the situation with which we have to deal. The threat of the Communists and their various supporters to neighbouring territories such as Zaire, Zambia, Rhodesia and South Africa is a very serious one. There has been a really grave setback to the prospect of a settlement in Central Africa between black and white which were coming together, slowly and painfully, before this happened.
  The danger above all for this country is that the Communists will portray what for them is really an ideological struggle as a racial struggle in which they are on the side of the majority. This is something of the greatest danger to this country. It is of the highest importance to prevent this happening and to base

  207
  our words and actions at all times with this danger in view. There is now a need for a maximum of diplomatic activity to try to reach agreements, to try to get foreign troops withdrawn. Certainly, when it comes to the withdrawal of foreign troops I believe that we shall have the support of a great majority of African countries which do not wish to see Communist troops from Cuba or Russia in their country any more than they wish to see the troops of any other country. We must give them the opportunity, so far as we can, to remove this danger from their presence.
  It is not true that the Communists always win in this matter. Recently we have seen how they have been excluded from Egypt, and they are experiencing the same thing in Syria and Iraq. That can and must happen in Angola, but it will not happen unless there is a maximum of diplomatic activity from now onwards on the part of the Western Powers. In this context I welcome the unity shown in yesterday's statement by the Ministers of the European Community. It is of great importance that they should have declared together, unitedly, their wish to do all they can to see a withdrawal of foreign troops from Angola. I wish that that had come earlier. We on this side of the House have often pressed that this should be done. It is better late than never, but it is no good unless the declaration is followed by most vigorous action by all members of the Community through all the diplomatic channels available, including, I believe, the Security Council of the United Nations.
  We have a special responsibility in Rhodesia, where the danger in some ways is greatest. In dealing with this it is right to choose our words with very great care, because ill-chosen words could damage the fragile but still existing prospect of a settlement there. I believe it was a tragedy that Mr. Smith did not accept the "Tiger" or "Fearless" solution, because had he done so the whole prospect in Central and Southern Africa would be much happier than it is today. But that is in the past, and we must look at the present.
  As I understand it, the position of the Government is that they say that we in Britain have a responsibility for the protection of a British colony. But, they say,
  208
  this does not include a territory whose Government have repudiated colonial status and declared themselves independent. In other words, as I see it, the Government are saying that the Rhodesians cannot have it both ways, to be treated as independent when it suits them but to be treated as a colony when they need help. To this the Rhodesians reply "Neither can the British Government have it both ways. They cannot proclaim that Rhodesia is still a colony when it suits them but not treat it as a colony when danger arises." These are the arguments on both sides. I find them sterile and dangerous arguments. There is logic in the position of the Government, but logic does not always govern human affairs; emotion sometimes takes over.
  Dr. M. S. Miller Dr. M. S. Miller (East Kilbride) rose——
  Mr. Maudling: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman later.
  I can imagine circumstances where emotion could take over, and I must say seriously to Ministers that if guerrilla forces, with or without—possibly with—Cuban regulars, were to invade Rhodesia and there was widespread slaughter of the white people while the British Government remained inactive on the side-lines, there would be an explosion of anger in this country which would by no means be confined solely to those having friends and relations in Rhodesia. This must at all costs be averted. This is the great task in front of us. This is the peril that must be averted.
  Dr. Miller: Is it not up to Mr. Smith to make the move of saying "This régime gives up. It is no longer an illegal régime and it moves towards legality"? Would that not be the first step which would mean that there could be some British intervention, which there certainly cannot be while Mr. Smith maintains his illegal position?
  Mr. Maudling: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman is very far from me. It is essential to avoid being faced with such a situation, which is why we welcome Lord Greenhill's mission. We believe that it is a profound British interest at this moment to do everything possible to get a solution in Rhodesia that is acceptable as fair and one that will last; because if that does not happen this country will be

  209
  faced with difficulty, danger and tragedy of very considerable dimensions.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner: We shall not. He will.
  Mr. Maudling: I hope that the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has a similar concern for this country. I do not think that it will help to enter into an argument about Rhodesia. But it is our profound hope that a settlement can be found swiftly.
  I come back to the broad issue of East-West relations, which is the frame to the African picture. Britain and her allies must use every diplomatic means available to deal with the situation. The arrival of the Cuban forces in Angola set on foot a major international phenomenon of such a scale that I cannot understand why it has not been raised in the Security Council. Certainly it should be raised in the Security Council as soon as possible.
  It may be said by some people that the situation has changed, because the MPLA has been recognised as the Government. It does not change the case at all. Surely the continued presence of a large Cuban army, now that the MPLA has been recognised and claims to govern its own territory, must be a threat to the peace and security of neighbouring Governments, and it should be raised as soon as possible in the Security Council.
  Mr. Newens: Is the right hon. Gentleman propounding a theory that we should not have outside Powers with military forces on a Third World country's territory? In those circumstances, is not what he says is good for Angola equally good for Oman, and should he not press strongly for the withdrawal of Iranian and British forces from that country if he is to be consistent?
  Mr. Maudling: The hon. Gentleman has failed to notice what his Government have noticed, which is that the troops there present are supporting the law and order of the legal régime in Oman, which is a wholly different situation.
  This matter should be raised in the Security Council. But the key, as always, is to be found in Moscow, for it is in Moscow where the power resides. The objective of detente as stated by Kissinger
  210
  remains. But there has been no real meeting of minds, and detente, like peace, in Litvinov's phrase, must be indivisible and must be genuinely desired by both sides.
  What do the Russians want, and what levers have we got? This is what we must be considering. What, in Kissinger's words, are the penalties for aggression and the incentives for restraint that we can give them? They have currently a big need for grain and continuously a great need for technology. There may be bargaining factors here. It must be said, however, that the Americans whose grain it is are not over-enthusiastic, and previous experience has not given much confidence in economic pressures. But surely this is a matter to be examined by the whole Western world.
  Can the Chinese help? Frankly, I doubt it. I welcome the developments in friendly relations between China and the West, but we must always be a little fearful that they may be playing us off against the Soviet Union. Dictatorships can change their tune overnight. I remember very well the Ribbentrop-Molotov pact which signalled the beginning of the Second World War. We must not forget that, above all, we must rely on the unity of the Western world and the unity of its policy. We must make it clear to the Russians that theirs is now the choice between genuine détente, disarmament and peaceful co-operation with all that these mean to them and to their peoples as well as to us and to our peoples and, if they do not wish that, condemning the world to a return to the cold war. We must make this crystal clear.
  The peacemaker treads a stony road, but we must never abandon hope. To adapt the inscription in the old Baltimore churchyard,
  "Neither be cynical about Hope: for in the face of all aridity and disenchantment it is perennial as the grass."
  4.24 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Roy Hattersley): I am in the unattractive position of having to begin my speech with two apologies. The first is on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary, who is prevented by influenza from taking part in this important debate and asks me to apologise to the House for his absence. He will

  211
  be grateful for the good wishes of the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
  The second is an apology from me not only because I am a substitute for my right hon. Friend but because, in view of the extraordinary events of today, I must leave the debate before it ends. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet will be leaving at about the same time, and I promise that I shall forgive him for that if he will forgive me.
  Mr. John Page: Although the Patronage Secretary admittedly is a member of the Cabinet, and I see that he has just arrived, would not it have been courteous to the House, in the absence of the Foreign Secretary, for another Cabinet Minister to have been in the House even for a few minutes?
  Mr. Hattersley: I seem to have heard that sort of point again and again in the 12 years that I have been a Member of the House, depending on which party was in government and which hon. Member wanted to make a point without having a point to make.
  Inevitably, throughout today, the dangers and desirability of détente will be judged through this debate against the development of Soviet policy in Africa in general and in Angola in particular. That exact subject occupied the Foreign Ministers of the European Economic Community meeting yesterday in Luxembourg, and I shall turn presently to the clear and unanimous conclusion to which they came about the future of Africa and which they issued yesterday as a statement of corporate EEC policy.
  Before doing that, however, I want to set out in broad terms what the Government believe should be the nature of our relationship with the Soviet Union and its allies and what the Government believe our response should be to the challenge—that is the word that I use, and I am sure it is the right word—of détente.
  Détente is one of the most fashionable words in the foreign affairs lexicon, but I believe that it is also one of the most misunderstood. Détente is not a process that can result in a world in which all opinions and all interests coincide. Its purpose is not to resolve the fundamental differences between East and West but to
  212
  reconcile fundamentally different political systems. It is, or it should be, the creation of an international order within which different ideologies and different systems of government can live together. By "live together" I mean live in stabilised peace, and I mean live with increased commercial and cultural relationships.
  Détente is not the product of sentimental liberalism or weak-minded pacifism. It is a policy which, if it is pursued with caution, is as much in the interests of the West as it is in the interests of the Soviet Union and its allies. Its purpose is not to pretend that the differences between the West and the Soviet Union can be hidden or forgotten. It is a policy designed and intended to make the world safe, despite those differences of opinion, of philosophy, of ideology and occasionally of interest, from the terrors which the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet described—the sort of appalling destruction which would be the inevitable result of a relationship of confrontation changing into one in which the confrontation was made active and Europe first and the rest of the world after was plunged into war.
  As the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet reminded us, in the debate on the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in July last year I said—and I repeat today—that the policy of detente has to be pursued with the greatest possible caution. It can proceed only on the secure foundation of a strong and effective Western Alliance. The NATO Ministerial Council made the position clear in its deliberations on 12th December. After that meeting, the statement which the Council issued contained a phrase which summarised what ought to be our attitude to these matters:
  "the solidarity of the Alliance and the security which it provides are an essential condition for the improvement of East-West relations."
  That is a view wholly endorsed by Her Majesty's Government.
  Defence and détente have to go hand in hand, and NATO has to be an instrument of both. Defence, represented by the deterrent, has kept Europe at peace for a quarter of a century. Détente is an attempt to find a better way of protecting peace. But it can come about only if the West negotiates from a position approaching equal military strength.

  213
  There is no disagreement between the two Front Benches on that issue.
  The United Kingdom has played and will continue to play a substantial part in the collective defence of the West If the history is looked at objectively, I think that it will be argued that it has played a bigger part during the lifetime of the present Government. We have continued to pursue the objects of détente as a superior method of preserving peace in the world, if it can be extended according to the right terms and in the right way. We have tried to pursue it by an extension of our bilateral relations with the countries of Eastern Europe and also through what I describe as the institutions of détente—the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and the mutual and balanced force reduction talks.
  The CSCE was begun by Conservative Ministers, if their speeches at the time are anything to go by, in a mood of great hope. I believe that they were right to begin the process and to be hopeful about its outcome. I find it difficult to follow the more extreme criticisms of how the conference which Lord Home began three years ago has turned out. I find it particularly difficult to understand the contention that in one particular it has turned out to be a unique triumph for Eastern Europe and an unmitigated tragedy for the West. That particular, advanced by Opposition Members who normally sit below the Gangway, is the argument that as a result of the Final Act of that Conference the boundaries of Eastern Europe, as it is divided from the West and as it is divided between the countries which are members of the Warsaw Pact, have somehow been confirmed and made permanent.
  Sir Anthony Royle: I am interested in what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the first stage of the Conference at Helsinki in 1973, when my noble Friend Lord Home led the British delegation and I was his deputy. The right hon. Gentleman is right to say that we entered the negotiations with hope, but we also entered them with realism. That is the point that has been made by some of my right hon. and hon. Friends during the past three months.
  Mr. Hattersley: I think that that is a fair description of the attitude of the hon. Gentleman and his noble Friend. But I
  214
  think that the hon. Gentleman does his right hon. and hon. Friends below the Gangway slightly more than justice—I do not begrudge that—when he says that during the past year they adopted the same attitude towards the Final Act as he has adopted. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has made the complaint to which I am referring: that the Final Act has solidified and made permanent the boundaries of Eastern Europe and that it is a major triumph for the Soviet Union and its allies for which nothing else can compenate.
  My argument against that is that the boundaries that presently divide East and West and the boundaries within the Warsaw Pact are determined by something much more stern than a piece of paper signed by 36 Heads of Government at Helsinki in the summer. If that is the major achievement of the Eastern European Powers resulting from that agreement, it is more apparent than real. However, I believe that they obtained other advantages, but advantages which they share with the West.
  I contend that from Helsinki and the Final Act three areas provide substantial potential benefits. First, the Final Act of the CSCE established a code of conduct which should guide the nations of Europe in their relationships with each other. Secondly, it proposed a number of ways in which military confidence between East and West could be built up, including the knowledge—and ideally the certainty—that neither East nor West was threatening or attempting to coerce its neighbours. The knowledge and certainty provided by the exchange of military information give a feeling of security not only to the Powers of NATO and the Warsaw Pact but to those neutral countries which exist, sometimes uneasily, between them, briefly conscious of military movements the other side of their borders but never sure of the intentions of the major Powers.
  Thirdly, the CSCE stipulated a number of ways in which the rights of individuals—the right to free movement, the right to be reunited with their families and the right freely to receive information—should be safeguarded.
  I shall deal extensively with the establishment of a code of conduct in a moment. T think that we can regard the second matter—confidence-building

  215
  measures—as an area of success. Since Helsinki, both the Warsaw Pact and NATO have notified each other of their manœuvres, which has helped to build up the confidence of each side by explaining when the movement of men and materials was related to practice rather that warlike intentions. I believe that to be a substantial step in the right direction. Similarly, in what is called Basket III—the humanitarian measures—I believe that there has been a substantial step forward.
  Mr. Cormack: Is it not a fact that we have had from the Soviets only one notification of troop manoeuvres and that we have given many in return?
  Mr. Hattersley: Yes, but the Soviet Union has notified all those troop manoeuvres which, as far as we know—and I think that our information is accurate—were within the terms of the Helsinki Agreement. We have chosen, I am sure rightly, to give notification of manoeuvres too small to qualify within the terms of the Final Act, but no doubt the Soviet Union and its allies are applying the Act exactly. That is a cause for congratulation rather than complaint.
  Mr. James Lamond: The Soviet Union has also extended its notification to include an invitation to observers from the countries whose borders are involved, and we have not done that so far. If we are to be fair, we should acknowledge how far the Soviet Union has gone.
  Mr. Hattersley: In fact, both sides have extended invitations of a sort to observers. I do not argue with the basic point that in this area both sides have cause for some satisfaction and deserve congratulation. In the confidence-building measures, both East and West have made some progress.
  There has not been equal progress in those parts of the agreement intended to safeguard the human rights of individuals, but even there some progress has been made. There has been progress in the passing of information from East and West. The organisation of multi-entry and exit visas for the journalists working in the Soviet Union has now been approved. That is a step in the right direction. I am told that as a gesture to the West
  216
  40 copies of the Financial Times are now on sale in Moscow I am sure that the House will want to express its deep gratitude for that. There have been steps in the right direction, though some are small, in the transfer of information
  There are, however, areas in which we have cause for concern. The right hon. Gentleman referred to the main one, the reunification of families divided by the traditional dispute between East and West and by the boundaries separating the Warsaw Pact and NATO. In the Foreign Office we have done our best to draw the attention of the Soviet Union and its allies to their absolute obligation under Basket III to allow those families now separated to be reunited. I repeat the promise I have given before that we shall continue to press that on the Soviet Union.
  We shall do it in two ways. First, we shall remind the Soviet Union and its allies of their obligation to promote reunification of such families on simple moral and humanitarian grounds. Secondly, we shall tell them of their obligations to themselves to realise that their willingness to do that is the test both of their good faith and of their confidence in their own system. Unless they are prepared to allow elderly ladies to live with their children in England, or wives to be reunited with their husbands, there will be great scepticism in the United Kingdom not only about their good faith in these matters but about their confidence in their own system and their willingness to allow people who have lived under it to go to the West.
  I have said that one of the objects of the CSCE was the creation of the right working atmosphere for civilised relations between the countries of Eastern and Western Europe. I know very well that this debate is bound to be dominated by the question we must all ask—whether the conduct of the Soviet Union in Angola is consistent with the spirit of the Helsinki Declaration. There can be only one answer to this question—it is not consistent with the spirit of the Helsinki Declaration. The Government's view on intervention in Angola is clear. It is shared, and has now been publicly expressed, by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine. The position we took up yesterday denounced and condemned intervention of all sorts from all sources.

  217
  Today I express the hope that what has happened in Angola will act as a most solemn warning both to Western Europe and to the nations of Africa. First, Africa must learn that within its continent there are independent nations which are now faced with a new sort of imperialism. It may be disguised with slogans about liberation and self-determination, but in fact it stands for something very different.
  Secondly, Europe must understand that this new imperialism cannot be fought and beaten by those who would ally themselves with the remnants of the old imperialism. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet was right when he said that time and again the Soviet Union has portrayed itself as being on the side of the black democracies in Africa. That is not only an enormous condemnation of them; it is also an enormous condemnation of us. We should have made our support for these new nations so obvious and apparent that it would have been impossible for the Soviet Union to compete with us for their friendship and affection.
  Had Angola not remained for so long the colonial property of an authoritarian European State—without a word of complaint from some people who are now so worried about its freedom and its future—its territory would not have proved such fertile soil for the Cuban intervention. More immediately, if less important, if South Africa had not sent in its so-called volunteers to fight on Angolan soil I have no doubt that opinion in Africa and outside would have been much more easily mobilised to condemn, and perhaps deter, the Cuban intervention. My right hon. Friend the Minister of State with responsibility for African matters in the Foreign Office will try to deal substantially with these matters when he winds up the debate.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Having recognised how important it is not to isolate the African nations, can my right hon. Friend say how quickly a British diplomatic mission will be established in Luanda and what discussions there have been on bilateral or multilateral aid to solve Angola's problems?
  Mr. Hattersley: The EEC Council of Ministers yesterday began to examine what sort of aid might be possible for
  218
  the resumption of peaceful and civilised life in Angola. In winding up the debate, my right hon. Friend will deal with this point and with the question of a British mission in Angola, which is at present being considered by the Government.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: Are any of these contemplated measures in regard to aid and diplomatic missions contingent upon the withdrawal of the foreign army from Angolan soil?
  Mr. Hattersley: They are related to but not contingent upon. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will wait with patience for the rather fuller statement which my right hon. Friend hopes to make before the end of the debate.
  Implicit in the declaration made by the Foreign Ministers of the Nine yesterday about the political future of Africa was their belief that what the Soviet Union calls the ideological struggle will be waged in Africa for the next 10 years. If we are to win the war of ideas, we must first make plain our unequivocal support for the forces of African nationalism and equally we must make plain that our policy in Africa is not based on our own narrow strategic or commercial interest but that we think it is a policy which is right for the Africans. No other policy will command their support. A policy based on building a world fit for the Tanganyika Concession to live in will win us no friends in Africa. It would deserve to fail.
  In these great issues of the future of Africa, morality and British self-interest coincide. That is at least one happy aspect for us in considering the future of Africa.
  There are other challenges to the improvement of East-West relations outside Africa. One is the second institution of détente—the mutual and balanced force reduction talks which, as the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet rightly said, have been going on for so long in Vienna. We all hoped for greater speed once the Conference on Security and Co-operation had been completed and the Helsinki Declaration signed. The object of the West in the MBFR talks has been to reach an agreement which radically improves the military relationship in Central Europe.
  In that sector, the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact allies have a large

  219
  numerical superiority of ground forces and main battle tanks. If the talks are to succeed, that imbalance has to be corrected. We therefore proposed to the Warsaw Pact that there should be a reduction in the number of its forces and NATO's forces in that area to a common ceiling. It is now sad history that the Warsaw Pact has proved unresponsive and unsympathetic to that proposal. The Pact countries have been overt in their determination to preserve the present ratio of forces and have regarded the MBFR talks simply as an opportunity to institutionalise the present imbalance and to continue the disparity. This is not only against our interests but is against the interests of stability in Europe.
  In an effort to encourage the Warsaw Pact to accept a common ceiling, we and our allies made during December what has been called the Option Three approach. We offered to withdraw a number of United States nuclear weapons from the reduction area if the Warsaw Pact would agree to a reduction of ground forces to a mutually acceptable common ceiling. Once again, that offer did not have any success or meet with the response for which we had hoped. However, we must continue to work for progress in the MBFR talks. A satisfactory result would reduce both tension and defence budgets without lessening our security. Both these matters are essentially in our interest and we must work towards them.
  However, I must make one point absolutely clear. This is not an area in which risks can be taken. We cannot proceed in the MBFR talks on the basis of hope or belief in good intentions. Progress depends on the certainty of reciprocal action and on the knowledge that what comes out of any agreement totally preserves our present level of security. Although the Government enter these talks in a hopeful and creative way, we do so in the knowledge that the overriding obligation is not to diminish security in the West. That, above all, must characterise our deliberations.
  We live in a time of Soviet initiatives. Only today, Mr. Brezhnev reiterated to his party conference his belief that we are moving into an era in which there has to be a worldwide disarmament con-
  220
  ference. This is an idea which has been proposed before and to which Mr. Brezhnev added in a speech to the Polish party conference in Warsaw the suggestion that there should be European conferences on energy, environment and transport.
  To all these initiatives our attitude is absolutely plain. If they offer positive prospects of material improvements in East-West relations, we welcome them, but if they are intended not to make progress but simply to score propaganda points we do not endorse them.
  There are a number of ways in which the intentions of such initiatives can be judged. For instance, the forum in which it is agreed that the European conference on energy, environment and transport might be held would be an indication of what the participants wanted from such a meeting. The obvious place for such a conference to be held is in the Economic Commission for Europe. If within that forum there is a move from the countries of Eastern Europe to discuss these crucial matters, we are prepared to consider playing our part in such a conference. But if it seems that such a conference is organised only with the idea of demonstrating what is not true—namely, that the Soviet Union is more interested in peaceful relations than the West—we have no part to play in such organisations.
  We have an absolute duty to Western Europe and to our own democratic philosophy not to avoid or run away from the war of ideas but to play an increasingly positive part in what the Soviet Union chooses to call the ideological struggle. I understand that today Mr. Brezhnev renewed his insistence that the ideological struggle must go on. Unlike the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet, I say "So be it", because while the Soviet Union may be superior to the West in terms of men and tanks, I believe it to be utterly inferior to the West in terms of ideas about the organisation of politics and political democracy. That is an area in which we can compete on more than equal terms in Europe, Africa and Asia. I understand that today Mr. Brezhnev, having talked for some time about détente, said:
  "Of course, there can be no question of an ideological rapprochement between scientific

  221
  Communism and the reformist social democrats ".
  Amen to that.
  My duty as a Minister in a Government wholly committed to improved relations between East and West obliges me to play a small part in the promotion of détente, and I accept that obligation more than willingly. But, as a democrat—and as a social democrat and a free man in a free society—I believe that I am also obliged to advocate the boons and benefits of a political system different from that which now operates within the Warsaw Pact countries. I find no conflict in those two obligations.
  The Soviet Union's attitude to this matter is one which we would all do well to emulate. First, the Soviet Union is determined to prepare its defences against possible as well as probable threats. Secondly, it is prepared to take part in the processes of détente only when it can participate without remotely risking its only security. Thirdly, whilst détente goes on, the Soviet Union makes it plain that it will continue to advocate and work for the extension of the sort of society in which it believes.
  I believe that we should follow the Soviet Union in all three particulars. Of course, we should be constantly on the defensive, we should constantly struggle for improved and extended détente, but equally we much continue in Africa and elsewhere to advocate the boons and benefits of the sort of society we represent. As I believe that our claims on behalf of pluralistic democracy are so strong, I am optimistic enough to believe that eventually we shall win.
  4.54 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Amery: In his closing sentences the Minister of State set a balance between what he regarded as the objectives of Soviet policy and what he regarded as the proper line we should take. I recall to him an argument I ventured to make in the debate which was initiated by the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) about the nature of the Soviet Government and the motivation that lies behind it. The problem we face is not ideological; it is not Communism; it is Soviet imperialism.
  Over more than 50 years there has grown up in the Soviet Union a Communist Party organisation, an army and
  222
  a KGB which cannot justify me crimes by which they have climbed to power or the privileges which they enjoy except by maintaining a state of tension and, where possible, exploiting mat state of tension to expand the influence of Soviet imperialism wherever opportunity occurs.
  In the Conservative Administration of my right hon. Friend the Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath) I was charged by Sir Alec Douglas-Home—rather as the Minister of State is charged today—to concentrate particularly on relations between the United States and the Socialist countries, including the Soviet Union, I thus had an unexampled opportunity to study détente. In the course of those studies I had a conversation with an elder statesman of one of the Communist countries. He has now passed what Marshall Stalin called "the physiological barrier", so I can reveal the conversation without detriment. I asked him, "Is détente possible?" He said, "On condition that you contain Soviet imperialism".
  He said that in the last decade—he was talking about the 1960s—President Kennedy had stopped the Soviets in Cuba over the missiles, President Johnson had stopped them in Vietnam, and Israel, with American support, had stopped them in the 1967 war. Because the Soviets could not expand, they were compelled to relax their relations both with their allies and, to a limited extent, inside their own country. Regrettably, today, those restraints have been largely removed. The American withdrawal from Vietnam has opened the door to Soviet imperialism in South-East Asia. The recession which followed the increase in oil prices has created a crisis of capitalism which is more or less seriously assessed in Moscow.
  Having exploited détente for economic co-operation, the Soviets have run into debt to the Western world to the tune of $13½ billion and, from information we are getting, they are finding it more and more difficult to extract raw materials economically. In addition has come the remarkable opportunity presented of expansion in the Cape Verde Islands, in Guinea-Bissau, in Mozambique and, more recently, in Angola by the Portuguese revolution.
  The proposition I put to the House is that there can be no détente without effect-

  223
  tive containment of Soviet imperialism. What has gone wrong in the last year or two is the breakdown in effective containment of that imperialism.
  Here I should perhaps declare an interest. I am a director of one or two companies in South Africa. They do not influence me, except in the sense that they give me information about the country, but according to the traditions of the House I make that declaration.
  The defeat in Angola which we have suffered is a total defeat for the West. Let us make no bones about it. The first question I should like to put to the Government concerns intelligence. There seems to have been very little advance knowledge of the remarkable movement of heavy equipment and Cuban forces into Angola or, if there was intelligence, little was done about it in the European Community, in NATO or by our American allies. Perhaps we could have some comment on whether we knew and, if we knew, why we did not act sooner.
  I think that the Government were wrong to recognise the MPLA when they did. The war in Angola is still going on. There are still, according to the best advice that one can get, several thousand—perhaps 20,000—guerrillas of the UNITA faction operating in Eastern and Southern Angola. There is no certainty of permanence for the present regime. The criterion which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know better than anyone, the Foreign Office has always adopted is whether the Government is in effective control of the country and whether it has a reasonable prospect of remaining permanent.
  There is a curious parallel between what the present Government have done about Angola and what successive Conservative and Labour Governments did about the Yemen. When Colonel Sallal and his republican junta overthrew in, I think, 1962 the monarchy in the Yemen we declined, in spite of American pressure, to recognise the republican regime precisely because a large part of the country, although not the towns, was in the hands of the King of the Yemen and the republican regime was sustained by only Egyptian forces. It was not until after the Egyptian forces had been with-
  224
  drawn—some time after—that the Labour Government, let alone the Conservative Party, recognised the republican regime as the legitimate Government of the Yemen.
  By doing what we have done in Angola we seem to have thrown away a rather valuable card. I must admit that I do not any longer attach much importance to United Nations resolutons. Nevertheless, it is now much more difficult for the right hon. Gentleman or one of his right hon. Friend's to go to the Security Council and to call for the withdrawal of Cuban and Soviet advisers from Angola, because by recognising the MPLA he has given it the opportunity to say that it invited its Soviet allies to go in. If that is the case, the position is akin to that of Czechoslovakia or Hungary, and the right hon. Gentleman has thrown away a good card.
  It is has been argued that in time to come the Angolans will get tired of their Soviet allies in the way in which the Egyptians became tired of their Russian allies. However, we must not forget that it took the Egyptians the best part of 20 years before they threw the Russians out, and 20 years is a long time. In the process of recognising the MPLA the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have let down Zambia, Zaire and South Africa—two black Governments and one white Government—all of whom, I imagine, would have preferred us not to do so.
  Mr. Hattersley: I am anxious that the right hon. Gentleman should not encourage the House to pursue a false point for the rest of the debate. I hope he will accept my absolute assurance that we recognise the present Government in Angola according exactly to the traditional criteria of recognition. Indeed, in anticipation of the meeting I was to have with my EEC colleagues yesterday afternoon, I had the most rigorous examination made of the precedents on this matter. There is no doubt that were we to adopt the policy which the right hon. Gentleman is now advocating it would constitute the abandonment of our traditional criteria.
  Mr. Amery: I cannot accept what the right hon. Gentleman has said, because of the parallel of the Yemen. I went to the Yemen as a guest of the guerrillas. I saw what they controlled. They did not

  225
  control the towns. The Republican Government depended on the Egyptian Army. For those two reasons the Conservative Government at that time—and, indeed, the Labour Party until it had been in office for some four years—did not recognise the new Government there and then not until the Egyptian troops had been withdrawn. I do not see the difference here.
  The right hon. Gentleman said that if we backed the wrong side we would make fertile soil for the Cubans. The soil is there—that is right enough. However, running after a Government for which we have shown precious little sympathy in the past will not pay us many dividends today. We must face up to it that the defeat we have suffered is most serious. A territory the size of the Western European Community has now passed under Soviet-Cuban control. The territory seems to be of great importance because of the raw materials it contains—for example, uranium and gold.
  In his speech Mr. Brezhnev said that he was not interested in questions of resources. However, the fact remains that the Soviets are in some difficulty. They have been spending rather more gold than they are producing annually and the extraction of important raw materials is becoming difficult for them. The House must consider whether classical imperialism is not developing in the Soviet Union just as it has in other countries.
  The presence of the Soviet-Cuban force in Angola—if it is not removed—is a vital threat to British, European and indeed American interests in connection with the copper that we draw from Zaire and Zambia and the tremendous mineral wealth of South Africa, let alone the trade that we have with it.
  Everyone in Africa is saying, "Who is to be the next victim?" We do not know. But it was interesting to note that in Havana yesterday Cuban officials were saying that the Cubans were pledging their support to the SWAPO movement in Namibia, or South-West Africa. We are clearly not at the end of the road. We do not know where the next blow will fall.
  Perhaps worse still, the credibility of the West has now been put in question. I noted that our ambassador to NATO, Sir John Killick, made an impressive
  226
  speech in Germany the other day when he said that it would not be surprising if some of the African countries changed sides in their relationship to the West because of the supine way in which we have allowed Angola to be Sovietised. I fear that the disease may go further afield than Africa. The whole Monroe doctrine has been blown up by the idea that forces from Cuba in the West Atlantic can come to Angola in the East Atlantic without the Americans or the Europeans raising a finger. The Chinese are certainly aware of this.
  I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will find it in himself to apologise to the Chinese Embassy for the Chancellor of the Exchequer's rather unfortunate remarks about China yesterday. I do not think anyone would have minded if he had described his friends below the Gangway as tinged with Maoism. To have called their minds Chinese might have been regarded as a compliment. However, to describe them as "tiny Chinese minds", was wrong and rather racist. He might get into trouble with the Race Relations Board.
  I turn to more serious arguments. The objectives of the West must be to ensure that the Cubans and their Soviet advisers are sent out bag and baggage from Angola. I noticed that in his speech at Cardiff the Foreign Secretary—we regret his absence today—took only the Cubans to task. It is rather his form to go for people smaller than himself, such as Iceland or Chile. However, what is the point of attacking the monkey when it is the organ grinder who calls the tune?
  Are we still to invite Mr. Brezhnev to come here after what has happened? Surely the immediate task is to mobilise all the available forces—black and white—in Central and Southern Africa to defend themselves, with our help, against the threat of Soviet imperialism.
  Let us see which those forces are. There are Zambia and Zaire, both enormous countries in area and very important to us because of the copper supplies we derive from them. There are also Malawi and Botswana, smaller countries but important none the less, and very friendly to us. All these countries are technically non-aligned. But when President Kaunda speaks about the tiger and its ravening cubs we are left in no doubt on which side of the barrier he

  227
  stands, and, unlike the Government, he has not recognised the MPLA. Then there are South Africa and Rhodesia. There is a tendency in Government circles to talks about the four black Presidents, but I urge the Government not to put too much weight on Tanzania or Mozambique. I am not sure that they can be counted on in the engagement which we now face.
  None of the Governments to which I have referred is admirable by a Westminster standard. The black ones are one-party States and Rhodesia and South Africa are ruled by the minority. They are all, however, reasonably friendly to the West. None of them is a threat to our interests or, to any serious extent, to each other. Soviet imperialism is.
  Of course, I do not underestimate, in proposing this grand design of an alliance of moderate African and European-led States, the racial gap which separates them. But I urge the Government not to exaggerate it either. A good deal has already been done to bridge it. Nothing has been more impressive to me than the co-operation and realism which has existed between Mr. Vorster, Dr. Savimbi, Mr. Holder Roberto, President Mobutu and President Kaunda over Angola and, indeed, the question of recruiting white mercenaries. We must not let our attitude to racialism become stronger than the prejudices the Africans and the Europeans in Africa hold. I have seen that happen in a Middle Eastern context where we have tried to simplify matters too much between Israel and the Arabs.
  Do not let us simplify too much between black and white. There is already a wider measure of co-operation bridging the racial gap than we sometimes give credit for. Much depends on the support we are able to give in the West if that gap is to be fully bridged. We must keep an eye on the realities. Zaire and Zambia are important countries but their military strength is very small, whereas that of South Africa and even Rhodesia is considerable, and in the last analysis it may be the latter two upon whom we should have to depend.
  May I with some hesitation—because there is always a risk when an Opposition Back Bencher puts forward a plan—say what I think should be done? First, we
  228
  should give maximum support to the black African countries which are, broadly speaking, aligned with us, and I exclude Tanzania and Mozambique. They are Zambia, Zaire, Malawi and Botswana. The first two are desperately short of foreign currency, and I hope that the Government, with European and American support, will make generous aid available to them, secured against the copper stockpile which they have at their pit heads and which they cannot move at present. Let us make armaments available to them if they want them, and advisers and instructors if they want them, too.
  Let us lift the arms embargo at once in South Africa and, if the South Africans will agree to it, let us try to renegotiate the Simonstown Agreement, although preferably next time on a European or NATO rather than on only an Anglo-South African basis.
  Mr. Newens: Does the right hon. Gentleman not seriously consider that the black peoples of Rhodesia and South Africa regard the present white minority Governments and the sort of people who support them as a greater threat to their future and safety than any Soviet threat? Is the right hon. Gentleman not driving these people to rely on the Soviet Union for liberation?
  Mr. Amery: I understand the hon. Member's line of argument, but he lacks experience both of these countries on the spot and of political power. However those people may regard the situation, the forces available in the present crisis are in the hands of the white South African Government. If we are to resist the immediate offensive of Russian imperialism it is one of the few forces on which we can count—unless, that is, the hon. Member for Harlow proposes to raise large European and American forces with which we could go in and dictate the political terms on which Central and Southern Africa should be governed in the future.
  I come now to the extremely difficult question of Rhodesia, and here I urge the Government to try to get their priorities right. Soviet imperialism, not the racial issue, is at the heart of the matter. I very much regret the speech by the Minister of State, the right hon.

  229
  Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Ennals), on the radio the other day, because he seemed to disregard one of the elementary principles of negotiation. In my experience it has always been a good principle in negotiation to back the weaker side against the stronger. When Mr. Smith was in the ascendancy it was right that we should press him to make concessions. Today, after what has happended in Mozambique and Angola, his position is weaker, but by his speech the Minister of State was making it more difficult for Mr. Nkomo to come to terms with Mr. Smith. The issue is not all that complicated. There is agreement on the principle of majority rule but disagreement about the timing. I do not know how far the United Kingdom, which is not prepared to concede majority rule in Ulster, or the neighbouring States which do not have majority rule, are in a position to speak.
  More important is to what extent the issue of majority rule is even relevant to the present crisis. I am not sure that even an agreement between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo would stave off the terrorist offensive. In Angola, we have seen that Africans are capable of fighting Africans as well as Europeans.
  Certainly majority rule is an important issue. But the Government should make it clear that if there were a terrorist invasion we would lift sanctions immediately, because the people of this country would not tolerate our being accomplices of the terrorists in an invasion of Rhodesia. If the Rhodesians ask for help we should be prepared to give it, making it clear that our intervention would of course include a liberalising influence in Rhodesia and South Africa.
  We may well be called in, because I am not sure that the kind of indirect support I have proposed will be enough, and NATO must now take seriously what it has often discussed—the importance of setting up a force of intervention which could help the Governments concerned, if it were invited to help, and which could control access to the ports of Angola and Mozambique as President Kennedy controlled access to the ports of Cuba a decade or more ago.
  Britain could not do this by itself. Therefore, it must be done on a NATO or
  230
  European basis, but Britain has a duty, to take the lead because of our historical f connection with Central and Southern Africa, because Zambia, Malawi, Botswana and even Rhodesia are still part of the Commonwealth; and because of our enormous economic interests in Southern Africa.
  There is another reason. There are nearly 5 million Europeans in Central and Southern Africa, and more than half of them are British. If it comes to a conflagration in Rhodesia and Southern Africa, public opinion will not stand for the Government doing nothing. The public will demand intervention. If we do nothing, they will do it themselves. No Diplock Committee and no new legislation that the Government may introduce will stop them doing it. They will go out to fight for—to use that much despised phrase—"their kith and kin", and they will be right to do so.
  5.20 p.m.
  Mr. Alan Lee Williams: The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was right in his historical judgment about Russian behaviour. He had history on his side when he indicated that the Russians will always take advantage of a situation where they think they can gain. Rather like Oscar Wilde, they cannot resist temptation. However, the right hon. Gentleman goes wrong in his analysis by implying in contexts outside Europe that it is possible to line up with powers that have racialist undertones in order to offset the Russians. If we pursue that line, we cannot win. Therefore, we have to take action which offsets the Russians without committing that fundamental error. With foresight that can be done.
  The Russians know that the policy of détente, into which they have put so much energy, rests on an understanding in Europe. I do not believe that the central power balance has been disturbed in a fundamental way by what is happening at present in Southern Africa. I am not saying that that will not have consequences or that something should not be done, but I do not believe that fundamentally it alters the central power balance. The Russians fully understand that. That is why we have to apply greater pressure on them. I agree with my right hon. Friend

  231
  the Minister of State that what the Russians were doing in Angola was against the spirit of detente. We should make it clear this afternoon that it is not only against the spirit of détente but that if it continues we do not intend to tolerate it.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: Could the hon. Gentleman expand on his flat statement that what has happened in Angola has not widened the Russians' power base? In what way has it not done that?
  Mr. Williams: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to develop my argument I shall deal with that matter.
  We must make it clear to the Russians that we are not giving them a free hand to do as they please outside Europe simply because we have reached arrangement with them through the West Germans' Eastern policies and the policies of detente. We must make that unmistakably clear because the Russians have not received that message clearly. That is why they exploit situations, why they will never hesitate to do so and why they will back any movement elsewhere which works fundamentally against Western interests. We cannot allow them to continue unchallenged.
  What happens in Southern Africa has serious repercussions for our supplies and trade routes. We understand that the Russians want to protect their interests, but they must understand that we shall also look after our interests. That is the message that we must spell out most clearly to them. We have interests outside Europe but they cannot be safeguarded by the actions suggested by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. However, they can be safeguarded if we share that responsibility with our European friends.
  My right hon. Friend the Minister of State referred to the joint statement on Rhodesia. We should congratulate the Foreign Secretaries of Europe on reaching that common position. That is an extremely good start. It is pity that the French got out of line in respect of recognition of the MPLA, but nevertheless we are in line now and we should try to encourage that policy because at some stage, if present trends continue, we shall have to find an effective way of offsetting Russian influence.
  232
  I come to that conclusion because I believe in the balance of power, which is where I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) who does not believe in the balance of power. I also believe that the Russians are expansionary in their tactics and actions. I must be logical and recommend that the Government together with our European partners must try to work out an arrangement to offset a Russian influence outside Europe. We shall reach no agreement within NATO. To try to extend the area of responsibility beyond the Tropic of Cancer, in the way suggested by a number of people, would not get very far within the NATO councils. An alternative arrangement must be found. Gradually and painstakingly that can be found within the Europe of the Nine. That is not to say that all Members of the Nine will agree with this, but a sufficient number of countries within the Nine might agree to do so. It can be done in a politically sensitive way which does not allow us to be allied with essential racialist and reactionary régimes. That is the central difference.
  The Russians at present have unleashed on the world a diplomatic blitz. At the same time they are taking advantage of geographically weak spots—where they can find them—and at the same time reassuring us of their peaceful intentions. I hope that in the long term the Russians will recognise the reality of the balance of power in Europe because at present they give the impression of not being as aware of that reality and that balance as they should be. At the moment they are conducting a diplomatic campaign in Europe. Only two or three weeks ago I received a letter from the United Nations Association of Great Britain and Northern Ireland asking me and a number of my hon. Friends to sponsor a world disarmament conference at York. I have been a member of that Association for 15 years and, therefore, without hesitation I allowed my name to be put down as a sponsor. However, I have now discovered, after some research, that this conference is not interested in world-wide disarmament. It is a conference which is geared to serve Russian diplomacy. That is not compatible with Basket III or any other provisions of the Helsinki Conference.

  233
  Therefore, I wish to give due notice to the United Nations Association that I wish to withdraw as a sponsor from that conference because I will not be used in that way. If the joint organisers of the World Peace Council want to pursue the policy, as I hope they will, of world-wide disarmament they must give us concrete tangible evidence that they are pursuing a policy of peace and are not trying to heighten tension and thus endanger detente.
  5.28 p.m.
  Mr. Dennis Walters: I have undertaken to speak briefly. Therefore, I hope that the hon. Member for Horn-church (Mr. Williams) will forgive me if I do not follow his interesting argument in detail.
  Those hon. Members who have heard me speak in foreign affairs debates over the years will know that I have never adopted a cold war posture and that I have frequently been highly critical of aspects of American policy in different parts of the world, especially in the Middle East. On the Middle East I am certain that the main Western interest is to show positive sympathy with and to initiate policies which assist the legitimate aspirations of Arab countries.
  However, it should be unequivocally stated that the participation of 12,000 Cuban troops in a civil war in Central Africa is one of the most astonishing demonstrations of formal external intervention in recent history. Yet such a massive and provocative operation was able to take place with scarcely a voice being raised in anger or in protest, and certainly no effective voice. This extraordinary silence was inexplicable and makes patently absurd all the noise and controversy over the pathetic recruitment of 100 or so English mercenaries attracted either by money or by a sense of adventure. But there was nothing pathetic, amateurish or haphazard about the Cuban intervention. This was an act of policy of the Soviet Union—a provocative, carefully planned and deliberate act of power politics.
  I should like to know—my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) referred to this—why the matter was not immediately raised by Her Majesty's Government, in concert with our European partners, as a matter
  234
  of the utmost urgency at the Security Council. I am glad to see that the Community, in the important declaration that was made yesterday, has attacked external military intervention in Angola. However, will this be followed up? Will this be followed by pressing for a debate in the Security Council, requesting the immediate withdrawal of all foreign troops from the area? I am certain that this is the only way of reassuring moderate African opinion and moderate African countries which are now threatened by the presence of this large Cuban army.
  I should like to know what has happened to Western intelligence. Have reports which must have come in been properly monitored? It would not appear that they have been, as no effective action was taken in good time. In retrospect, it seems obvious that the real danger lay in the possibility of direct Communist military intervention and that this is what should have been prevented. That is what we should have been trying to do. It is the failure of preventing such an intervention which has created the extremely serious situation that now threatens the whole of Central Africa. By comparison with this, the victory or defeat of one or other of the independent guerrilla movements was relatively unimportant.
  However, now that the situation is as it is, it seems to me that two things are of absolute paramount importance. The first is to take every possible effective action to ensure the withdrawal of all foreign troops. The United States, as my right hon. Friend said, has considerable bargaining weapons, and certainly this is an occasion when they should be used. Europe should marshal opinion at the United Nations, ensuring the fullest public debate and making certain that the uncommitted countries participate in it, sharing, as many of them do, the anxieties that all reasonable people feel at this particular act of policy of the Soviet Union.
  The second is the absolute necessity to avoid a polarisation in Africa, with the West on the side of the whites and the Communists on the side of the black Africans. That is precisely what the Soviet Union would like to see happen. It is precisely what must not be allowed to happen. It would be disastrous for the West and disastrous for Africa.

  235
  We must support and encourage the moderate African régimes which are at present in a state of acute anxiety, because if we cannot restore their confidence and cannot restore the situation, the outlook for the West in Africa will be very bleak indeed.
  Mr. Speaker: I am very much obliged to the last two speakers for their brevity, because there is an exceptionally long list of Members who wish to speak in the debate.
  5.35 p.m.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Whenever we have debates on foreign affairs it always seems that from the Conservative Party we have Members, such as the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters), who bring out their outdated, outmoded attitudes, dust them down and put forward what, in the case of the right hon. Gentleman, is a quite terrifying recipe for ultimate disaster in Africa, and a recipe which no one in Britain, except a few people of his mind, would wish to follow and which would certainly undermine whatever influence we have in the African continent.
  The hon. Member for Westbury says that we should support moderate African States. I wonder whether he means that we should support them by cash, by equipment or by armies. What sort of support should it be? Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would care to tell us.
  Mr. Walters: In a brief speech, I tried to make the point that I felt that it was essential that we should raise the matter at the United Nations in the Security Council, that we should dramatise the gravity of the situation and that, as a result of our doing so, world opinion should concentrate on the outrageous military intervention operated by the Cubans and engineered by the Soviet Union, and that hopefully this would bring about the withdrawal of Cuban and all foreign troops from Central Africa.
  Mrs. Short: I do not think that the United Nations has worked with that sort of determination and rapidity in the past. The whole world is well aware of the situation in Africa today. We have to hope that our allies will support a reasonable point of view, but we have
  236
  to bear in mind that we have recognised the new régime in Angola—and we were not the first to do it. We merely followed on after about 30 other countries had already done so. Clearly, therefore, world opinion had made up its mind about the situation there.
  I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on the part that he played in signing the Helsinki Agreement and bringing that to a successful conclusion. He did extremely well. What he did, together with the Prime Minister when they visited Moscow to sign the Final Agreement, was to increase Britain's standing in the Soviet Union to a very considerable degree.
  Mr. Cormack: If the hon. Lady believes that, she will believe anything.
  Mrs. Short: The backwoodsmen of the Conservative Party may not think that that is important. I should like to suggest that there are many things on which Britain and the Soviet Union have a great deal to offer each other. I have always been very interested in the development of East-West trade, as the House knows. Would any Opposition Member deny that East-West trade has improved since there has been a change of Government here, or deny that the increase in trade with the Soviet Union or the GDR or any of the other East European countries in COMECON has been of great value to us? We are not in a position to spurn trade with any country. The hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton) may not agree with what I am saying, but these are the hard facts of life that I am putting before him.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: We are subsidising the Soviet Union.
  Mr. Cormack Mr. Cormack rose——
  Mrs. Short: The increase in trade is of particular value to areas of Britain which are now experiencing high levels of unemployment and others where unemployment is growing. That is a fact of life that we cannot deny. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has carried out a great service. There is no doubt that our relations with the Soviet Union are now very much better. They descended to the depths when the Conservatives were in office. We suffered as a result of that.

  237
  The Final Act of the Helsinki document is very long but it has produced certain hard commitments which are of great importance to both sides. They are important to us and the Soviet Union as well as to other countries in Eastern Europe. Co-operation in economic, scientific and environmental matters is of profound importance.
  Mr. Cormack: What about the armed forces?
  Mrs. Short: Co-operation in human contacts, cultural agreements and educational exchanges are also of great importance. In his intervention my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) referred to hard agreements, one of which is that countries involved in major military manoeuvres will give 21 days' notice. That is something that has never happened before. The Soviet Union gave notice when it had an exercise on the Turkish border involving more than 25,000 troops. As my hon. Friend indicated, volunteers were invited to watch the manoeuvres. That is progress.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Oh, glory be!
  Mrs. Short: Instead of behaving like a lot of hooligans, Conservative Members should understand that although progress may be slow it is at least progress.
  Mr. Cormack: It is all one-sided.
  Mrs. Short: They should welcome progress. Progress in one direction can lead to progress in other directions that Conservatives may be anxious to see.
  I am certain that from the development of the Helsinki Agreement there will be a call for more trade on a broad and multilateral basis which will result in considerable development in future. Agreement on industrial co-operation is of extreme importance to British industry. Over the years many important British firms have been carrying out discussions with the Ministry of Technological Development in Moscow to try to bring forward joint projects of co-operation between our industry and Soviet industry—for example, the exploitation of mineral wealth in Siberia as well as various other projects of enormous importance. Many of our well-known firms have concluded agreements to the benefit
  238
  of British industry and the greater employment of British workers. We look forward to more joint co-operation on those lines, with the adaptation and modernisation of industrial plant that is so important to both sides.
  Mr. Victor Goodhew: Surely the hon. Lady appreciates that if we continue our present pattern of trade with Russia, and if Russia is allowed to engage in imperialistic ventures in Africa, we may well lose more jobs and more wealth by Russia eventually taking over the resources of raw materials on which we depend?
  Mrs. Short: We are losing jobs at the moment, and I shall back whatever can be done to remedy the situation. Many years of ground work has taken place and many British firms have expended large sums in sending teams of scientific workers to the Soviet Union. If those schemes can be brought to fruition to the benefit of both sides, all of us with any sense will welcome the results.
  We need to pay greater attention to the quality of the salesmen we send to Eastern Europe. It is not an easy market in which to operate. I am afraid that the quality of salesmen who are sent to many Eastern European countries compares badly with those who are employed, for example, by West German organisations.
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton: Oh!
  Mrs. Short: The hon. Member Macclesfield should realise that these are the hard facts. The West Germans have pushed us down from our position as one of the major West European suppliers of the Soviet Union to about sixth or seventh place. That is not to our advantage. We should take a leaf out of the West Germans' book and think again about the sort of people we should be sending to this difficult market. We should send people with some scientific knowledge instead of whizz-kids such as the hon. Member for Macclesfield. The hon. Gentleman would not get very far in the East European market. I think that he would come back empty-handed.
  There are important agreements in the Helsinki document about cultural and educational exchanges that will encourage those directly engaged in education and science to have direct contacts and communication. We have an enormous

  239
  opportunity to make considerable progress not only between ourselves and the countries of Eastern Europe but between them and scientific organisations within the Common Market. It is of great importance that we should have some sort of scientific exchange between people with scientific training and scientific background in industry, research establishments and Government research establishments. I suppose that there are financial difficulties to overcome in the Government sector, but they should not be insuperable. They should not be allowed to stultify the existing scientific activity that is engaged in by both sides.
  It is important that we should bring European technological standards and codes of practice together to meet those that obtain in the COMECON countries. We should create codes and standards that are applicable in other countries in East and West Europe. The British standards institutes and the Department of the Environment have done a great deal of work in this direction, and I hope that their work will continue. It is essential that we start co-operation between the Soviet Union and the standards institutions of the COMECON countries and those in our own country.
  There are great advantages to be gained for our construction industry. We have a great potential for earning money abroad by exporting our construction and engineering knowhow. In the Soviet Union there are enormous schemes going ahead in preparation for the Olympic Games. French and Swedish construction firms have won large and valuable contracts. I have asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade what he is doing to encourage the British construction industry to go after projects of that kind. I hope that he is doing something. I should like to know how much progress we have made in that regard.
  There is enormous scope—I realise that money is involved—for cultural exchanges between ourselves and East European countries. We had the exhibition of Soviet paintings in the autumn and we now have the marvellous exhibition—
  Mr. Cormack: The West has Solzhenitsyn.
  Mrs. Short: —of Thracian gold treasures. We seem to prefer to allow the bulldozers to enter our sites to destroy the relics of or development over past centuries. It is only with a very great deal of difficulty that we can find the money to carry out proper excavation and to restore the treasures that we find. In other countries we find that enormous sums are spent in preserving the relics and remnants of historical development. The Thracian exhibits go back to 3,000 BC. It is a marvellous and exciting exhibition. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will go to see it.
  Above all, we must remember that the world now possesses the means to destroy itself completely, as civilisations in earlier years managed to do, and they disappeared. The question is whether we have enough civilisation to prevent the world blowing itself to bits. This is the basis of all the co-operation that should exist between ourselves and countries of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet Union, which is the most powerful. If the alternative is to blow up the world in nuclear war, I am sure that most sane people will want to seek an alternative.
  Mr. Speaker: I did not wish to interrupt the hon. Lady in the full flow of her argument, but I should inform her that "Erskine May" lays down that the word "hooligan" is an unparliamentary expression to address to other hon. Members. I state that just for the record.
  5.50 p.m.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I return to the actualities of East-West relations. So far as the United Kingdom, and indeed Europe, are concerned, it seems to be a matter of "Heads the Soviets win and tails we are in process of losing." So far as the West as a whole is concerned, the present series of events reminds me of a badly synchronised film. The Helksinki dialogue relates to a love scene, but the African action shows one of the lovers mugging some innocent person in the street beforehand.
  The East, on the other hand, has given clear evidence that it is the sword, not the word, that matters. My right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) mentioned Dr. Kissinger and his definition of détente, but for the East, détente has not this definition. It is

  241
  an ideological struggle and a war of ideas—a struggle continuing beyond the range of words and moving into force of arms. The hon. Lady the Member for Newcastle, Central mentioned the USSR—
  Mrs. Renée Short: I am not the Member for Newcastle, Central but for Wolverhampton, North-East.
  Mr. Macmillan: In these days of sex equality, I must make a special apology to the hon. Lady. The hon. Lady the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) put forward ideas about the Soviet Union that reminded me of words put forward alas, by members of my own party about Nazi Germany before the Second World War. I am glad to say that there were some members of the Tory Party who gave the same warnings against them then. The right hon. Gentleman the Minister of State gave a definition of détente that was virtually peaceful co-existence. If that is what he thinks détente means, Africa has shown a situation not of détente but of what Dr. Kissinger called abdication.
  The Council of Ministers in the EEC put forward a statement expressing its joint point of view. We should all welcome that evidence of unity, but I have some doubt whether that statement showed not only unity but also what Dr. Kissinger called the other side of détente—namely, the will to resist aggression. It is fairly easy to
  "condemn all external military intervention"
  and to express
  "the firm hope that it will be quickly brought to an end."
  It is also fairly easy to express desires about
  "peaceful and constructive co-operation based on good neighbourly relations between the countries of the region."
  However, I hope that the Minister who replies to the debate will say what steps the Council of Ministers proposes to take to that end and what action it intends to take in conjunction with our American allies and with NATO.
  The EEC statement expresses the readiness of the Nine
  "to develop relations of co-operation to the extent that they are desired by the African States",
  and expresses
  "dissociation from action by any State that seeks to establish a zone of influence in Africa".
  242
  Does this mean, or does it not, that the Nine are prepared to give economic aid, to co-operate with the United States in helping Zaire and Zambia and all those countries which wish to receive assistance?
  Are the Nine prepared to follow the statement by the Council of Ministers that we should seek to pay regard to and take action to show
  "respect for the independence of all African States and their national policies in complete sovereignty and without outside interference"?
  Are we prepared to approach the United States and to discuss the question of sending arms and advisers to Zaire, Zambia, Rhodesia and South Africa to meet the threat that still exists in Angola from well-armed, well-trained Cuban troops supplied with Soviet equipment of a sophisticated nature? It is no good merely sending arms or weapons, because personnel are needed to teach the recipients how to use those arms.
  The Council of Ministers made these points, but are the Governments of the Nine willing or able to back those statements by any sort of action? Are the Nine willing to contact the United States about the establishment of a NATO force, as was suggested by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), to make it impossible for any further outside intervention to take away the independence of African countries? Till the Cubans and Russians have left Angola and Mozambique the rest of the points put forward by the Council of Ministers are mere words.
  The Council of Ministers says that it supports
  "the efforts of the OAU in promoting African co-operation."
  That is all to the good. The Council also supports
  "a right to self-determination and independence of the people of Rhodesia and Namibia"
  and condemns apartheid policies in South Africa. That means nothing while Cuban colonial troops, put in by Russia, are in Angola. That is the threat we must now counter.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): The right hon. Gentleman referred to the statement made yesterday by the EEC Council of Ministers, which

  243
  referred to the independence of all African States and to the fact that they should be allowed to determine their national policies with complete sovereignty and without outside interference. Is he suggesting that some members of the OAU have been asking for Western arms and advisers? Is this the point he is making, or is he suggesting that arms should be provided whether or not they are requested?
  Mr. Macmillan: I am suggesting that the matter should be considered by the Council of Ministers and discussed with the United States Government so that the West can show itself united in offering such help. If it is not and if we do not show ourselves at least willing to make the offer, we shall give the impression to the Soviet Union, as well as to our friends, black and white, in Africa, that we neither care nor are able to help them. Without some such defence, at least in words, of South-West Africa, the political and economic freedom of the whole area is at risk.
  The right hon. Gentleman, in his speech, was worried about the nations of the West being misrepresented as either the defenders of white rule or the defenders of white investment. British investment in South Africa is not inconsiderable—something over £2,000 million. South Africa produces quite a lot of raw materials essential not only to Great Britain but also to other Western countries. It produces about 80 per cent. of the world supply of platinum, 75 per cent. of the world supply of gold, and 83 per cent. of the world supply of diamonds. Most of the other supplies of those three raw materials are within the Soviet Union. If they gain the rest, black Africa will be damaged as well as white investment. I hasten to declare an interest here. My firm operates, trades and has invested in Africa, mostly in black Africa, sometimes in partnership with the Governments of those countries.
  Apart from the effect of our inertia and the supine attitude of the West in Africa itself, there is a much greater danger elsewhere. If we are content, or even appear to be content, to leave Angola as a Soviet colony, with the danger all the time of Africa being further exploited for economic purposes for the Soviet Union alone, we shall put the
  244
  whole of the NATO alliance in other parts of the world at risk.
  There are at the moment Communist countries which are not wholly within the domination of the Soviet Union, and which have so far successfully resisted Soviet imperialism. We shall be letting them down, too, if we in the West do nothing.
  Obviously, there are dangers in taking the sort of action that I and my right hon. Friend and others have suggested, but past experience shows that the greatest perils this country have ever faced have been through failing to recognise dangers early enough, failing to act soon enough, and failing to look facts squarely in the face.
  They arise from pretending that what has happened is self-determination when it is conquest—from saying, for example, that the Sudeten Germans had a case. I have no doubt that the same sort of thing could be said about parts of Africa. But what happened to Czechoslovakia was that it was conquered by Nazi Germany; and what has happened to Angola is that it has been conquered by the Cuban troops of Soviet imperialism.
  6.4 p.m.
  Mr. Terry Walker: The longer the debate goes on the clearer it becomes that it is about the policy of detente and co-existence and whether this should be expanded or cast aside.
  I listened very carefully to the speech of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who seemed to be advocating intervention by the British Government in Southern Africa while at the same time condemning the Russians and the Cubans for intervention in Angola.
  Some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side of the House seem to be living in a bygone age when they talk of the capabilities of the Government today. We are no longer the world's policeman. But they seem to believe that we still have a rôle to play in interfering in every dispute throughout the world. Such a rôle is no longer in our hands but in the hands of others, though whether they play it correctly is another matter.
  There must, however, be a realisation that we are still a Power with a rôle to play in the world. My right hon.

  245
  Friend the Foreign Secretary, and before him the noble Lord, Lord Home, have both played a considerable part in the Western effort to develop detente and peaceful co-existence. I believe that as time goes on we shall be guided to act to a greater extent, in conjunction with NATO and our allies, in formulating the policies we need to follow in extending our influence throughout the world.
  I do not believe that the greatest danger to these Islands today comes from the expansion of the Russian Navy or the threat of being overrun in Europe. These dangers, I believe, are grossly exaggerated. But the involvement of Russian and Cuban troops in Angola is indeed a worry, and it is doubtful whether they and their equipment will return to their own countries.
  Hon. Members have said that Rhodesia will be threatened and that the United Kingdom Government will become involved. But, as my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said in the House the other day, Mr. Smith has very little time left to return to legality. If he does, I believe that the threat which is at present allegedly upon the Rhodesians will pass. But pressure will also be put upon Mr. Smith that the coloured people in Rhodesia should be given a say in the government of that country.
  Until that is realised, there will be a threat that the Russians—or the hammer and sickle—will be looked to by the coloured people as their salvation. We very much want to avoid that. A peaceful solution in Rhodesia and in Southern Africa generally is the best answer. It is the one which will seriously reduce the influence of the Russians, the Chinese or anyone else in Southern Africa as a whole.
  We have heard earlier today of the move that the British Government are making by sending Lord Greenhill to talk to Mr. Smith in Rhodesia. It must be made abundantly clear by the British Government that there will be no independence before majority rule. This has always been our stance and it is not negotiable. The abortive talks on "Tiger" and "Fearless" involving the Prime Minister must not be repeated. Until there are strict assurances that there will be meaningful negotiations it is not for the
  246
  British Government to rush forward and make their views known.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: In case the hon. Member nails his flag to the wrong mast, may I say that it is my understanding that what successive British Governments have sought is not evidence of majority rule before independence but evidence of unimpeded progress towards majority rule before independence. I hope that this is what the hon. Gentleman is saying. It has been the position of successive British Governments.
  Mr. Walker: I thank the hon. Gentleman. It is progress towards majority rule that we want. As far as I am aware there has been no change in the policy of the Smith régime as it was set out in the "Tiger" and "Fearless" talks. Until there is some guaranteed movement it is not for the Prime Minister to become too deeply involved.
  There is a message here for Tory Members who have been sympathetic towards Rhodesia and South Africa. There is a need to impress upon these countries how important it is for world peace that these issues should be dealt with as quickly as possible before they get out of hand. There is no doubt that the Western Powers are doing no favours to the South African Government by granting huge financial loans without any guarantee of moves towards majority rule in that country. We have already seen the involvement of Midland Bank in such loans. It is a small part of what is being done by the Western world to prop up the régime in South Africa. Most of this money is being spent on arms.
  There must be pressure to stop these Governments seeking to preserve the status quo. We must make them move towards greater involvement of the African community. It is necessary for the friends of Rhodesia to make these views known to Mr. Smith and for them also to be made known to the South Africans so that action may be taken in time. We must not be guided by those who want to see us return to the cold war policies of the 1940s. Such views are prevalent in this House. The policy of detente and co-existence will lead to a greater extension of world peace. I hope that the Government will press ahead with

  247
  that extension, ensuring us a more peaceful world.
  6.14 p.m.
  Mr. Russell Johnston: What is at issue basically in this debate is the ideological self-confidence of the West and the will not merely to maintain adequate military capacity and the capability mortally to wound if attacked but to be aggressive about democracy. That means that we must not deceive ourselves, as some hon. Members have, that the Eastern Powers are different from that which they appear to be. That is the risk in much of the talk about détente and the excessive expectations arising from Helsinki. To listen to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton North-East (Mrs. Short) one would imagine that everyone in the Communist countries spent his time either in scientific research or the pursuit of culture—particularly the unearthing of valuable objects which in the West have been crushed by capitalist bulldozers. Unfortunately, life is not like that.
  Mrs. Renée Short: Silly little man.
  Mr. Johnston: Unfortunately the word "silly" is not an unparliamentary expression.
  Mrs. Short: No, it is not.
  Mr. Johnston: It could, however, be more appropriately applied.
  We are talking about détente because we are talking about a free system and a closed system. That is certainly true with regard to culture and the pursuit of artistic freedom. The latter is not readily acceptable in the East.
  We deceive ourselves if we believe that we in any way successfully restrain aggression from the East in the developing countries by somehow instituting or protecting Right-wing autocracies. We fail absolutely if we do that. In any country an opposition, if forbidden to act openly, acts underground, takes up arms and thus reaches the classic revolutionary situation.
  The West must realise that it is as ideological as the East. It must be. What would be wrong would be if we accepted, in the interesting analysis given by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery)—I am
  248
  sorry that he has temporarily left the Chamber—his somewhat bland willingness to associate with South Africa despite its unacceptable policies simply because to do so is convenient. One felt that if Uganda were rather more handily placed geographically, he would be talking about closer co-operation with General Amin in given circumstances.
  This is a straightforward, pragmatic approach, but it is not the sort of approach I would favour. Essentially, the debate is about the ideological self-confidence of the West and therefore about what results from Angola. It has to be emphasised that this was foreign intervention on a large scale. It is not comparable with Vietnam, as has been suggested. In Angola there was no home-grown base from which Marxism would come comparable with the system in Vietnam. There was no flow of arms near at hand. There was not even a hard core band of sympathisers with a clear concept or anything more than a fuddled idea of what Marxism meant. It is fair to say that about the MPLA.
  In Vietnam it was fairly obvious early on that the collective will to resist was not there. On balance, the collective will was probably to accept. That was despite the massive injections of American arms. In Angola this was manifestly not the case. We can probably discount the FNLA, which was largely dominated by Zaire and which had a muddled political approach. UNITA was a different case. If anything, it was a Social Democratic base. What we have seen in Angola is not the triumph of an ideology—which we saw in Vietnam, like it or not—but the triumph of arms, and foreign arms at that.
  The hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) mentioned the lack of debate on this matter in Britain. Almost incredibly, we spent a long time in this House debating the 14 mercenaries. That was important and tragic, but there were thousands of people slain in Angola. There was enormous loss of life. There are a quarter of a million—perhaps more—refugees hungry, ill and homeless. We have not talked about them in the House, nor very much in the country at large. That is a matter for regret.
  Like the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling), I think that it is a matter of great surprise and regret

  249
  that the situation in Angola was not discussed in a major debate at the United Nations. One would have thought that that was something that our Government would have been anxious to initiate. One welcomes the European initiative published today—decided, presumably, yesterday—but again one must ask why it is so late. Why was there not a concerted attempt a considerable time ago to influence events in Angola? After all, the situation did not arise suddenly, but there was no real attempt to do much about it.
  I am reluctant on ideological grounds to agree with the right hon. Member for Pavilion, but I agree with his conclusion that one of the saddest aspects of this whole business is that, in African eyes, the Western world, which includes Europe, has been completely trounced—out-manoeuvred psychologically and in every other way. The feeling must be, inevitably, "How can we rely upon the West in future?"
  Mr. Ennals: For the sake of the record it should be said that Britain energetically sought to get a common position among the EEC countries many weeks ago, in advance of the OAU meeting which dealt with Angola. Unfortunately, not through any lack of effort by us, there was no agreement to a common statement. We cannot force a common statement, but this was not through any lack of effort by my right hon. Friend.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Then what is the good of being in the EEC?
  Mr. Johnston: I am glad to hear that the Government were anxious to achieve such an agreement earlier, but the EEC was unable to reach such an agreement at a time when it might have been effective. I am not saying that it would have been effective, but it might have been. That is something to regret and to look back on, wondering whether we can do something about it next time, for there is a danger of a next time.
  Mr. David Crouch: Following the Minister's intervention, does not the hon. Gentleman think that the real moment of warning which could be given by Europe would come not from the EEC in Luxembourg or from the Council of Ministers, but much better
  250
  and with more authority from NATO? NATO should begin now to extend its frontiers, to remember the South Atlantic and the Indian Ocean.
  Mr. Johnston: That opens up a wide area of debate which time does not permit me to follow. The point has no doubt been taken on board.
  In the immediate future in Angola, the most dangerous feature will probably be the involvement of Cubans, not directly in fighting with any of the countries on the border, but in infiltration. After all, in most African States—this is certainly true of Zaire, Rhodesia and Zambia—power has a much smaller base than in Western European countries. So the processes of influence and of what we call subversion—non-democratic attempts to change the power structure—are in many ways easier.
  I would not say that Zaire was a model of democracy, but its position is vulnerable. If one is talking in terms of helping Zaire, one must talk in terms of aid. This whole argument overlaps into a consideration of how the richer West can help the under-developed countries of Africa. Only if there is some social and economic development will political disaffection be less likely. That is understandable and acceptable.
  The point about the price of copper, which the right hon. Member for Pavilion made, is relevant. We could do a great deal for Zambia by agreeing a minimum price. Of course, at the root of everything, we could do a great deal for Zambia by helping to achieve a Rhodesian settlement.
  I am not altogether sure that it was a good thing to send Lord Greenhill to Rhodesia. In the present situation, one thing that we must not do as a country is give the black African countries any idea that we will side with the white minority administrations. There is little doubt—this is usually the way in most political matters—that the threat of being attacked or infiltrated, of having to contain an external military threat which they know cannot in the long term be held back, will make the Rhodesians come to their senses. This is the situation in which it is now possible to be hard for a longer time, so that Rhodesia reaches the stage of accepting direct rule because it is the only way out

  251
  which may offer a peaceful rather than a bloody solution. The latter we want to avoid at all costs.
  As a Liberal, I think that there must be some way for the West in between the American approach, which, with all due respect to Dr. Kissinger, has tended to inform American activities for some years—that one contains every conceivable Communist menace behind a wall of steel—and the other equally dangerous possibility that there is a negative will to do nothing. In the end we must evolve a strategy which does not rule out force ultimately—one can never absolutely do that—but which measures up to Soviet psychology in Africa, which so far has been successful.
  The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet asked why there was a large Soviet navy. That is a fair question. The only reason that the Soviet Union can have embarked on this course is in the long term the disruption of Western trade. Already, speeches have been made about the danger of our supplies of raw materials. So détente and defence are not only about arms but about the success of our political objectives and about our ability to project democracy as a good way of life.
  6.28 p.m.
  Mr. Peter Blaker: I wish later to make a suggestion about how the West can counter Soviet and Cuban aggression in Angola or elsewhere, but first I want to dispose of a number of fallacies which still seem to be current and are relevant to my proposal. The first is that standing up to the Russians raises tension in Europe. Time does not allow me to explain what happened 20 years ago when we brought the Germans into NATO, a matter of which I had personal experience at the time, but it is a good case history. The Russians threatened all sorts of reprisals against the West, certainly including the raising of tension, if we did so, but we went ahead and, after a few months, the Russians accepted the situation and our relations were better than before. So standing up to the Russians may help to reduce tension.
  The second fallacy is that detente means a change in Rusisa's long-term
  252
  aims. It means nothing of the kind. It is a tactical move, intended by the Russians to be the continuation of the cold war by other means. It is intended to be the opium of the West, to lull the West into a state of mind in which we are more ready to supply the Soviet Union with the goods, technology, grain and finance that it so badly needs.
  The Soviet Union is basically a very inefficient economy and it has succeeded to the extent it has in most fields because the West has been prepared to supply it with the things I have just described; and the West is going on doing so. Just a year ago the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister went to Moscow. When he came back he proudly proclaimed to the House that he had negotiated hard with the Soviet Union and had persuaded the Russians to accept a credit of £950 million at favourable rates of interest. He said it was agreed that this line of credit should be used to help build up industries in the Soviet Union which the Russians badly needed—chemical, oil, ferrous and non-ferrous metals and other industries. These industries are of cardinal importance in strengthening Russia, enabling Russia to move its resources into the production of arms, in enabling Russia to be strong enough to engage in military adventure overseas. So what the Prime Minister arranged in Moscow a year ago was one of the biggest aid programmes to any country overseas on which Britain is currently embarked.
  Another fact we have to recognise is that aid of this kind to the Russians gives the impression, contrary to what I have just said, that the Russian economy is an efficient economy. This admiration for what is believed to be an efficient economic system plays a big part in encouraging revolutionary movements in Spain, Latin America, or even in the minds of students in Manchester.
  It is perfectly clear that détente has not brought any change of attitude about the long-term objectives in the Soviet Union We have had, both at the time of Helsinki and ever since, a stream of statements from authoritative Soviet spokesmen, including Mr. Brezhnev himself, which make it perfectly clear that it is still the objective of the Soviet Union to overthrow our way of life by any means which are necessary, legal or illegal, if possible without war, but if necessary with war.

  253
  I find it quite extraordinary, that, just as in the 1930s we failed to read what Hitler said in "Mein Kampf", we fail now to pay attention to what is being said every week in the Soviet Union about the intentions of the Soviet leadership. We pay very little attention to what has been said by Dr. Sakharov, the Nobel Peace Prize winner, who is still in the Soviet Union but still very bravely writing the truth. This is what he said in his last book:
  "It is the failure to understand the potential dangers of Soviet totalitarianism that explains the amazing miscalculations and defeats of Western foreign policy, which without a struggle is yielding one concession after another to its partner in détente."
  The third fallacy is that trade with the Rusians will soften the Soviet régime and increase understanding. We have only to ask ourselves what would happen if another Dubcek were to reappear in Czechoslovakia. What would be the Russian reaction? Certainly, the Russians would repeat exactly what they did in 1968. So that proposition, too, is fallacious. We have been trading with the Soviet Union for some time and certainly Mr. Plyusch, the mathematician recently released from the Soviet Union after undergoing several years of agonising torture in an insane asylum, would not feel that the Soviet régime internally has been softened in any way by the fact that we have been trading with the Soviet Union.
  The fourth fallacy is that we can stop Russian imperialism without sacrifice on our part. If we are determined to stop the spread of Soviet power and Cuban power, we must be prepared, if necessary, to accept that we have at times to tighten our belts.
  The proposal I want to make is that we should treat foreign trade policy as part of our foreign political and strategic policy. We have talked about various things that can be done in Southern Africa to dea with problems there. I want to talk about levers we can use directly between ourselves and the Soviet Union outside Southern Africa. First, I hope that we will get an answer from the Minister of State to the question why we have not raised this matter at the United Nations.
  254
  But on the economic side I want to draw his attention to the point that COMECON, the Eastern bloc economic organisation, has recently made an approach to the European Community seeking a comprehensive trade agreement, an arrangement by which it hopes to get more grain, more technology and more finance, in addition to what it has already been getting, so that it can do more in the field of arms, and can be stronger to embark on further adventures abroad if it wishes.
  I suggest that the European Community should now start to consider what its reaction should be to this approach and whether it does not offer us the opportunity of asking the Soviet Union for concessions in the political and strategic field in return for all that she wants from us in the field of finance and trade. Having ourselves cleared our own minds in the Community, we should then consult our American and other allies.
  The hon. Member for Inverness (Mr. Johnston) rightly said that the danger to the West at the moment is a failure of will. The weakness of the West is the greatest danger to peace and the worst thing about the West at the moment is that it has not the will to act in almost any field.
  This results from the American reverse in Vietnam, which has made the Americans reluctant to embark on any military activity in Asia or Africa. I hope that that is a temporary situation, but, that being so, we have to consider other methods, including economic methods. I cannot believe that North America and Western Europe, with a total population of 500 million or thereabouts, double the population of the Soviet Union, and with a standard of living five times that of the Soviet Union, are prepared to allow the Russians to dictate the shape of our world and for us to allow them a free run in Asia and Africa.
  What is required is a mobilising of the will. The condition of the United States being what it is, it is up to Western Europe to take the lead. In view of our knowledge of Africa and our own diplomatic experience, Britain is best placed to do that. We simply cannot allow the West to remain asleep.
  6.9 p.m.
  Mr. John Mendelson: Having listened to the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) I wish to follow the points that he has raised in the debate and will not follow what I believe to be the bad practice of opening one's speech with an apology for not following the previous speaker. The more one listens to the hon. Gentleman the more glad one is that he no longer plays an active part in shaping our diplomacy at the Foreign Office. He is far less dangerous as one of 635 than as one of a handful at the Foreign Office making our foreign policy. It is far safer to have him here among the 635 of us, where he is probably more open to public criticism and less influential.
  In the speech he has contributed to this debate the hon. Gentleman avoided by design—for he could have spoken on it, since he knows as much about it at least as the rest of us—the situation in Southern and Central Africa. He entirely concentrated on the Soviet Union, and his speech sounded to me very much like a replay of a leading article in the Morning Post at a time when that newspaper was still making Conservative opinion in the United Kingdom. He does not really believe that any Government could act on his advice, and he would not seriously pretend that the right hon. Member for Sidcup (Mr. Heath), when he was Prime Minister, ever had a foreign policy that could be represented as having been influenced by hat the hon. Member for Blackpool, South has just contributed to today's debate.
  I do not believe that we should spend any more time on that advice. It is much more important to spend the few minutes at the disposal of each Member on the more concrete proposals made by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery). The right hon. Gentleman always has the great advantage of carrying on in the old tradition of what used to be called, when I left school and started at college, foreign policy experts. He produces a number of brutal statements which, no matter what other people may think about them, he regards as a guide to action. He does not mind if other people regard them as extremely dangerous as long as he can provoke thought around them, and he does not mind connecting them
  256
  with his own interests and with the interests of those whom he represents.
  I say that deliberately because the right hon. Gentleman need not have made his passing reference to any interests that he might have in South Africa. I am sure that he would never be influenced by any interests that he might have through a connection with a particular company, and I shall not treat the policies which he proposed as having any connection with any such personal interests. I regard them as his views on the general tendency of foreign policies as he has learned them in recent years.
  However, the picture which the right hon. Gentleman painted is very dangerous. If it were true, and if it were the only choice left to a Government of the United Kingdom in the latter part of the twentieth century, given that Britain is not any more the decisive military Power in the world which she once was, it would be very dangerous for our people, and it would not allow our Government to play any important part at all. In any event, I believe that picture to be faulty in several respects. It is faulty, above all, in completely underestimating the part played by principles of equality, principles of colour and principles of human rights in Africa as everywhere else today.
  The right hon. Gentleman said to one of my hon. Friends, I thought a little unkindly, that he did not know the area very well, but the right hon. Gentleman must know that anyone who knows the area which he has been discussing will never leave out of a general description of the situation there the profound importance which people in all these countries attach to human equality. I cannot understand how the right hon. Gentleman can talk, as he did today, for some time and interestingly, about these matters without at least putting in a couple of paragraphs about the profound liability that Europeans carry in Southern and Central Africa, burdened as they are by the blindness of the rulers of Southern Africa, in the Republic, and in Rhodesia, in not seeing this and not having taken action on their own initiative in time.
  On one occasion in Johannesburg and on another occasion in Pretoria, I remember talking to people who are active in industry out there, all of them

  257
  South Africans, very loyal to their State, not people who share my philosophy of life and far closer to the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion in their basic outlook on life. They said to me "You will see as the years go by that we shall change because, if nothing else will make us change, with the necessity to live here surrounded by a sea of black and coloured people, in order to survive we shall have to change." The years have passed, and they have not changed. Life today in the Republic is still a life of slavery for people who are not white. A woman working as a cook in the household of the British Ambassador in Pretoria, during that period of the year when he resides in Pretoria, finds that her lawfully wedded husband, a member of the same Church, has to live 12 miles outside because he cannot live and sleep with her under the same roof.
  The changes have not occurred; and this is a situation which has produced the feeling that anyone who comes to intervene is better than what they have——
  Mr. Ian Lloyd Mr. Ian Lloyd (Havant and Waterloo) rose——
  Mr. Mendelson: No. I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I have little time at my disposal. In any event, if the hon. Gentleman thinks that what I have said is important enough to take me to task about it, I think that it is better that he should make his own speech.
  That is the first factor in the situation, and the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion must know that it circumscribes within limits the action of any European, and therefore of any British, Government.
  The second major factor is that the Soviet Government, who, in my estimation, were the leadership of a revolutionary movement between about 1904 and 1924, since the death of Lenin have had very little to do with a revolutionary movement. Under those conditions, therefore, it is not necessary for them to prove their credentials in those parts of the world. They stand for equality as between different colours, and that is enough for most people out there.
  At half-past six this morning I was listening to a report on the World Service of the BBC by a correspondent in South
  258
  Africa describing the reaction of black people to the news from Angola. This objective observer described how in the segregated bars, clubs and all the other modest institutions which black people are allowed to attend, the news of the successes of the MPLA against the side where South African troops were involved was cheered and regarded as right and to be welcomed.
  Mr. Amery: As the hon. Gentleman has taken me to task, perhaps it is appropriate that I should intervene. Surely he will recognise that the conflict in Angola was between three African forces, all equally African, and that the people who appear for the time being to have come out on top have done so only because of the enormous intervention of Cuban troops and Russian advisers and material. If there had been a similar intervention from South Africa or Europe on that scale, would the hon. Gentleman really be saying that these were Africans speaking with the voice of Africa?
  Mr. Mendelson: That is precisely the point I am making. Because South African regular troops—so-called volunteers—intervened on the side which the right hon. Gentleman wishes us to support the cause was lost before it started. The Soviet Union does not have to prove her credentials when she is intervening in an atmosphere where all one has to believe in is equality between black and white to be acceptable. The right hon. Gentleman knows that to be true. We have to free ourselves from this burden. We have to accept the consequences of our own philosophy, be it rational or religious, because it might also coincide with those principles and be at least as profound as any which a Russian political leader could proclaim. There is nothing to be proud of in that respect. We do not act upon those principles in areas where colour is such an important question. That is the real weakness with which we have burdened ourselves, and it is the second decisive factor in the debate.
  What are the British Government to do in such a situation? Various questions have been asked, such as "Why did not you raise it in the Security Council? Why did not you create majorities here, there and everywhere?" It is a pity that the right hon. Gentleman did not, on an earlier occasion ask Winston Churchill

  259
  about the possibilities of the Security Council, because Churchill knew that the Security Council was capable of action only when there was unanimity among the major Powers. Otherwise, the organisation would be broken. It is no good the Government's moving various resolutions. One can ask questions of my right hon. Friend and, as a good parliamentarian, he will reply to them. But we can discuss the matter without ministerial replies, before the answer is given. What could one do in a situation in which people knew that regular South African forces had intervened?
  Of course the Cuban explanations are spurious, because the Cubans have more to do at home; they have many things to do for their own economy. But the fundamental appeal in a country like Cuba, where only 30 per cent. of the population is white and the remaining 70 per cent. is of every other colour, from light brown to the darkest black, is profound and genuine. Unless we understand that we do not understand the first thing about Cuban intervention.
  These are the real difficulties which face any British or American Government. The attitude of the American Government is not explained only by the rebound from Vietnam. The right hon. Gentleman is wrong to say there has been such a success for the Soviet Union because of American withdrawal from Vietnam. He is wrong to say that it helped us for so many years to have 550,000 American troops bound up in Vietnam. It was a nonsense throughout. It has done harm to American prestige and to their international position. It would have been better if that involvement had never been undertaken.
  The attitude which the Government are adopting in the present situation is much more reasonable. They are not relinquishing their responsibility despite all the wrong-headedness of the Smith regime. I am prepared to defend the Government for not relinquishing their responsibility in Rhodesia in co-operation with the other countries in that part of the world. The British attitude can never be that, because a regime has behaved wrongly, they are not interested in its people's lives. That is one matter on which the House and the country can
  260
  and will unite, but not by giving Mr. Smith a mandate to enlist British troops in the future on the side of his racialist policies. It must be made clear that the continuation of racialism by Mr. Smith means that no British troops will ever enter the lists on his side.
  If there should be a possibility of other people taking over in Rhodesia—and many people there disagree with Mr. Smith—then, of course, a new policy which would lead to a majority Government would deserve support. It would deserve a response from the people, the Government and institutions of this country, for the personal safety and well-being of individuals in Rhodesia. That is what I understand to be the Government's policy. I think that it is civilised and sensible. It does not arouse any suspicions in my mind. I say that particularly to some of my hon. Friends who may not have come to the same conclusion as I.
  I believe that since the Helsinki Conference some things have happened that should not disappoint us. More importance has been attached to the results of that conference in some of the smaller countries in the Soviet bloc than in the Soviet Union itself. East Germany seems to be the most Stalinist régime in that bloc, and seems particularly eager to repeat everything which the Soviet Union does. That does not go for Poland or Hungary. I am convinced that it was sound for the Government to conclude the agreement, with all the limitations, even if only to open some additional possibilities for smaller countries in the Soviet bloc. We are dealing with long-term developments. Anyone who knows the long-term intentions of British foreign policy will agree that it is worth while not to ignore the interests of each individual State in the Soviet bloc, just as the Soviet Union always wants to regard them all as belonging more or less to one political entity.
  I find the attitude of the Italian and French Communist Parties encouraging. For the first time for many years the Soviet Communist Party is holding a conference which is not being attended by the General Secretary of the French Communist Party. Although the Italian Communist Party has more members, it is generally agreed that the French Communist Party is more important, by far

  261
  the most important Communict Party outside the Soviet Union, with a reasonable opportunity of taking part in a French Government in the foreseeable future. It is not for me to open the hearts of political leaders or to investigate whether their words are sincere expressions of their beliefs. Therefore, I am not concerned whether M. Marchais, the Secretary General of the French Communist Party, meant every word he said the other day, but he has engaged in severe public criticism of the inhuman conditions in which so many members of the opposition are held in the Soviet Union.
  It is essential that Britain, where parliamentary democracy, human rights and equality between races are taken seriously, should always be on the right side in these matters. That will help us safeguard the rights of individuals in Rhodesia and see that there is no permament influence there to make it no more than an appendage of the Soviet Union, which has no right to claim to be a world leader in civil rights. That is a much safer way, and I hope the Government will follow it. It is certainly a much better way than that suggested by some members of the Opposition.
  7.1 p.m.
  Mr. Churchill: The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), will not be surprised if I do not follow him in the excuse he seems to make for Cuban intervention in Angola.
  There is general agreement in the House about the present situation in East-West relations. I largely agree with the Minister of State that we should all like a genuine development of cordial relations between Britain and the Soviet Union, a genuine relaxation of tension and, as an ultimate goal, general disarmament. However, I fear that we are a long way from all those objectives.
  There is also a general recognition that the alternative to co-existence is co-extinction and it is in this context that most hon. Members have approached the debate. No one can doubt the desire of all the peoples and Governments of the Western democracies for a genuine détente. This has been proved by our actions, not just at Helsinki, but over many years.
  During the period we have been discussing the process of so-called détente
  262
  with the Soviet Union, it is significant that the British Government have twice unilaterally cut defence expenditure and are now talking of a third cut in the next few weeks. Over the last three years, the United States has demobilised 261,000 men from its armed forces, but what has been the response of the Soviet Union? Its contribution to this process of détente—and if it is not a two-way street, it is no détente—has been to increase its armed forces by 200,000.
  That is the sad reality. The figures are available in the Library in the excellent publication of the Institute of Strategic Studies. We have lowered our guard, the United States has decreased its manpower, but the Soviet Union has increased its manpower by 200,000. That is not my understanding of detente. At the same time, Russia has been going all out to create the greatest war machine this globe has ever seen.
  Western democracy is being challenged by the Soviet Union. The Minister of State emphasised what he felt were two key points of détente: first, it must provide for nations to live within a stable international order; secondly, it must be based on a situation in which the military strengths of East and West are roughly equal. I wholeheartedly agree on both counts, but I do not share his rather sanguine view of how far the Soviet Union's performance matches up to these yardsticks. All the evidence I can see points to a country which is embarking on expansionism and militarism.
  The positive results of détente so far, to which the Minister of State referred, left me and some of my hon. Friends rather cold. The Minister referred to the notification by the Soviets of military manoeuvres, but one of my hon. Friends intervened to point out that only one such notification has so far been given by the Soviet Union. This is scarcely a huge breakthrough, particularly as the Minister also made clear that the West has means of checking whether such large-scale manœuvres are taking place anyway.
  Play was also made of the fact that multiple-entry visas have been arranged for foreign journalists in the Soviet Union and that 40 copies of the Financial Times were to be allowed to enter the Soviet Union each day. What kind of sick charade is détente if this is its sum total?

  263
  The Soviet system is the most repressive in the world. There is a large-scale, inhuman crushing of the human rights of its citizens and many other aspects about which Sakharov and Solzhenitsyn have spoken with such great courage. I declare an interest as a journalist, but I do not give a fig for multiple-entry visas. They are irrelevant, and no one in Fleet Street would disagree.
  There is no ideological truce. Mr. Brezhnev said this at Helsinki, has reiterated since then and repeated it again today at the opening of the 25th Congress of the Communist Party. There is no evidence of any abatement by the Soviet Union in its building of the greatest war machine ever seen. Its armed forces are thousands of times more powerful than those at the disposal of Hitler and Nazi Germany in the late 1930s.
  Russia is embarked on an expansionist course. It attempted to subvert our NATO ally, Portugal, but, fortunately, the Portuguese people have so far been able to safeguard themselves against falling into the Soviet orbit. The Russians' mistake was that, although they could not rely on Soviet tanks, as they had in the invasion of their immediate satellite neighbours of Hungary and Czechoslovakia, they thought they could rely on the tanks of the Portuguese army. Fortunately for democracy in Western Europe and in Portugal, their hopes have been in vain.
  Now the Soviet Union is attempting to take control of affairs in Angola and Central and Southern Africa. For many months this enterprise has been formulated, planned and mounted. It is well known that one cannot transport 15,000 men, complete with heavy armour and jet aircraft, from one continent to another within a period of less than several months. One can only assume that the Prime Minister and Her Majesty's Government through the intelligence services have known for many months what was happening. If they did not, one must ask why not. I am inclined to think that they must have known.
  Whether or not they knew, why has the matter not been raised before now at the United Nations? Why has no measure been taken by the British Government or collectively by the NATO countries? What has happened to the
  264
  usually so loquacious British representative at the United Nations, Mr. Ivor Richard, who is always so courageous when it comes to sniggering at his colleagues who seek to represent and defend the interests of the Western world? He seems to have lost his tongue, or perhaps he has been gagged.
  Mr. Ennals: The hon. Gentleman is making a disgraceful attack on Ivor Richard. Over the months and years since he became our permament representative at the United Nations, he has spoken out in condemning the actions in Angola. He did so in a debate in the United Nations. If the hon. Gentleman were to ask Ivor Richard's Soviet opposite number in the Security Council whether Ivor Richard is meek or acquiescent or refuses to speak up on behalf on Britain's interests, he would get a very clear reply. He cannot himself reply in the Chamber, so I am replying on his behalf.
  Mr. Churchill: I am grateful to the Minister for his intervention, but he failed to say why Britain's representative has not raised, or has not been allowed to raise, this matter in the Security Council, because this is one of the most important departures in international relations in recent years.
  The Minister said that Britain had been canvassing opinion among the Nine to try to get a common policy. Even though Britain is a member of the EEC—I, along with him and many others, campaigned for entry—it is still an independent country. We can still raise matters at the United Nations and in the Security Council if we feel that they are of sufficient gravity.
  In recent weeks in Southern Africa there has been a grave new departure in international relations. A large-scale army has been acting in a mercenary capacity on behalf of a super-Power That army, with all its equipment, has been transported from one continent to another, not at the request or invitation of any lawfully constituted or recognised government.
  Mr. Russell Kerr: Oh.
  Mr. Churchill: As the hon. Member for Feltham and Heston (Mr. Kerr) knows, the MPLA was not recognised. It was not a lawfully constituted Government.

  265
  This is a new and grave departure in international relations on a par with Soviet interventionism in Hungary and Czechoslovakia.
  What has been Her Majesty's Government's reaction? It is not strictly true to say that the British Government have not reacted at all. Indeed they have. The Prime Minister treated the House to a lecture, lasting almost half an hour, on mercenary involvement. Naturally, he made minimal reference to or stricture of the 15,000 Cubans acting in a mercenary capacity on behalf of the Soviet Union. He devoted most of his remarks to censuring the few dozen British mercenaries who had gone to fight on the side of Western interests.
  In terms of positive action, the Foreign Secretary is retrospectively seeking to take away the passports of those returning mercenaries as they come back through London. These men no doubt have little intention of returning to Angola, and it is an outrage that the Government and the Foreign Secretary should seek to cover up their total lack of response to the major question—namely, the Soviet-Cuban intervention—by seeking to show that they are taking positive action by confiscating a dozen or so passports from a handful of mercenaries.
  Many people are finding the parallel with the 1930s increasingly disquieting. The purpose of the United Nations when it was established at the end of the last war was not to engage in the liberation movements of Southern Africa, the Soviet Union, or of countries where democracy does not exist. Its purpose above all else was to ensure that collective security would be effective in preventing another world war. Today we are descending a steep and dangerous path, as in the case of Fascist Italy, which first embarked on its marauding in Africa with the invasion of Ethiopia. Then at least the League of Nations had the courage and honour to condemn Mussolini's intervention by 36 to 1, even though it was incapable of taking effective action. We have not even sought to raise the matter at the Security Council in the United Nations.
  The Soviet Union is not only threatening Angola and the independent African countries. It is, above all, challenging the whole of the Western world. There has been no unified response from the
  266
  West to that challenge. It would be to credit the men in the Kremlin with great forbearance if we thought that they would not seek to reinforce the success they have had. They see the West disunited, in disarray, and they must be tempted to manoeuvre our countries into a "Heads I win, tails you lose" posture, where either there is no response from the West or, if there is a response, it is based on aligning ourselves solely with the minority régimes of Southern Africa.
  Our response to Soviet expansionism should not be on a racial basis, but we have many important allies in such a cause in Zaire, Zambia, Rhodesia and South Africa, and about half the countries in the Organisation of African Unity are deeply concerned about Soviet interventionism within African countries. I follow my right lion. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) in saying that we must strongly support the independent Governments of Zambia and Zaire. Dr. Kaunda has taken a courageous stand, and many of us feel that he has been badly let down by the United States and the Western world. Three or four weeks ago he warned the other independent African nations that the tiger and her cubs were on the rampage in Africa. Though it may be realistic, that is tough talk for a leader of a relatively small and militarily powerless country. We must ensure that the threat is not allowed to extend to those countries.
  Secondly, we must stop treating Rhodesia and South Africa as pariahs. If the nations of Africa north of the Zambesi are able to conduct a dialogue with Pretoria and Salisbury, who are we to be more royal than the kings? I believe that we must freely supply arms to all the countries of Central and Southern Africa that are willing to join with us in resisting Soviet expansionism there. In order that the Soviet Union is not able to dominate the area strategically and tactically, it is of the first importance that NATO should seek to concentrate a major naval task force in the Southern Atlantic.
  However, most important of all—I believe that this is the true rôle for Britain—it is our task to seek to mobilise Western Europe, and in turn the United States, to live up to our own responsibilities and to represent our own true

  267
  interests by talking in very uncompromising and stern terms to our friends in the Soviet Union. They must be made to realise that we cannot accept a détente that is only one way.
  In the last resort we must be willing not only to use grain, capital and technology as weapons for curbing Soviet militarism and interventionism, but to re-arm on a substantial scale if these peaceful measures fail to prevent the Soviet Union from continuing on the dangerous course on which it is presently embarked and which poses the greatest threat to the peace of the whole world that we have ever seen.
  I speak as a member of a generation which, of all generations this century, has been uniquely privileged to live in times of peace. I fear that we shall not live in peace for much longer unless there is the resolve and the will on the part of all the Western nations to stand together and resist the clear Soviet challenge.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): At the rate we are progressing three hon. Members can take part in the debate in one hour. The debate is due to finish by 11 o'clock. Therefore, I wish to reinforce Mr. Speaker's appeal for brevity. I know that in Moscow Mr. Brezhnev has just made a speech which lasted for five hours. I doubt whether we can emulate that performance here. Nevertheless, we can show a true spirit of detente towards one another by limiting the speeches to possibly five minutes instead of five hours.
  7.23 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: This is one occasion when I would not want to compete with Mr. Brezhnev in the length of my speech. I shall certainly take into account what you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, have said.
  To avoid any doubt, I point out that during the first week of February I was in Luanda attending a conference organised by the Afro-Asian Peoples Solidarity Organisation. All my travel and incidental expenses were met by that organisation. In the same way as Opposition Members have declared their business interests, I am certain that the House will acquit me, or any views I may hold, from being in any way influenced by those sums of money.
  268
  I congratulate the Government on their decision to recognise the MPLA as the legitimate Government of Angola. I echo and appreciate the comments of my right hon. Friend the Minister of State, who said that the future of Africa, and our future in it, depended largely on which side we took up and how we approached the liberation movements. If only successive Governments in the past 10 to 15 years had adopted that attitude in connection with foreign policy in Southern Africa, today we should not be talking about Soviet threats or Cuban intervention.
  If we consider the period in which Angola has been an independent country, free of Portuguese colonialism, we discover that the myth-makers have been at work. I acknowledge and would not deny the importance of the Cuban presence in the civil war, and especially South African intervention with regular troops. Indeed, that importance is freely acknowledged in Angola. However, always to preface the MPLA by saying "Cuban led" or "Communist inspired or backed" is to denigrate the efforts of those people who fought for so many years to rid themselves of Portuguese colonialism.
  The wheel has now turned another two notches. The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) now describes Angola as a Soviet colony. I do not know upon what basis he can say that. There is absolutely no question of the Soviet Union having people in Angola controlling the way in which the country is run. However, Opposition Members operate on the basis that if one repeats lies or throws mud often enough, some will stick and people will begin to wonder about exactly what has been happening in Angola.
  Several right hon. and hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill), said that the Cuban presence in Angola had never been raised at the United Nations. When South Africa intervened with regular forces, I tabled an Early-Day Motion, which was signed by well over 100 Back Benchers, urging that the matter be raised in the United Nations. I do not know of any Opposition Members who signed that motion. They were all significantly quiet, except for one or two who tabled amendments to

  269
  include the word "not", or something similar.
  Of course, there has been a large Cuban presence in Angola. However, the figure quoted by the hon. Member for Stretford of 15,000 is wide of the mark. I suspect that the number is about 7,000 or 8,000. I do not deny that the number is significant. The trouble is that we try to pretend that somehow, by condemning the Cuban presence, the Russian advisers or the aid which has been given possibly from Czechoslovakia or Yugoslavia, we are defending freedom and democracy. A black African in South Africa, Namibia or Zimbabwe who is told that will ask how by talking of supplying arms and munitions to maintain an apartheid régime which denies human rights, dignities and democracy to black Africans, we can possibly by defending freedom and democracy.
  As my hon. Friend the member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) said, Russia does not have to make its case: we make a case for it. I do not see in any part of Southern Africa a puppet State of the Soviet Union, Cuba or the West. Far too often we see relations in Africa in terms of our cold war philosophy of East-West relations.
  It is significant that the greater part of this debate should be dominated by what is happening in South Africa in the cold war conflict. The South Africans made the biggest mistake of their lives when they sent their troops across the border. They are making an even bigger mistake if they think they can establish a cordon sanitaire 30 miles inside the Angolan border. If they pursue that course they will provoke the very reaction they hope to avoid. Jose Edward Santos, the Foreign Minister of the People's Republic of Angola, said that the Angolans had no intention of crossing the Angolan border south into Namibia. They will settle for not one inch less than they are entitled to under international law, but they have no intention of crossing the border. If Opposition Members and the South Africans think that if they provoke a conflict they will not provoke a spilling over, they are mistaken.
  I do not want to see any major conflict in South Africa. Indeed, we have
  270
  been arguing for about 20 years that we want a peaceful settlement to all of these problems. We wanted the Portuguese out of Africa peacefully. We wanted the people of Rhodesia, South-West Africa and South Africa to gain their independence and their democratic rights peacefully.
  But it has been demonstrated repeatedly that there is no possible way in which that freedom can be secured peacefully. The liberation movements in Angola, Mozambique and Guinea-Bissau sought our assistance, either materially or in preventing the Portuguese from using NATO weapons against them, and we said "No, we stand for freedom and democracy". We said that we would stand by our old Portuguese allies, even though Portugal was under Fascist dictatorship. Where else could they turn except to Eastern Europe for aid and assistance? We isolated them and now we condemn them for that isolation while attempting to isolate them even further.
  It is essential to appreciate the tremendous significance for Africa of the collapse of Portuguese colonialism. It has given the Africans a tremendous confidence boost. They believe that they can be masters of their own future, that they can get the Cubans to leave just as they asked them to come in, and that the Cubans will go when they are asked. We must give certain guarantees to Angola that we will never again allow any kind of South African intervention or invasion, because otherwise the Cubans will stay for much longer than necessary.
  There is a great deal of speculation in the Press about what might happen in Rhodesia. It is very difficult to forecast how events will move. I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Stretford praise President Kaunda over his speech about the tiger and its cubs in Africa. Perhaps the hon. Member can recall President Kaunda's speech about the future of Rhodesia. He said then that over the last 10 years Africans had learnt that no British Government would do anything positively to end the minority régime in Rhodesia and that the only course of action if there was no speedy settlement on the basis of majority rule was a guerrilla war, which would mean a bloodbath. Those are very serious words and an accurate forecast of what could happen.

  271
  We in Britain have always prided ourselves that our foreign policy has been based upon reasonably objective criteria. However, we failed to send troops into Rhodesia at the time of UDI and there is now the risk that we shall send them in to defend the illegal régime which has been rebelling against the Crown for a decade. If that happened it would show that our foreign policy had been a sham and that it had been based on racialism.
  The people of Angola are deeply concerned that their country should remain unaligned. They want aid and friendly relations with this country, but on the basis that there should be no strings attached. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said that it would be appropriate to make aid available to Angola only on the understanding that Cuban troops were removed, and he went on to condemn what he saw as Soviet intervention with strings attached. We should be long past this sort of double morality. We should be prepared to provide aid to Angola so that it can begin to solve some of the economic problems it faces, many of which have been created in the aftermath of the war. I accept that there are Marxists in the MPLA, but there are other members of the MPLA who are not Marxists. There are those who are willing to operate the country on a pragmatic basis in order to try to build up its economy. The ordinary African in Angola lives in a poverty-stricken state. There is no great wealth among the peasants in the rural areas which could lead them not to require great changes in the structure of their economy. Of course they want their economy restructured on a Socialist basis—and all good luck to them. It will be a Socialism which is geared to the spirit, the age and the country in which they live. I will not be imported from elsewhere.
  President Neto said in a speech when I was in Luanda that the Angolans loved freedom and democracy, of which they were robbed during the period of Portuguese colonialism. He said that if they blindly followed precepts from outside, neither freedom nor democracy would be possible for them. That is a statement by someone who recognises the position of his country. Angola accepted aid from Cuba and the Soviet Union because that aid was essential to prevent its being
  272
  overrun by the South Africans. If we have failed to understand the attitude of the South Africans—and this is the key to the whole of Southern Africa—we have learned nothing over the years.
  I believe that the Foreign Secretary should establish full diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of Angola as quickly as possible and open a mission there. I believe that we should urge the quick acceptance of Angola into the United Nations, and that we should begin discussions either bilaterally, or if it is more acceptable, multilateral^ about aid for Angola from the EEC. If we believe in what we say, the provision of civilian aid, of bulldozers and construction equipment, rather than of arms and ammunition, will determine the future of Southern Africa.
  I am tremendously heartened by what has happened in Southern Africa. Five years ago I would have condemned as irresponsible anyone who had predicted that the Portuguese would have been out of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau today. I would never have believed it possible then that five years would see the collapse not only of Portuguese colonialism but of Fascism in Portugal. That shows that times are moving fast. I have been pessimistic about what would happen in Rhodesia and South-West Africa, but time is on our side and we shall see, sooner than many of us think, the Rhodesians coming to full majority rule in Zimbabwe and the South-West Africans in Namibia.
  South Africa is a much more difficult problem and involves a much longer time scale. I cannot see any guerrilla movement in the foreseeable future being able to take on the sophisticated South African army with all its wealth of arms and ammunition. But if the future of South Africa is to be peaceful, in the long term the South African Government must change their tune very quickly, and in that respect at least I am pessimistic, because I do not see that happening.
  I hope that hon. Members therefore will begin to see Africa in African terms, not in terms of our antagonism towards the Soviet Union. I hope they will take into account the yearning by these peoples for the freedom which has been denied them for so long. If we could communicate with them on that basis, we could forget about East-West relations in that

  273
  context. The battle of ideology must go on and it must be one for freedom, democarcy and peaceful change. I hope that all hon. Members will unite in that purpose.
  7.39 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Sproat: You have asked for short speeches, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall therefore confine myself to advancing one simple and general proposition. It is that we in the United Kingdom should continue to support, and support aggressively, the spirit of detente enshrined at Helsinki. I say that, but detente is not, cannot be and must not be thought to be any substitute for defence. We should continue to support the spirit of Helsinki because the balance of advantage overall at Helsinki was to the West in each of the Baskets. I will not deal with each of the Baskets in detail.
  Basket I concerns military confidence building measures. There is no very great advantage there, but in so far as There is an advantage, it is that of "Gulliverisation", of tying down the more aggressive aims of the Soviet Union by a little bit here and a little bit there. The declarations of principle in Basket I do not count for a great deal, but in so far as they count for anything, they are to our advantage because at least they are declarations against which the Soviet Union can later be judged if it should violate those principles.
  I turn to the Basket II dealing with trade. I agree that it is not necessary to support what the Prime Minister did in Moscow last year and give enormous credits to the Soviet Union. But it must be to the benefit of the United Kingdom as a trading country to increase its ability to trade. In 1974–75 United Kingdom exports to the Soviet Union doubled. Again, that must be to our advantage.
  Basket III deals with the question of the freer flow of information and peoples. The Soviet Union has been grotesquely lax in fulfilling the Helsinki Agreement. However, we have nothing to fear. We do not care whether they print a million copies of Pravda every day of the week.
  Mr. Cormack: Some hon. Gentlemen believe it.
  Mr. Sproat: My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) should not distract me. I am making a serious point. If Pravda should be distributed in London, the Daily Telegraph should be distributed in Moscow. However, that is not the case. To say that 40 copies of the Financial Times are distributed in Moscow is a pathetic comparison. At least it is a standard against which we can criticise, and continue to criticise, the Soviet Union or any other Eastern European country if they do not fulfil the Agreement that they signed at Helsinki. It gives us a standard against which the Soviet Union can be judged in the open forum of world opinion.
  Basket IV deals with what we should do in the future. I shall refer to Belgrade 1977 shortly. By 1977 we should be able to parade before the world—certainly before the 36 signatories to the Helsinki Agreement—exactly where, when and how the Soviet Union violated that Agreement. The balance of the Helsinki Agreement is in favour of the West overall, and of the West in each individual Basket.
  In supporting the Agreement that we signed at Helsinki I am under no illusions whatever about the aims of the Soviet Union. Its aims did not change before and have not changed since the Helsinki Agreement. The Soviet Union wants to alter the balance of power in Europe in its favour. It wants to weaken and divide the West—NATO and the EEC. It wants to stabilise its Eastern European frontier, strengthen its hold over the nations of Eastern Europe and reduce the risks in Europe to itself because of the growing pressure on its Chinese border, its increasing technological and consumer failure and the increasing ethnic problems which it faces.
  I support the Helsinki Agreement not because it benefits the Soviet Union but because it gives us a lever with which to push forward those standards of democracy in which we believe. Some of my hon. Friends do not agree with me on this matter. They certainly recognise that deep concern about the growing military power of the Soviet Union is entirely justified. It would be justified at any time and it is particularly justified when we have just cut our defence, when we intend to cut it further and when the Americans have taken 250,000 men out

  275
  of their military reserves. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was entirely right to make this a plank in the platform that she puts before the country.
  There is, however, a danger of going overboard and confusing detente with appeasement and in attacking the whole spirit of Helsinki. It is more than right, it is vital, to ask Mr. Brezhnev, "How is the massive and continuing growth of the Soviet Navy compatible with the spirit of Helsinki, how is the massive Soviet supply of sophisticated weaponry to Angola compatible with the spirit of Helsinki; how is the trial, the persecution and the incarceration of individuals in the Soviet Union, who do no more than we are doing every day of the week, namely, speak our opinions, compatible with the spirit of Helsinki?" The Minister of State said robustly that it was not compatible with the spirit of Helsinki and that we should make quite clear to the Soviet Union what we think of these violations.
  However, it is wrong and confused to attack the concept of detente, because everyone should remember that it is that concept which gives us the standards against which to judge, condemn and, if necessary, penalise the Soviet Union. In other words, it is the concept of detente which gives us the standards with which to attack the Soviet Union for not fulfilling the Helsinki Agreement—but not to attack that Agreement itself.
  There is a big difference between appeasement, to which one or two of my hon. Friends referred, and detente. Appeasement is a one-sided and cowardly process whereby we give into the aggressive aims of a bully. We need a strong will and a strong defence to stand up against that, and we should do so. Detente is different. Detente means the even-handed reduction—and it must be even-handed—of the sources of friction and distrust between all signatories to the Helsinki Agreement and the increase of basic individual freedoms of opinion and action in countries where they do not exist.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West has just muttered that it is not even-handed. He is quite right. It is not even-handed at present. But that does not mean that we should not seek to make it even-handed.
  276
  We should seek to make the Helsinki Agreement a reality by making them even-handed. If the Soviet Union refuses to do that, we should penalise it. We should seriously consider using levers such as the grain, the capital and the technology it needs. We should threaten and, if necessary, withdraw these in order to make the Soviet Union conform to the Helsinki Agreement.
  The Government should not wait until Belgrade 1977 before parading before the Soviet Union all its violations of the Helsinki Agreement, because we all know what will happen. A few months before the Belgrade meeting the Soviet Union will release a few more thousand Jews or will allow 41 copies of the Financial Times to be distributed in Moscow and will say, "Look, we are keeping the Helsinki Agreement." We should not allow that to happen. We should parade before the Soviet Union now, as they happen, all its violations of the Helsinki Agreement.
  People must not regard the Helsinki Agreement as an agreement between the West and the Soviet Union. The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) made the point—and it was almost the only one that he made well—that we must think about a number of countries in Eastern Europe. If hon. Members read the Rumanian newspapers on what is happening in Angola, they would see that the criticism by the Rumanians of the Soviet action in Angola is quite as tough as ours. The reasons for that is simple. The Rumanians ask, "If the Soviet Union can do what it is doing in Angola many thousands of miles away, how much more likely is it that it will do it in Rumania if President Ceausescu should ever fall from power." The same applies to Yugoslavia. How much more likely is it that the Soviet Union will do the same in Yugoslavia when President Tito eventually dies? Therefore, we should think not simply in terms of the Soviet Union and Helsinki but in terms of the other countries in Eastern Europe.
  In my visits to countries such as Hungary, Poland and Czechoslovakia I have found that the ordinary man in the street, when one is lucky enough to meet him—which is not often—will say "Do you really think that Helsinki will give us the chance to expand towards a freedom that we do not know?"

  277
  I therefore conclude on this point: the answer to the aggressive Soviet aims is not disarmament, as some Labour Members would have it, but nor is it denigration of Helsinki. I suggest to the House that the answer is to carry a big stick, in fact, a very much bigger stick, and to keep talking and to pin down the Soviet Union on what it signed at Helsinki.
  7.51 p.m.
  Mr. James Lamond: It is always rather depressing to listen to speeches upon foreign affairs from Conservative Members, and it has been particularly depressing today. However, I exclude from that criticism the speech which we have just heard from the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), which was in parts a very good speech. He happens to be my Member of Parliament. He has not done quite sufficient this evening to ensure that he gets my vote at the next General Election, but I should like to think that my influence in being here to lobby him more than most of his constituents is working. However, the hon. Gentleman's speech was a reasonable contribution to a constructive debate about foreign affairs and East-West relationships.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) expressed his surprise at the fact that this debate had been focused mainly on affairs in Southern Africa, in particular Angola. However, that is not surprising, because Conservative Members are smarting from a defeat of their idealogy there and they must find some reason for that defeat, and of course, they are very anxious to blame the Soviet Union for it. One or two of them have said that we must make sure that we back the right side, and made other comments of that kind.
  Unfortunately, one of the reasons why we have been so unsuccessful is the failure of the Tory Party to realise that it on a beating from the word "go". It is interesting that it was a Prime Minister from the Conservative Party who made the remark about the wind of change blowing in Africa. Many Conservative Members have still not recognised that fact and are prepared to take sides on the basis of black or white. When they are defeated, as they inevitably will be defeated, by the rising tide of the deter-
  278
  mination of country after country in Africa to have its freedom—it will come in Rhodesia and South Africa—they are always surprised to find themselves on the losing side.
  However, I want to turn from that subject, because I do not agree in any way with a great many of the views expressed by Conservative Members, to look at the subject on which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South has just focused our attention and which my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short) mentioned earlier—the Helsinki Agreement. Before my right hon. Friends the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary even set off for Helsinki, the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition had embarked on a most outrageous speech——
  Mr. Cormack: Rubbish.
  Mr. Lamond: —which was intended no doubt to undermine all the work that had gone on in the two years prior to the meeting in Helsinki, which had been in part initiated by leaders of her own party. She attempted at that time to sabotage it.
  Mr. Cormack: Rubbish.
  Mr. Lamond: It was suggested that all those who signed the Agreement in the Western world—including President Ford and the Prime Minister of Canada and all the Prime Ministers of the Western-European countries—had been completely fooled and taken in by some wonderful piece of jiggery-pokery by the Soviet Union and that only the Tory Party in Great Britain was able to see this great plot.
  Many of us returned from Helsinki hoping that the Agreement was opening a new era of East-West relations. I believe that it could have done so. It is unfortunate that it has been so attacked since the signing. We have seen the Leader of the Opposition attempting to confirm her own position as Leader of the Opposition by seizing on East-West
  Mr. Cormack: Oh, come on! relations and trying to get on to the old war-mongering scare again—
  Mr. Lamond: —aided and abetted by her right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who has been throwing as much petroleum on the

  279
  flames as he can and who uses every opportunity he has to attack the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries with the purpose of showing that the Tory Party has a policy of some kind on at least one subject.
  Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: I have listened to the hon. Gentleman with some interest. Does he not realise that the White Paper announcing the latest defence cuts verifies every word used by Conservative Members?
  Mr. Lamond: Of course not. I do not believe that it verifies anything that has been said from the Conservative Benches. I support a great deal of what was in the White Paper, although there are some features with which I disagree, and one is the smallness of the cuts in defence expenditure. I make no apologies for that. I hope that I am as patriotic as anyone else, but I do not want to see my country crippled for ever more under an appalling burden of arms expenditure when there is so much that requires to be done in the constituencies of Opposition Members, as we often hear from them in the House, and when there is a great deal that requires to be done in house building, hospital building and so on in my constituency and others. I would rather see the money spent on those things than on useless arms which, if they are ultimately to be used, will result in the annihilation of the human race.
  I believe that the Helsinki Agreement was the opportunity for us to take the initiative, but not the initiative outlined by the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South, who suggested that we should use it at every possible opportunity to attack the Soviet Union and that we should demonstrate to the Soviet Union that it was not complying with the Agreement signed in the Final Act in August last year. We must do that and draw to the attention of the Soviet Union its shortcomings. However, we must also examine our own attitudes towards the Helsinki Agreement and ask ourselves whether we are complying with it and acting in its spirit.
  That is what every country that has signed the Agreement—all 35—should be doing. Many of them are doing so, as the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South mentioned, including Poland, which has
  280
  liberalised its visa regulations beyond all recognition since the signing of the Agreement.
  That remark causes amusement to some Opposition Members, presumably because they thought that in the signing of the Helsinki Agreement all the differences between the two ideologies would disappear at a stroke. Opposition Members seem to believe that there is some magical stroke that can be made in politics to dissolve these differences, but everything has to have a beginning. Perhaps it is a small beginning, perhaps that mentioned today by the Minister of State. He spoke of some of the things that we have done and some of the things that the Soviet Union has done, particularly in the matter of observers and the communication of details of manoeuvres.
  Perhaps it was amazing that he mentioned that 40 copies of the Financial Times now go into the Soviet Union each day. We know that that is no great step forward, but if we wanted the Soviet Union to embrace our ideology, the Financial Times would not be the newspaper that I would send there in any quantity. Other newspapers more accurately reflect the ideas of the ordinary man in the street in Great Britain. The Financial Times does not reflect his views. I doubt whether 40 copies of the Financial Times are sold in my constituency.
  We must take some sort of initiative. There is no purpose in lecturing each other about the imperialist aims of the Soviet Union, although I must say that some Conservatives who have taken that line are well qualified to lecture about imperialism. Under the guidance of people from their class, this country was the greatest imperialist nation the world has ever seen. People in Africa, India and elsewhere listen with some suspicion to those in this Parliament who lecture other countries about their imperialist aims.
  I am happy that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs has the guidance of a foreign policy and not the guidance of some Conservative Members. My right hon. Friend will have my support as long as he continues to try to extend détente and takes a friendly initiative towards the Soviet Union and other countries in

  281
  Eastern Europe. It is only along that path that there lies the hope of civilisation.
  8.2 p.m.
  Mr. John Farr: I begin by declaring that I have interests in property in Rhodesia. I shall not take up in any detail the words of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond). I think that when the hon. Gentleman reads his speech tomorrow, he will regret having said much of it. I recall with nostalgia the days when his constituency was represented by Lord Hale.
  I am sorry that the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) has left the Chamber. He advised hon. Members not to interrupt him and made one or two downright statements which should not have been allowed to pass. For example, he suggested that the lot of the native African in South Africa was considerably worse than that of the average citizen in the Soviet Union. I did not interrupt him as he specifically asked that hon. Members should make their contributions by way of speeches, but if the hon. Gentleman has been to South Africa recently—no doubt he has been to Russia—he will have found that tens of thousands of Africans pour into South Africa without let or hindrance. Over half a million Africans have entered South Africa from outside countries. They have done so not because they are driven in by press gangs, but because they know they can obtain fair employment.
  Let people try to enter or leave the Soviet Union and see how they get on! See how the Jews get on who try to leave the Soviet Union. See how ordinary citizens of the Soviet Union who try to leave the country have penal prices put upon their passports, amounting to many thousands of pounds. Let us remember who built the wall in Berlin before we condemn out of hand the policy of South Africa towards its blacks. They are free to come and go, while the Soviet Union prevents its nationals from getting out and other people from getting in.
  I am sorry that the Government recognised the MPLA. Possibly it might have been the right thing to do, but it was a great pity that we did not have this debate before recognition was granted. It was improper of the Govern-
  282
  ment to give recognition to the MPLA when even now a third of Angola is not under its control. It would have done no harm—possibly it might have helped some hon. Members to decide what they wanted to say—to wait another three or four days and to hear the House express it opinion.
  I should like to know what recognition we have obtained from the régime in Angola of British and Commonwealth interests in Southern Africa. I do not expect that we have any form of recognition from the Angola régime of our rightful interests. However, it would do no harm for the Government to tell us what sort of assurances they have tried to get. Surely they tried for something. Surely they asked for certain forms of guarantee relating not only to the lives and properties of British citizens but, more important, to the integrity of Commonwealth countries such as Zambia, Malawi and Botswana. They should have made representations regarding the integrity of Zaire before full recognition was granted. The Government should explain why they were in such a hurry to recognise the MPLA and what safeguards they have tried to secure.
  I share the view that the Angolan situation should have been raised in the Security Council of the United Nations by Britain two or three weeks ago. No doubt our position would have been blurred by the intervention of South Africa. No doubt it would have been said that the South Africans were invading Angola in the same way as were the Cubans and Russians. The South Africans were invited into Angola by the FLNA as the Cubans and Russians were apparently invited in by the MPLA. We have lost an opportunity by not raising the matter in that forum. Even now it is not too late to urge all foreign troops and foreign interests to leave Angola at the earliest possible date. That could be done from the United Nations.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) was perhaps thinking aloud when he said that he wondered why the Russians had apparently spoiled the spirit of détente which was reached in Helsinki. My right hon. Friend wondered whether such action was prompted by the Russians severe economic difficulties. He wondered whether there were other reasons

  283
  that caused them to behave in what might be regarded as an improper manner.
  I shall put forward another reason. It is not generally recognised that Russia is in the midst of the serious problem of trying to feed itself and its satellite countries. The statistics show that over a number of years the harvest in Russia have failed dismally. In 1975 the Russians had a target of 216 million tons, but they harvested only 133 million tons, a shortfall of 83 million tons, or 38 per per cent.
  The failure in 1975 emerged at the end of a pattern of hesitant performances in Russian agriculture. It is likely to be followed by another failure in L976, thereby putting a tremendous strain on the Russian economy in having to import wheat from the West, or in curbing consumption of wheat, or by taking other steps. I believe that one reason for the Russians making such a bold ploy in sending Cubans to Angola lies in the fact that they wish to draw attention away from their own awful domestic economic situation.
  At the meeting of the Supreme Soviet today the lengthy speech of Mr. Brezhnev was largely confined to references to the Russian triumph in Angola. That again was aimed at taking the minds of the long-suffering citizens of the Soviet Union from their own predicament. While the pattern of economic and agricultural failure continues in the Soviet Union, I believe that we must be alert and on the lookout, for any further Russian moves. Mutual detente is necessary, but it must be accompanied by a mutual respect for the capability of both sides.
  8.12 p.m.
  Mr. John Lee: Towards the end of the Second World War a number of Conservative Members of Parliament in this House, accompanied I think by a member of the ILP, made themselves extremely unpopular by suggesting about the time of Yalta that there should be no military assistance to the Soviet Union. Their view was that the Russians and the Germans would fight it out among themselves and that each would become enfeebled to the point of collapse. That policy never prevailed.
  284
  It is interesting to visualise what would have happened to the world if that situation had come to pass. It illustrates the situation that may face us in Southern Africa if we are not careful and continue to get ourselves upstaged. There are two struggles that are taking place and they must be kept separate in our minds. We must be careful not to confuse the two.
  I share the concern expressed on both sides of the House about events in Angola. In view of the neglect of the West in the past to provide a proper lead, what has happened may in retrospect prove in some ways to have been inevitable. That does not mean that we should blind ourselves to some of the consequences that may follow if the Soviet Union's influence spreads elsewhere—and spread it will, if we allow ourselves to be manoeuvred into a situation of defending the Rhodesians. Looking back, one sees the utter folly, and indeed the cowardice, of the then Labour Government who failed to use force in 1965 to suppress UDI.
  Only twice in my life have I come near to resignation from the Labour Party. The first was in 1955 when the Parliamentary Labour Party, in its folly, elected Gaitskell rather than Bevan as its leader. That led to eight further years of Tory rule in Downing Street. Another occasion was in 1965, just before I was elected to this House for the first time, and when we indulged in the cowardice and folly of failing to deal with Ian Smith at that time. First, in that situation there would probably now be British troops in Rhodesia. Secondly, we would probably have a Government including Mr. Nkomo and Garfield Todd, which might have led to the first genuine, stable, multi-racial government in Southern Africa. Thirdly, it would have been a guarantee that the Russians, Cubans and other would not have been in a position to manoeuvre us to a situation of appearing to defend white supremacy in Southern Africa.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: The hon. Gentleman is saying that if intervention had taken place, Rhodesia would now be independent. In that case why is he implying that British troops would be there now?
  Mr. Lee: I am talking about independence in what in that event would now

  285
  have been a friendly country in the Commonwealth. Obviously there was a great deal of good will for the British among the Africans, and indeed there is good will today from Mr. Nkomo. It is not unreasonable to believe that the Rhodesians would have been prepared to give us bases there. But even if I am wrong, we should at least have had a régime there as friendly to this country as is Zambia, and probably more friendly to us. We could have called upon the assistance of President Kaunda, and certainly our task would have been easier than it now is.
  Now we have a situation where some African nationalists are disenchanted with this country. Indeed, Bishop Muzorewa said the other day that we should keep out of the affair and leave the Africans to settle the matter in their own way, more or less implying that it was no longer any of our business.
  I think that we have a duty to return to Rhodesia. I think that Lord Green-hill's task in Salisbury will not be that of gently chiding Ian Smith and of asking him for his repentance but of telling him to get out and to make way for an interim Government, comprised partly of Commonwealth officials and partly of African and European liberal politicians—again I have in mind Nkomo and Garfield Todd—to prepare a careful programme for the handing over to independence in two or three years' time. Those are the only circumstances in which we can work our passage home to Southern Africa.
  Everybody knows that if Ian Smith had had a black face there would have been military intervention in Rhodesia, just as there would have been military intervention in Guyana, Cyprus and many other places. But that does not apply to countries whose rulers are white Anglo-Saxon Protestants, We shall have a chance in the next few months, and we should take it. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will have the opportunity in the next few months to redeem the disgraceful situation that occurred in 1965.
  I do not propose to speak for very long, and I wish to deal with one matter that seems almost to have been missed from the debate. The hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), in an interesting and varied speech, referred to China. I have not been in the Chamber through-
  286
  out the debate, but my impression is that only passing reference has been made to the nation of China. In trying to redress the balance between East and West, rap port with the Chinese is probably the most important single policy that we can deploy. I say that in no spirit of admiration for the Chinese who, in many ways, have a Communism that is more austere than that in the Soviet Union, and certainly in many respects as intolerable. Our task is not made easier when at this time the Chinese are entertaining that arch crook, the arch Poulson of the Western world, Richard Nixon, presumably, for the purpose of finding out that where subversion cannot work, corruption can; and there is no better person than Mr. Richard Nixon to teach the Chinese corruption.
  It is out of no great sense of admiration for the Chinese that I raise this matter, but we must remember that China has the longest single land frontier in the world—an ill-defined frontier which has been the source of great tension between China and Russia. Therefore, it is important, in helping to redress the balance, to do as much as we can to reach an understanding with the Chinese. The situation at the time of the Vietnam war was different. We now have an altered set of circumstances. The Vietnam war has now passed and there is no other similar situation to that one. Therefore, it seems time to do something about the situation.
  Some of my hon. Friends are inclined totally to dismiss purely military matters, but I do not take that view. If we have one military contribution to make on the world stage, it is to present the Chinese with our entire nuclear stockpile, perhaps to deliver it free of charge, and to offer to set up missile bases in Sinkiang facing north-westwards. If it resulted in Russian divisions trundling back across to the other side of the world it would be well worth while. I can think of no better contribution that we could make.
  Our own contribution in this country can do very little. Indeed, one of the silly aspects of defence debates is that we have for so long gone on allowing our economy to be enfeebled by constant military expenditure that was beyond our capacity and of no real contribution to the West in any event.
  I am disappointed that the Defence White Paper has not gone a stage further,

  287
  though not because I do not believe there is any contribution we can make. I think we can, and I have given an indication of the kind of contribution we can make in bringing to an end our own pretence of being a nuclear Power, and at the same time, in doing so, making a contribution which could materially alter the balance of power in the world in our favour by taking advantage of the divisions between the Russians and the Chinese.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: If the hon. Gentleman thinks the British nuclear deterrent could help defend China against Russia, why does it not help to defend Britain against Russia?
  Mr. Lee: The answer is quite simple. There is a lot of China and it would take a great deal to blow it up. There is not much of us and it would not take long for this country to be demolished.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) has pointed out, if we became involved in a nuclear war we should be exterminated, as I am sure the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) would agree, if he thinks about it. I should have thought that has been as painfully obvious as anything for many years past. But it would take a very long time, comparatively speaking, for the Chinese or the Russians to be demolished in that same way. Sinkiang is one of the least populated parts of the world and would be the safest and most effective place in which to organise nuclear weapons.
  The situation is indeed sombre, and although some of my hon. Friends seem to be rather pleased at the way some things are going in Southern Africa, I should be more pleased if I felt that we were not going to end up with the worst of all worlds—failing to get the understanding and respect of the African nationalist movements, and at the same time landing ourselves on the losing side of the white supremacists.
  We have a very short time in which to avoid that situation, but I believe there is just time in which it can be done.
  8.23 p.m.
  Mr. Julian Critchley: My feelings at being called after listening to
  288
  four hours of debate are not uncommon. They are relief immediately pursued by anxiety—anxiety because almost every aspect of this very complicated subject has already been touched upon, to such a degree that I feel like Barbara Hutton's seventh husband: I know what is required of me, but find it rather difficult to make it interesting. That may be a bad joke, but it is one joke at least in the debate.
  When I first came to this place, years ago, an elderly and undistinguished Conservative Member came up to me and said "If you are a gentleman, you will take an interest in agriculture and foreign affairs". He never spoke to me after that. I think he confused me with the then hon. Member for Nottingham, West. I have never spoken in an agricultural debate, but have on occasion spoken in foreign affairs debates, which makes me half a gentleman at least.
  I should like to make one point in response to the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Handsworth (Mr. Lee), who ranged over a very wide field, including the independent British deterrent. The real justification for a British nuclear capacity is that it prevents the first use of Soviet nuclear weapons against this country. That is its real justication; it prevents us from being the victim of nuclear attack.
  I want to discuss Soviet motives in relation to Angola and to ask some questions, if not to provide any answers. I believe that the USSR is behaving like a super-Power. A super-Power is a Power with the capacity to intervene in a military sense anywhere in the globe. We might well be shocked by the simple fact that the Soviet Union is behaving like a super-Power, but surely we should not be surprised, because nation States behave like nation States and super-Powers behave like super-Powers.
  The Soviet strategy is to maximise Soviet advantage. This is done in the first instance by trying to play it relatively softly in Europe itself, but at the same time to exploit any changes in the regional balance of power in the rest of the world. Moscow regards the world wide relationship of forces as having changed fundamentally against the West. The significant date is 1962, with the adventure over Cuba and the decision that the Soviet leadership then took that

  289
  it would never again find itself in a position of humiliation, incapable of extending its power overseas, and with its bluff called.
  The other skilful aspect of Soviet diplomacy, which has the natural objective of maximising its own advantage, is that it chooses its enemies with very great care. For example, when the State of Israel was founded, the Soviet Union welcomed that act, but it very rapidly came to the conclusion that, such was the enmity that Israel incurred within the Middle East, it was a Soviet interest to espouse the cause of the Arabs, as opposed to the Israelis. Today, equally astutely, the Soviet Union seems to believe that South Africa is in a sense the "Israel" of Africa and that it is much more useful for the Soviet Union to try to court the friendship of the rest of Africa, the liberation movements of black Africa, because there exists a whole stratum of ready-made alliances.
  What will be the consequences of Soviet intervention in Angola? I suspect that success in Angola will encourage the Soviet Union to intervene in any future Middle Eastern crisis. It might also encourage the Cubans to intervene elsewhere, for example in South America. Assuming that the Western response to Angola remains as flabby as we have seen it to be, it will encourage the Soviets before long to exploit the situation in Europe, which must develop to their advantage.
  The most obvious example is Yugoslavia, which is the next flashpoint in a series of international crises. It is in the fact of Soviet success wherein lies our anxiety. The Cubans, thank God, are unlikely to cross any frontiers in Southern Africa simply for logistic reasons. They cannot go on indefinitely in their advance. There will be a pause. That pause will, perhaps, be to the advantage of the Soviet Union because in that period there will be a relaxation on the part of Western Europe and the United States and then, in a year's time or more, the Soviets and their new allies in Africa will be able to resume the ideological offensive.
  A number of hon. Members, my hon. Friends in particular, have suggested that the West ought to intervene in Southern Africa. This is unrealistic. The only Power that might conceivably intervene is the United States of America. We all know why the United States has not inter-
  290
  vened, and will not do so. The United Kingdom and the other EEC countries are unable to intervene because neither Great Britain nor the Common Market is a super-Power in the sense that I have defined it: a super-Power is a Power that has the capacity to intervene anywhere in the world in military terms.
  Clearly, neither Britain, with all its obligations and responsibilities, nor the Common Market will be able to intervene in Africa. It is no good suggesting that perhaps NATO should intervene. First, we should never get the agreement of the NATO Council and, secondly, all that we are suggesting is that the United States should be prepared to intervene on our behalf.
  There is no avoiding the fact that the West—Britain and the Government, in particular—is an acute dilemma. The question that might be asked is whether the Government will ally themselves with a Soviet-backed liberation force in Southern Africa. This is an alternative facing them. It could be asked whether they will supply money and arms, not men, to South Africa, to restore the regional balance of power in that part of the world. This is the blunt choice facing us, such is the skill of Soviet diplomacy in exploiting the advantages inherent in the Southern African situation. We have to choose to do nothing or to support, with money and arms, the South Africans and try to restore the balance in that part of the world.
  I believe in the theory of countervailing power, that is, that sooner or later in any part of the world forces arise which act as a balance against any advent of forces in an area. Having said that, I might be prepared to give that theory a hand in the next six months or so. There is no need to spell out the difficulties facing us all, especially a Government of the Left. They are the difficulties of avoiding having to make a choice such as I have postulated. Once again the Soviet Union has skilfully chosen its enemy.
  How should the United States respond to Soviet adventurism? I should like it to go on with the Salt II negotiations because they are of mutual advantage. But there are strong arguments for more robust American policies elsewhere on such issues as grain, money for the Soviet Union, and access to technology. There

  291
  is no doubt that economic aid and the trade that goes with it do not simply strengthen the military power of the Soviet Union but freeze Soviet society to its advantage.
  The alternative to detente is not nuclear war. I ask hon. Members to understand this important point. Were we to believe that, we should have no answer whatever to any Soviet initiative. The Western objective must be not only to maintain a stable super-Power relationship but to devote far greater and constant effort to the maintenance of regional stability and balance.
  8.34 p.m.
  Mr. Greville Janner: It is an even more daunting task to speak late in the debate from the Labour side of the House than it is to do so from the Conservative side. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) reminded me, in his description of the confusion he suffered in being mistaken for a name sake, of the sort of happy miseries I suffer—which for hereditary reasons are even worse—and which reached their high point recently when I received a letter at the House of Commons addressed to "the Rt. Hon. Lord Greville Janner M.P." and which began, "Dear Sir or Madam."
  I intervene briefly because I have just returned from a visit to Brussels, to the second conference on behalf of Jews in the Soviet Union. At that conference, one obtained an unusual window on the problems that the House has been discussing. There were two outstanding features noticed by hon. Members and noble Lords who were there. The first was the remarkable sensitivity of the Soviet Union to criticism of its policy towards its minorities generally and its Jewish minority in particular. That sensitivity resulted in a series of violent attacks on the conference and in a number of Press conferences, which even managed to produce, I think, three unfortunate people who had been allowed to go to Israel but who had decided to return to the Soviet Union—a minute proportion of more than 100,000 Jews who have arrived in Israel from the Soviet Union in the last four or five years.
  Those counter-conferences produced a spotlight without which the larger con-
  292
  ference might have been left in darkness. There was even a parade of Arab ambassadors to the Belgian authorities asking them to forbid the holding of the conference as an unfriendly act. As I was privileged to lead the large British delegation, I should like to pay public tribute to the Belgian Government, to a number of their Ministers and Members of Parliament and to the Belgian public for the warm reception which they gave to the conference.
  The second feature is that the Russians showed their continual sensitivity to criticism by their friends. They tend to regard anyone who attacks any aspect of their policies as their enemy. While some people at that conference and some in this House who have attacked their policies are very pleased to find any sort of stick with which to beat the Soviet Union, many others find a great deal to admire in that country. They do not forget, for example, that the Russians were our comrades in arms in war not so long ago, and they are not anti-Soviet.
  I listened with great care and interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat), who is not a foe of the Soviet Union. In a quiet and intelligent way, he raised a number of fairly mordant criticisms of the Soviet Union's policies. It is a grave error for the Soviet Union to regard any critic of its policy as an enemy.
  Throughout the Brussels conference I felt that it was a perpetuation of a situation which the Soviet authorities had themselves needlessly created, a situation which may have arisen through a total lack of confidence that they could afford to allow a few people to leave the country—"few" by the standards of their vast population. I hope that the Soviet Union will regard this time as appropriate to a gesture of magnanimity—because it is immediately before their own Communist Congress; because the French, British and other Communist Parties are questioning their policies towards their Jewish minority; because their open comrades are publicly proclaiming that they do not want to be associated with such policies; and above all because theirs is a huge and great nation which can afford a moment of compassion, a touch of generosity, a flare of compliance with the Final Act of the Helsinki Conference and

  293
  with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. I want to echo the appeals which have been made by hon. Members of all parties to the Soviet authorities to grant to those who want it the right to leave their country—a basic human right, recognised by international convention.
  On the other hand, I beg hon. Members not to toss the Final Act of the Helsinki Agreement into our own basket, not to regard a convention as useless because it is not being complied with as we wish. It is by setting standards and by getting people to agree and nations to undertake to comply with those standards that we are in a position to point out their failures to do so. If we remove the standards, we do not remove the problems with which those standards were set up to deal.
  The Soviet authorities are faced now with public criticism which they will see very clearly when they read the Official Report of this debate. There is one area of criticism they could very easily remove, the criticism of their treatment of their Jewish minority, criticism of their refusal, in particular, to allow those Jews who wish to leave to do so. I hope and trust that they will see this clearly and will act in accordance both with the Convention and with human decencies, and that they will do so speedily.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman-Irving): Before I call the next speaker perhaps I should tell the House that I have 13 names on my list. It may be that winding-up speeches will start at 10 o'clock. Such an appeal is usually rewarded by slightly longer speeches. But I give the House this information because I still feel I have a duty to do so.
  8.42 p.m.
  Mr. Anthony Kershaw: I hope that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), will forgive me if I do not follow him in his particular preserve in which he has done so much to help, but instead refer briefly to a subject which has been very much before us this evening, Angola. In speaking on it I must repeat what other hon. Members have said, but if something is worth saying, it is worth saying twice. I am quite certain that we must adjust ourselves to the fact that the Western Powers have just suffered a very serious
  294
  defeat in Africa which will have increasingly important effects in the rest of the world. We have been bundled out of an area larger than Europe of great strategic importance and great potential wealth.
  What is so galling is that at any time during this process it would have been possible for a united Western alliance to prevent these things happening. But because the United States refused to take action and Europe was not united, we failed to do so. I am inescapably reminded of the years of appeasement before the war when, as some then thought and as we all now know, Hitler could have been stopped at any time by some token show of force—but no one had the nerve to do it.
  I would like to ask the Minister of State when he winds up the debate to deal with a question put to him several times—whether or not our intelligence about this matter was accurate. It took some months to mount this operation. Did we know about it and, if so, did we take any steps? Whether we knew about it or not does not matter if we had made up our minds to do nothing about it. In that case it was not very important whether we knew in advance.
  It is to be expected—and here I differ from my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley)—that Russia, with its Cuban mercenaries, will soon press forward into other areas of Africa to exploit their advantage. It appears from such Press reports as we have had in the last two or three days that the Cubans are not leaving. At any rate, we are told they are sending for their families. I believe we may expect some kind of move towards South-West Africa, possibly Rhodesia, and certainly the fomenting of unrest in Zaire and Zambia we can confidently expect. The nuclear "umbrella" to which, unusually, little reference has been made in this debate, which keeps the peace in Europe, has, as we know, no relevance for African affairs and does not restrain military adventures.
  The material consequences to the West are very important. Already we have lost a great deal, but if the chrome, copper and other minerals from Zaire, Zambia, Rhodesia and South Africa are lost as well, we shall be very hard hit by unemployment, which inevitably will

  295
  rise very sharply, and our standard of living will be depressed.
  Like others, I address myself to the question of what we should do. I believe, like others, that we should at once raise this matter in the Security Council—indeed, we should already have done so. It is a scandal that Russian and Cuban military intervention can go without mention in the Security Council. It is obviously a danger to peace. There could hardly be a clearer case. As far as I can see, our present Government reserve their strongest protests in the United Nations to matters relating to Chile and Brazil and that, despite what the Minister said, our ambassador reserves his strictures for Mr. Moynihan because he is rude to the dictators—shades of Nazi past!
  We should take immediate steps to ensure that our allies and friends who remain have the weapons and—or—the money to defend themselves and that Zaire and Zambia should be paid for the copper which is now piling up at the pit head but which cannot be shipped because of the war. It is very important to support Zaire and Zambia in what they want to do and in preserving their independence. It is most important that we should not be seen to have a kind of racialist line-up in this matter. It is difficult to avoid it because the remaining beleaguered countries happen to be white to some extent. Therefore, if there are also black countries which wish to preserve their independence, we should be sure to come to their help.
  Rhodesia is still a British colony, so the Government repeatedly say, and we should recognise that we have an obligation towards it as well as the right to demand changes in its Government. We must therefore ensure that it has the means to defend itself, and we should immediately remove sanctions, otherwise we are positively conniving Russian aggression.
  South Africa has shown by its ill-advised expedition north of the border that it has not the necessary weapons to resist external attack. It has been the case in the past that we have refused to sell South Africa weapons for internal use. But we said that we would sell weapons for external attack. Evidently it has not got them and cannot maintain
  296
  itself properly. For that reason we should see that it gets them, and soon.
  Furthermore, we should make it clear that it is our policy to maintain these countries. Our prestige and that of the West has suffered a very serious knock, because no one now is quite sure whether we are prepared to back up our friends in Africa. We should now say—and we should now mean, otherwise there will be no point in saying it—that we are prepared so to support them.
  In 1938 "appeasement" was the fashionable word. It is now a dirty word. In 1976 "détente" is the fashionable word. Before long, I believe that it will be seen for what it is—a hoax by Russian imperialism.
  8.48 p.m.
  Mr. Frank Hooley: In a sense, there is a certain anachronism in that we are debating foreign affairs on the subject of East-West relations, because the great confrontation in the world is not basically a polarisation East to West but a polarisation North to South and the complications and conflicts which are developing in relations between the industrial world, to which, after all, Russia belongs, and the Third World, which we have seen evolve over the past two years. I intend to devote my remarks to three or four areas where I believe the East-West spectrum cuts across relations between the northern part of the world and the Third World, roughly the southern half.
  First, I say a quick word or two about Europe. I believe that the significance of Helsinki is that the Russians desired passionately to have a permanent stamp of respectability placed on the status quo in Europe. That was their aim and objective in Helsinki, and they were prepared to pay a modest price in terms of freedom of movement and so on in order to get it.
  They demonstrated in Hungary and Czechoslovakia years ago that they had no intention of relaxing their military and political grip on their half of the continent, although latterly their relations with Rumania have seemed to show a slightly more civilised approach.
  I am sure that from the Russian point of view the Helsinki operation was to give a permanence and certainly a respectability to the broad political

  297
  status quo in Europe. The significance of the SALT talks is a serious endeavour by the Soviet Union to defuse the one possibility of which they are afraid, that of an accidental drift into a nuclear conflict with the other super-Power.
  But the area where the battle for political influence will rage, and has already raged, is the Third World. I want to speak of three areas where we have seen that conflict develop. The first was Vietnam, where the Western policy was disastrous from the start. The Russians were shrewd enough to see that the old French colonial policy was immoral and absurd in the second half of the twentieth century. They backed, first with diplomacy and then arms, but never with men, the nationalist struggle in South-East Asia, in the complex of Indochina, and inevitably they won.
  The total absurdity of Western policy in that area, a very brutal policy, was to fight against a nationalist tide which the West could not possibly contain or compete with. In the end the West lost, not merely diplomatically and militarily, but very seriously in prestige and status in the Third World as a whole. One of the consequences is that the American people are still bitter, hurt and disillusioned about that experience and have no intention of indulging in adventures in Southern Africa of the kind that Conservative Members have suggested.
  The two areas in which the conflict is still raging, and where the battle for diplomatic influence and physical and economic power is continuing, are the Middle East and Southern Africa. In the Middle East the Russians have come to appreciate that the grotesque and barbarous outrage against the Palestinian people has sunk deep into the minds and hearts of the whole Arab world and has spilled over into the Third World at large. Broadly, the peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America have come to identify the Palestinian cause as something with which they rightly have sympathy, something which they should consider sympathetically in diplomatic and perhaps even economic terms. The Russians have been shrewd enough to see, perhaps quite cynically—I am not saying that they have any good motive—that the struggle in the Middle East has become a genuine nationalist struggle
  298
  against external imposition and domination.
  The fact is that Israel, whatever its rights and whatever its claims, is diplomatically, economically and above all militarily a colony of the United States. It could not exist economically without the gigantic flow of money from the United States, and it could not exist militarily without the gigantic flow of arms from the United States. It would have some difficulty in surviving diplomatically without the rigid and continu-out support it has drawn from the United States.
  In those circumstances, it is not improper to describe Israel as at least a quasi-colony of the United States in practical terms. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] Opinions may differ. I am simply analysing the situation as I see it. The European view of the situation in the Middle-East docs not accord with the view of the United States. The Soviet Union has sought to align itself with what it regards as an almost irresistible tide of nationalist sentiment and I think that in the end its judgment will prove to have been right. If the Western world shares my desire for a peaceful, permanent and stable settlement to this appalling conflict, which has been going on for three decades, it must come to terms much more definitely, clearly, and sympathetically with the legitimate feelings and aspirations of the Palestine people than it has so far shown any inclination to do.
  There has been movement and a drastic change in opinions in Western Europe, but the United States still seems to cling to the notion that at all costs it must sustain this foreign body within the Arab world. I want to see not an exacerbation of the conflict between the Soviet Union's attitude and the view of the United States, but a more statesman like attempt by both super-Powers to see where their common interest lies and to exert their influence on both sides to hasten a just settlement of this terrible problem. Otherwise, this is one part of the world which might still spark off a terrible nuclear conflict.
  Mr. Ted Leadbitter: If there is such anxiety to get a settlement in this part of the world, what contribution to peace is my hon. Friend making

  299
  when he refers to part of this area as a foreign body sustained by the United States?
  Mr. Hooley: My hon. Friend must make his own judgment. I am developing my own arguments. I would say, however, that it makes no contribution to peace to make a wrong analysis of the real nature of the conflict. If we fail in our analysis, as we failed in Vietnam, with the resulting terrible suffering and 20 years of war, the situation in the Middle East could go the same way as it went in Indochina.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: Ordinarily, I would let my hon. Friend make his speech in his own way and in many respects condemn himself out of his own mouth. But is he seriously suggesting that if at the time of the invasion by the Arab armies in 1948 of what became the State of Israel the Arabs had come to an agreement with Israel and accepted the position, Israel could not have developed as a country within the Middle East and made a very valuable contribution to the whole area? Could not Israel have done that without obtaining help from anywhere in the world, let alone becoming, as my hon. Friend claims, a pawn of the United States?
  Mr. Hooley: I do not intend to go over the entire history of the Middle East conflict, but if my hon. Friend suggests that Israel could have developed to its present economic, military and diplomatic position without this gigantic flow of money and arms, I have to tell him that I believe that it would have been totally impossible. My hon. Friend is blinding himself to the simplest facts if he thinks otherwise. If we want to avoid conflict between the super-Powers and between East and West—and I do, because I want friendly relations with the Russian people—the Western world has to move closer to a sensible and correct appraisal of the nature of the Middle East conflict.
  The situation in Southern Africa is parallel in some respects. For 10 years the Western world in the United Nations gave a Portuguese Fascist Government in Southern Africa diplomatic support. NATO gave a Portuguese Fascist Government military support. EFTA gave a Portuguese Fascist Government
  300
  economic support. On every major issue the Portuguese Government under the Salazar-Caetano régime enjoyed full military, economic and political support from the West, from Europe and the United States.
  While we were supporting a régime with which Labour had no sympathy, the African Socialists were fighting and dying in Mozambique and Angola for freedom to run their affairs in their own chosen way. It is nonsense for Opposition Members to suggest that it was outrageous and absurd for Dr. Neto of the MPLA to look for support to the Soviet Union and her allies and not expect anything from the West.
  That is the record. It was the African Socialists, not the European Socialists, I am sorry to say, who destroyed the Portuguese Fascist Government in a bitter, bloody and brutal 10-year battle. It is no use our saying that we are their friends and that they should not get themselves tangled up with the Soviet Union and Cuba. If we are their friends, where were we in those 10 years. I read in The Guardian this morning that Dr. Neto, the MPLA leader, on one occasion was dragged out of his house by the Portuguese authorities and flogged. One can imagine the reaction of a man like that who knows that the Portuguese authorities who did that to him did the same to thousands of far less well known compatriots of his in Angola, many of whom were killed in the conflict. His attitude clearly is "I know where my friends are, and I know that they are not in the Western world."
  In South-West Africa, in Namibia, a battle for national freedom is going on. All international bodies—the International Court, the Security Council, the General Assembly and every important United Nations body—condemned South Africa's behaviour and the occupation of Namibia and called upon South Africa to withdraw. What has been the response of the Western world? It has been that we must not do anything to upset South Africa's power to hold down Namibia. Even while the South African forces were fighting and killing in Angola—not legally, for they had no right to be there—the Western Powers made clear that they would move no resolution in the Security Council to invoke Chapter VII of the Charter or determine that there was

  301
  any threat to peace, although a major international war was going on.
  What is the consequence? What conclusions will the Africans living in the Republic of South Africa, the African nineteen-twentieths of the population in Rhodesia and the nationalist African movement in Nairobi draw from this kind of behaviour? They will say that if we backed the Fascist Government in Portugal when it had power in Mozambique and Angola and if we will do nothing effective against South Africa's illegal occupation of Namibia—an occupation which is contrary to the express judgments of every international authority—they will go elsewhere. That is what happened in Angola—they went elsewhere. They obtained their arms and their men from the Soviet Union and from the Soviet Union's allies.
  If we persist in this foolish and shortsighted policy concerning Namibia and the equivocal policy on apartheid which the Western world has pursued over the past two or three decades, that day will come, not because the Soviet Union is pushing its way into Southern Africa, but because the African people will reach the conclusion that their interests cannot possibly lie with the Western world. That is the danger to our diplomacy and the knife-edge upon which we are now poised.
  We must decide whether we are to come out absolutely against apartheid and to take firm action on the issue of Namibia, in respect of which we have international judgments by the International Court, the Security Council and the General Assembly. Are we prepared to take action on that and make clear to not only the Africans in Southern Africa, but the OAU where we stand on this issue? If we equivocate further and make ourselves accomplices in apartheid, the Africans will draw their own conclusions and will look elsewhere for weapons, money and diplomatic support.
  I shall not pursue this argument much further. I know that there are many hon. Members who wish to speak. I shall mention one crucial area where I believe the West—especially Europe and the United States of America—has the advantage of a better and more enlightened policy than the Soviet Union has so far shown concerning the concept
  302
  of the new international economic order. In this respect I believe we have an immense opportunity.
  There is tremendous striving by the Third World for a fairer share of the wealth of the natural resources and the manufactured wealth of this planet. Those countries made it clear in the Sixth Special Session of the General Assembly, the Seventh Special Session last September and will again at UNCTAD in Nairobi in May that they want a fair share of the world's resources. We have a great chance to move towards them and to say that we are prepared to enter into commodity arrangements, to give more aid and to share our technological know-how.
  Last September, at the Seventh Session the very muted and negative contribution of the Soviet Union was most astonishing. The Western world has a great opportunity at UNCTAD. If we take that opportunity, we may wipe out some of the errors we have committed in Vietnam, the Middle East and Southern Africa.
  9.14 p.m.
  Mr. Eldon Griffiths: As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) was speaking I was reminded of a phrase—it may have been said by Solzhenitsyn—that Lenin killed his thousand but Stalin has killed ten thousand times one thousand. Of course, the hon. Member is right. The Portuguese, and indeed most other countries, including our own, have been responsible for cruelties and actions that we can all regret. However, I hope that in his passion to condemn the Portuguese or anyone else he will remember that we are now debating East-West relations and will not forget the enormity of the cruelties that are perpetuated today by the Soviet régime.
  This is the first occasion on which I have had the opportunity to speak in a foreign affairs debate since ceasing to be an Opposition spokesman on the subject. I hope to break with tradition in these matters by not condemning my right hon. Friends but by praising them. I have been impressed by the perspicacity and courage of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in her approach to foreign affairs over recent months. She was right about, and was right to speak

  303
  out about, Helsinki when she did. She has been right in warning the nation of the extent of Soviet military expansionism.
  I know from personal experience in the United States that she had more impact, and a more favourable impact, on that country, its leaders and its Press than any British statesman, certainly since Mr. Macmillan. I also know from experience that her recent visit to the Middle East was timely and very well regarded. I believe that we are in the presence of a new phenomenon in foreign affairs. Our leader is much sought after across the world. When I was in Australia the new Australian Government was asking how soon she could visit them. In India I spoke to Mrs. Gandhi, and her first question was when the leader of the Conservative Party would be able to visit her. When I was in the Sudan, President Nimeri expressed a similar wish. I am glad to be able to say, as one who recently ceased to be a spokesman for this party, that my right hon. Friend is a credit not only to my party but to my country for what she has said and done on the international scene.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: When the hon. Member points out to the House—a House which is so anxious to know—the peripatetic adventures of his right hon. Friend who is much sought after by foreign countries, he should consider whether that is so surprising when the Chinese have even asked a man like Mr. Nixon to visit them.
  Mr. Griffiths: I shall get on with my speech.
  Mr. Edward Gardner: Is my hon. Friend aware that there has been hardly any mention of Britain in the English-speaking Press in the Far East? The one thing which got banner headlines and full attention was the speech which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition made attacking the Russians and making clear the danger which Russia presented to the West.
  Mr. Griffiths: My hon. and learned Friend is, of course, quite right.
  I now wish to turn to Iceland. It is time we got off the hook in the cod war. I in no way underestimate the difficulties of the problem. I pay my tribute to
  304
  the courage of our fishermen and the coolness and efficiency of the Royal Navy. However, the Government have made a number of fairly elementary mistakes in their handling of this difficult problem. They underestimated—perhaps we all did—the intransigence of the Icelanders. They rejected until too late the suggestion from these Benches of an independent arbitrator. They failed, at least in the early stages, to place the problem in the context of the EEC, bearing in mind that the leverage of the Community on Iceland is far greater than can be ours alone. But most of all they ignored a cardinal rule of international crisis management. It is that no large nation should commit its prestige and armed forces to a confrontation with a small nation on an issue which is important but not vital to that large nation but on which the small nation is prepared to go to the death.
  I am afraid that that is the basic reason why we have got into a "No win" situation with Iceland. I am sorry to say this, but I think the cod war is lost. The question is only, how do we get off the hook? I do not have the time to develop this matter in detail, but it is time to place the matter in an EEC context and seek a common fisheries policy that will help to resolve the matter.
  Secondly, I hope that the Minister will try again, knowing the difficulties, to persuade Dr. Luns to act as a mediator. Thirdly, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will consider an offer in an international context for a study of the fish stocks and the whole conservation problem. Finally, I hope that through the EEC he will offer help to Iceland to diversify its economy over a period of time so that it will not be so totally dependent upon fish.
  I turn to the major theatre that we have been discussing. I was recently in the Soviet Union. I have been lucky enough to go there many times. Like most hon. Gentlemen, I have no quarrel with the Soviet people—indeed, I admire them. However, one thing was plain during my visit a month ago, namely, that we are in the presence of a massive transfer of resources away from consumption and domestic investment to military expenditure. Here is a nation which cannot adequately feed itself and which does not adequately house its own people but which is nevertheless shifting resources,

  305
  quite massively, to armaments. It is right to give the House some of the recent evidence.
  First, I refer to the nuclear sphere. Despite the SALT I agreement of May 1972 the Soviets have gone full steam ahead with the testing of four new intercontinental ballistic missile systems, with the development of huge new warheads—larger than anything in the West—and with the building of so-called "cold launch" silos which, because they use compressed air, are not damaged by engine ignition and therefore can be used a second time for the launching of ICBMs.
  Then there was SALT II which, as far as it went, was highly desirable. However, it put no ban at all on the building of missile factories and the Soviet Union has now gone ahead to the point where Mr. Krushchev predicted:
  "they are turning out ICBMs like sausages"
  —his words, not mine. That is why the Soviet Union today has deployed more than 1,500 intercontinental ballistic missiles compared with only 1,054 for the United States. We are entitled to ask whether that is détente.
  I shall give some of the figures for the conventional sphere in relation only to Europe. Over the past three years on manpower alone the Soviet Union has increased its forces in Eastern Europe by 120,000 men, its armoured fighting vehicles by more than 5,450 to a point where it now has a total of 19,000 compared with NATO's 6,100. Meanwhile the quality of the Soviet divisions in Europe has improved quite massively. Over the past four years the number of battle tanks per motor-rifle division in the Soviet Army has almost doubled and the number of howitzers has increased by 60 new heavy guns per division. The number of multiple rocket launchers has increased from 192 to not fewer than 720 per division, and all the time we are reducing our forces in Western Europe. Again I ask, is that détente? It is for us. It is not for the Soviet Union.
  I shall not weary the House—I have not time to do so—with all the figures on Soviet air power or on the Soviet navy. My right hon. Friend has quite adequately deployed the facts on those matters.
  306
  However, there is one other fact that the House should consider, and that is the current level of Soviet war production. I am obliged here for the work of Professor Erickson of Edinburgh University who, in his excellent analysis in the Sunday Times last month, produced these frightening words:
  "The near frantic rate of military production as well as naval building suggests something akin to a war tempo. Averaged over the past two years, Soviet tank production is six times that of the United States…Soviet artillery production is almost nine times that of the United States, and the Soviet Union is producing annually almost twice the number of tactical aircraft."
  He concludes:
  "The most staggering statistic, however, relates to surface warships, with the Soviet Union"
  —over the past two years—
  "producing 36 compared to a mere half-dozen for the United States."
  I simply ask the question, is that detente? It is detente for the West. It is build-up for the Soviet Union.
  What do they want it for? I understand, and the House understands, that the Soviet people have suffered invasion and terrifying slaughter. I understand that they, perhaps more than any other people, want to build up their forces to defend their country. I accept, too, that they are anxious, and rightly anxious about China. Who would not be in their circumstances? But can anyone say that the figures that I have given to the House are relevant only to China?
  The most recent evidence is Angola. Many of my right hon. and hon. Friends have said more eloquently than I can, what they judge to be the nature of the Western defeat. I think that we must recognise the very great military achievement of the Soviet Union in Africa. They have done something that I doubt any nation has quite done previously. They have successfully stage managed the air lifting of a whole army of Cuban mercenaries from one continent to another, the arming of these Hessians with heavy weapons brought in surreptitiously—and loaded, incidentally, some seven months beforehand in the ports of Northern Russia—and they have been able to join their chosen Marxist allies in conquering a large rich country in Africa. Never before have the Russians pulled off a

  307
  military success of this magnitude so far from their own borders.
  The Russians have also won a major political victory. They are now a power to be reckoned with on the ground in Central Africa. A Communist-influenced Angola—I put it no higher than that—opens the door not only to future attack on South-West Africa, and conceivably on the Congo to the North. It also offers a prospect—I put it no higher than that—of the Soviet fleet and the Soviet air force establishing themselves in the South Atlantic, across the trade routes of Europe to South America as well as the Far East.
  This is a new situation, and alas, the West, either through blindness or weakness, has acquiesced in its own defeat. It is the lack of any response, or any effective response, from our own country that I find the most painful and. shaming. It is a tragic commentary on the moral condition of our nation that while Angola was lost, the British seemed more concerned with the perversities of Miss Linda Lovelace.
  What can we do? Many of my right hon. Friends, as well as the Government, have been wrestling with that problem. I believe that we should have raised the matter in the Security Council as representing a threat to peace. There may be reasons for the Government not having taken that course which the Minister of State might explain. I believe that the Prime Minister should have visited Washington to discuss the matter with President Ford. But when we consider the realities there are only a few things we could have done with any hope of success.
  I am glad that Lord Greenhill has gone to Rhodesia—
  Mr. Ennals: I thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to say what we should have done. He has said that we should have gone to the Security Council as though somehow that would have produced a result. Perhaps he will tell us what the British Government should have done.
  Mr. Griffiths: Yes. I was turning to Rhodesia as I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will accept that there is a context within which we need to act. As he would be the first to recognise, Angola does not stand alone. We have a direct
  308
  responsibility and interest in Rhodesia. I very much welcome Lord Greenhill's mission. I do not believe that the Government could have chosen a better man. All that we can appropriately do at this stage is to wish him well and to say as little as possible that might make his mission the more difficult.
  If, as I hope, his mission is the beginning of movement that will lead sooner or later to success, I think it would be the concomitant of an agreement to offer Rhodesians, black and white alike, the full protection to which they would be entitled as lawful citizens of a British country. As the right hon. Gentleman implied in his intervention, Rhodesia cannot be regarded as standing alone. Rhodesia is part of the wider picture in which Angola has its part.
  I suggest that there are three keys to the situation. The first key is the United States. The second key is formed by the countries of Central and Southern Africa—notably Zambia, Zaire and South Africa. The third key is the security of the air space and sea space on either side of the Southern African continent. As for the United States, where I have spent much of my life, I think we can all see the appalling effect on the world when the United States even temporarily withdraws from the international scene. Of course, the United States has its difficulties. There is the election, the aftermath of Vietnam, Watergate and the CIA. There is also the black veto. There are 35 million black Americans, and they will veto any involvement of the United States in large numbers on the land mass of Africa.
  This being the two hundredth anniversary of 1776, there is also a certain inwardness that is absorbing many of the energies of the great republic. But let no Government sell the United States short. Perhaps it is now going through a period of lack of confidence, but I hope that the Soviet Union will not underestimate the basic power and fortitude of the American Republic. One of the Government's first duties in respect of Southern Africa in the wake of the Angola affair is to stay close to America and to concert our polices with their.
  Second, I believe it is right to offer economic help to Zaire and Zambia via the European Economic Community. My right hon. Friend the Member for

  309
  Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) put that point very well. I hope that I take my right hon. Friend with me when I suggest that we should also offer Zambia British military advisers if it wishes to receive them.
  I confess to a dilemma in regard to South Africa. I take seriously the importance to our economy and to the level of employment of the British people of South African minerals trade and investment. Therefore I have nothing but contempt for the humbugs in the Church of England who have not thought their way through this problem before making great moral pronouncements without having considered their consequences.
  While recognising the importance of South Africa to Britain, I abominate apartheid as a principle. We must try if possible—and I do not know whether it is possible—to encourage liberal policies in South Africa. A few days ago I entertained in this House leaders from the Transkei and some of the other small black States within the Union, and I believe that there has been progress. We should encourage that progress, but we shall not do so if we push the South Africans further into a laager mentality.
  We should also encourage Mr. Vorster's courageous attempt to open up South African policies to the black States around its perimeters. If we wish South Africa to liberalise her policies and to open her windows abroad, we must as a quid pro quo provide her with NATO—or at least with Western, if not exclusively, British support—as a protection against external pressure. That is a reasonable provision for any independent nation.
  I have also come to the reluctant conclusion that it would now be right for the British Government, in concert with the United States and the EEC, to discuss the South African need for weapons for external defence. I refer in particular to maritime reconnaissance and strike aircraft such as the Buccaneer, frigates, submarines and possibly air transports, too. I believe that this should be carried out in conjunction with our Western allies.
  It is necessary to place the problem of the political evolution of Southern Africa and its security in the wider context of the air and sea space surrounding the
  310
  Southern African continent. I had the pleasure in Washington no fewer than six years ago of proposing that there should be a standing force of NATO navies for the Southern Atlantic. That is the correct course and I still believe that it should be developed. I believe that the time will come when on the other side of the Southern African continent it will also be necessary, perhaps in conjunction with Iran, and certainly with Australia, to provide security on the long-range sea routes in the Indian Ocean.
  I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for having taken a little longer in my remarks than I originally intended. I conclude by saying that we are living in a time when, for every possible reason, public expenditure must be reduced. I have nevertheless reached the reluctant conclusion that we can no longer continue to reduce our Armed Forces if we wish to play a rôle in preserving peace. We must strengthen rather than weaken our Army, Navy and Air Force—because, although power it not the whole of foreign policy, no policy can be conducted without power.
  9.34 p.m.
  Dr. M. S. Miller: I have a high regard for the ability of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths), for his application to the task before him and for the way in which he pursues his objectives and gathers knowledge and information to deploy his case. But I believe that his recipe for South Africa would lead to disaster not only on the African continent, but in the rest of the world.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) utterly condemned the State of Israel. If he believes that Israel has no right to exist, as the unfortunate speech he made seemed to indicate, everything he said after that is understood and no iniquity perpetrated against Israel, from his standpoint, is unjustified. But he did not answer my comment about his accusation that Israel is a foreign body in the Middle East. It is a foreign body that has been in the Middle East a very long time—some 5,000 years. As a doctor I find it very difficult to accept that a foreign body can remain so long without its being an intrinsic and integral part of an area.

  311
  Although my hon. Friend has left the Chamber, I put it to him again that, were it not for the fact that Israel from the very beginning had to defend herself against aggression, she would have developed into an economically sound and viable country, without any need to buy the arms which at the moment are forced upon her as an unfortunate necessity in the situation in which she finds herself.
  I turn to the situation in that part of Southern Africa in which Rhodesia is located. I do not think that it is productive to resurrect old cold war shibboleths. Like many hon. Members, I am against military intervenion by any nation in the affairs of another. I am against attempts by all kinds of subversive means to overthrow the Government of another country.
  I was in the United States at the time of the overthrow of the Allende Government in Chile. My friends in America—who by no stretch of the imagination could be considered friendly to the Communist cause—were appalled by the overthrow of a democratically elected Government by what they openly admitted to be the intervention of their own CIA.
  I was against the intervention of the Americans in Vietnam, just as I am against the military intervention of the Russians and the Cubans in Angola. There are differences, of course, and one would be blind not to appreciate the differences in situations which on the surface—if we adopt an inflexible and blinkered outlook—seem very similar. The Allende Government was a freely and democratically elected Government. In Angola, rightly or wrongly, the Angolans consider the Russians and the Cubans to be liberators, and we are ourselves very largely to blame for that. It is unfortunate, but that is what the Angolans feel about the Russians and the Cubans.
  I visited Vietnam. In my opinion the majority of the Vietnamese people were totally opposed and hostile to the American intervention, with the massive military commitment involved.
  The situation in Rhodesia and in the southern part of the African continent has radically altered because of events in Angola. We now have the Smith regime with a hesitant South Africa on her southern border, a South Africa which recognises that the price of continuing
  312
  to support an illegal Rhodesian regime is too high.
  With Angola and Mozambique on Mr. Smith's flanks we now have an entirely new ball game. These two countries are no longer the subjugated colonies of Portugal. Mr. Smith has cocked a snook at this country for more than 10 years. For as long as Mr. Smith retains his illegal position, my right hon. Friend should think carefully before extending any kind of assistance to that regime.
  Mr. Smith cannot expect help from this Government while he retains his illegal posture. Often we talk glibly about the right of this situation without seeing clearly what it is that is happening in that unhappy and unfortunate country. There are 250,000 white people ruling completely over 3 million black people who have little or no say in their affairs.
  This is a situation which, regardless of the part of the world in which it occurs, cannot and will not be tolerated by the majority. The Minister must stand firm, despite the advice he may be receiving from other parts of the world, despite the blandishments that could be coming from Rhodesia or South Africa. I cannot view with equanimity the terrible position which could develop in Rhodesia. The answer lies in Mr. Smith's hands. He must stop his illegal posture and return to legality. He must bring Rhodesia once more under the aegis of Her Majesty's Government—in other words, Rhodesia must revert to self-governing colony status.
  Even then it may well be that we shall have to consider the situation in the light of what has happened in the past 10 years. A rebellion of this kind cannot go without any punishment. This country should take the initiative of inviting Mr. Smith to return Rhodesia to the sovereignty of this Government. It should not be Mr. Smith who makes the moves, with this country following in his wake. We should be telling him to return to legality and then we will work out a new deal whereby there can be majority rule—not, as Mr. Smith has said, outside his lifetime—worked out by representatives of the African people. They must have control over their own affairs not in 25 or 30 years, but in a much shorter time.
  I hesitate to put a figure on the number of years. No doubt my right hon. Friend

  313
  has had this drummed into him by African representatives. I should be surprised if they have spoken in terms of longer than two or three years. I counsel him to be extremely cautious about the kind of approaches made by other organisations in other spheres. He should be working towards majority rule in that country, certainly within the next two or three years.
  9.46 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Lloyd: I am glad of this opportunity to intervene in this important debate on Southern Africa in the context of East-West relations. The hon. Member for East Kilbride (Dr. Miller) said that the Africans in Rhodesia had little or no say in their own affairs. This is a commonly-held view, with a good deal of accuracy in it, but I would ask hon. Members to put three questions to themselves. First, did they have it before? Does the hon. Gentleman know his history of Africa south of the Equator and the sort of societies which existed there? They were brutal and savage societies, and there was no such thing as having a say in their own affairs.
  Second, why do they not have it now? When one asks that question, one finds that one is dealing with a problem of immense resources. South of the Zambezi, 4 million people have been expected in this century to create a massive civilisation for 25 million others out of their own resources. This is a resource problem. The House, Britain and the West do not like to recognise this fact because it makes things difficult and embarrassing, but this is one reason why they do not have a say in their own affairs now.
  Finally, how soon will they have such a say? It is not simply a question of the political will, judgment or common sense of Mr. Smith or Mr. Vorster. It is once again a question basically of economic resources as well as will. Perhaps that is where the West can make a reasonable and important contribution.
  Before dealing in more detail with this question, I should like to refer to two remarks by the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson), who is no longer in the Chamber. The more important was a general question. The hon. Gentleman said how much import-
  314
  ance he attached to the fact that the French Communist Party was now refusing to sit at the same table as the Russian Communist Party. He said that this represented progress and we should make appropriate judgments for the West about it.
  I accept that as a limited sign of progress. I should accept it possibly even as an interesting phenomenon if a Communist Party in Western Europe were elected to power and became a government. But I should not regard it as in any sense a significant test until such a government was defeated at the polls in a democratic Western election and thereafter resigned. If and when that happened, with the sort of freedom, liberty, democracy and all the other factors that the MPLA thinks that it is bringing to Angola and the Communists are trying to bluff us into believing they are trying to bring to Western Europe, we should take them more seriously.
  I should like to concentrate on the question of Southern Africa. It was said by a former Lord Chancellor, Baron Westbury, that he abolished an eternity of punishment toward the close of his earthly career, that, in the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council, he dismissed Hell with costs and took away from the orthodox defenders of the Church of England their hope of everlasting damnation.
  That seems to me, and has often seemed to me, to embody the attitude of many Labour Members towards Southern Africa. The only difference is that, unlike the late Baron Westbury, they take pride in whatever steps they believe will preserve the hope of everlasting damnation for the Europeans in Southern Africa.
  Let us look briefly at the record. The Portuguese, by far the most multi-racial of all the Europeans to have occupied Southern Africa, were condemned because, although impoverished and multi racial, they were autocratic. So be it. The Afrikaners are condemned because, although successful, enterprising and self-confident, they have created in English-speaking South Africa the most successful underdeveloped country in the world bar none, and have allowed a social and economic stratification to become a myopic legal stratification known as apartheid. So grave is that error that

  315
  they are conceded no virtues, permitted no achievements and denied social and political intercourse with the West.
  The British—and there are about 2½ million of them in sub-Saharan Africa—are considered to be so lacking in political judgment that they have decided to imperil the whole future of their communities, whether in Rhodesia or South Africa, merely to preserve economic and political privilege. Whether they support or oppose segregation, whether they work actively for economic development or restrict it, or promote African welfare or retard it, all are tarred with the same brush.
  This is the basic error of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite. Time and time again they refuse to make any form of the right kind of distinction between those in Southern Africa who work, have worked and are continuing to work for exactly the same ideals as they are. Very little account is taken of this, no credit is given and when the embarrassment—and it is a major embarrassment—which comes from the present situation—arises they say, "Of course it would be very dangerous for us to ally ourselves with these racialist, imperialist States".
  All the vocabulary of the Communist language is employed willy-nilly by hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite to give it the same meaning as the Communists give it, because they are unwilling to discriminate. What a total travesty of reality it is. What a violent oversimplification of the world's most complex political situation.
  What can we now propose? I would like to come to what was said by the Minister of State earlier this afternoon—that détente was an attempt to reconcile fundamentally different political systems and that it was not the product—and I use his phrase—"of sentimental liberalism". I ask the Minister, why does this apply to the USSR and its satellites but not to other States with whom we may have fundamental disagreements about the character of their political system? The document produced by the Common Market Commission this afternoon, which I have here, states in Section 2:
  "Respect for the independence of all African states and their right to determine their national policies in complete sovereignty and without outside interference"—
  316
  which is apparently a general statement of principle. But not for South Africa, it seems, because we must imply that we condemn the policy of apartheid in South Africa. It may be necessary on every conceivable occasion to keep the record clean, so there has to be total condemnation of apartheid. But this is inconsistent with Section 2 of this declaration>:
  "…the independence of all African states and their right to determine their national policy in complete sovereignty"—
  and what does "complete sovereignty" mean?—
  "and without outside interference".
  Mr. Ennals: Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that by accepting the sovereignty of every State the rest of us are denied the right to criticise? Surely he is not denying that every member of the European Community abhors apartheid. Surely we have a perfect right to say so. It does not necessarily interfere with a country's internal affairs if we make a corporate statement in that form.
  Mr. Lloyd: I will not disagree but there is a vast difference between verbal criticism and interference, implying not so much a discussion of South Africa as direct physical interference, not just verbal criticism.
  I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that so often when these vast lapses in human charity are brought before the House, over and over again it is the South Africans who are singled out to be condemned. What about the Gulag Archipelago? Do we hear much about that, or about its modern equivalent? Occasionally one or two honest Government supporters bring it to the attention of this House. But the ratio is about 50 to 1. At the same time—and the events of the past few weeks have brought it significantly before the House—it is the South Africans and the Rhodesians who are pilloried before this House.
  I would go so far as to argue that there is no group of 2 million people in Western Europe, whether they be in Great Britain, in Sweden, which is another country inclined to do this, in Switzerland or anywhere else, who, put down in Southern Africa and given the responsibility—that is the key phrase—for solving these problems, would be able to do so. They would find themselves making the same errors and the same

  317
  philosophical mistakes and undoubtedly we would be back where we were before.
  The Minister said that in Africa we had a new sort of imperialism and that it could not be fought and beaten by those who allied themselves with the old imperialism. As is fashionable, he condemned the South African intervention. He said that the United Kingdom would have allied itself more conspicuously with the new African Governments. Did he mean all of them? Did he mean without conditions? Did he mean Uganda, Tanzania, the Governments in the Horn of Africa, Burundi where there were 100,000 people massacred within living memory, Somalia and Ethiopia? Are these the allies with whom we must ally ourselves to avoid being tainted with the old imperialism?
  These questions are not asked. They are too embarrassing and too difficult. "Let us pretend that there is a homogenous solution, and it can be easily presented." That is the argument advanced.
  The unequivocal support for the policy of African nationalism is something which I cannot give. If we look at the sad, sorry and savage record of Africa in the past 15 years, we see that nationalism has a good deal to answer for. It is a ghastly and destructive, force, and I should not like to see this country, this House of Commons or the Conservative Party aligning itself unequivocally with the forces of African nationalism.
  The Minister went on to say that we would not support a country fit for Tanganikya Concessions to live in. It sounded so clever. In one facile phrase he condemned all the great enterprise of all the great British mining companies in Africa over the past century—
  Mr. Ennals Mr. Ennals indicated dissent—
  Mr. Lloyd: The Minister denies it. If it is not fit for Tanganikya Concessions to live in, what is wrong with Tanganikya Concessions? What is wrong with the enterprise of the great British mining companies in Southern Africa? They have produced most of the raw materials on which the British industrial system depended. What is wrong with their efforts? Why are they condemned so unequivocally in the House of Commons? They seldom, if ever, get a chance to speak for themselves.
  318
  If the great British multinationals had not had the opportunity to act as channels for British capital to be invested in Southern Africa as well as elsewhere in the world, these countries would have been vastly more impoverished than they are now. The Minister of State knows it, and his right hon. Friend knows it. I should like to see it recognised more realistically and honestly.
  We are not in a situation where we can solve these problems easily. They are problems of immense difficulty, and we shall solve them only if we approach them on the basis of honesty, recognising the facts as they are and not as the Left wing has portrayed them year by year and decade after decade until it is almost impossible now to treat the real situation in Southern Africa in a way that people will accept.
  So great is the distortion that the real faults of South Africa are buried. No one will deny that any great community has faults, and South Africans would be the first to admit that there are faults in South Africa, but those faults are hidden in a sea of criticism from many Labour Members who find it necessary to make their criticisms in the House for all sorts of political reasons.
  10.0 p.m.
  Mr. Patrick Cormack: I shall be brief and put away the notes for the speech that I had hoped to make, because I want at least one more of my hon. Friends to catch your eye before the debate ends, Mr. Speaker.
  This has been a long debate. Some of us have had a long, weary wait. It has been depressing to look across the Chamber from time to time and see the Labour Benches virtually empty, as they are now, because this is probably the most important debate the House has had this Session. Certainly the subject is far more important than many of the domestic events that rightly excite us and rouse us to passion. Yet the Government are virtually unsupported by their Back Benchers.
  That is a pity, because in foreign affairs the Government basically have their heart in the right place. I cannot say that for many of their supporters, because it is a regrettable fact that prob-

  319
  ably 60 or 70 Labour Members, because they want a full-blooded Socialist State, completely dismiss the menace of Soviet aggression. If they had their full-blooded Socialist State, if capitalism and the mixed economy fell in ruins as they wish, the Soviet menace would disappear, because that is what the Soviets want. Yet what the majority of the British people want is the maintenance of our freedom and democracy, which are totally incompatible with what the Soviets stand for.
  We are threatened far more than we have ever been threatened. The cold war was far healthier than the climate in which we live today. I regret to say that, but it is true. I believe that detente is a snare and a delusion. We have gained nothing and have lost very much. The rot set in with the Ostpolitik. Whilst I do not impugn the sincerity or determination of Herr Brandt or Dr. Kissinger, I believe that they have both played with fire and that the West has been badly burnt. The mantle of Chamberlain has perhaps fallen on American shoulders. I greatly regret having to say that, because America is a sad country today.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Griffiths) was right to point to some of the dangers within the American system and to say that we should support the Americans. Of course we should. America is the greatest nation in the free world and without her active support we should not be sitting in this Chamber. Nevertheless, it is regrettable that a new isolationism has crept in, a lack of appreciation of the full menace of Soviet power has perhaps begun to influence some of the highest counsels in America, and the Americans have begun to be a little ashamed of their great achievements.
  I had hoped to speak at great length on this subject and I could do so if there were time, but I should like to say a few words about the fundamental reason for my feeling that détente is a snare and a delusion, and that we are beguiling ourselves because none of us likes to think of the harsh realities of international life. What troubles me is how we can possibly believe that there is any degree of real détente, real co-existence, a real desire by the Soviets and the nations they control to come to terms and live at peace
  320
  when all the basic rights and freedoms that we take for granted are severely curtailed or extinguished within their system.
  I shall deal with just one right, the right to believe, and leave it at that. Without the right to believe, without a man's having the right to seek his own salvation as he sees it, there is no true freedom. Beyond the Iron Curtain we see Christians persecuted because they go to church. We see people like the great Baptist pastor, Georgi Vins, hounded and harried, persecuted and reviled because they stand for something and wish other people to be free to believe and to practice their beliefs.
  We see the great Jewish community in Russia. I have been privileged in a small way to serve the Jews through the all-party Committee of this House. We know of the great harassment of these people. How can we believe that a system which treats these people and their faith in such a way stands on all fours with our own?
  One hon. Member opposite talked about the Opposition's philosophy and seemed to espouse much of what the Soviets stand for. It sent a shiver down my spine. I believe that our ideology is shared by the Government. Our ideology is a belief in freedom, a compassion and an upholding of the basic essential human freedoms, above all, the freedom to believe.
  We must tell the Soviets that we cannot accept that there is any genuineness in their protestations while they behave as they do towards so many of their own people. It is of fundamental importance that we defend our nation and spend more, and not less, on armaments in the difficult and critical days ahead.
  Mr. Speaker: Before I call the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), I must say that I am deeply sorry for those hon. Members who have sat right through this debate. However, four hon. Members spoke for well over 20 minutes and they have taken the time of their hon. Friends.
  10.6 p.m.
  Mr. Ian Gilmour: Inevitably, this debate has concentrated largely on Southern Africa. I was astonished to hear the hon. Member

  321
  for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) saying that we had concentrated on Southern Africa because our ideology had been defeated there. Surely most hon. Members Opposite agree that in Angola it is Western ideology which has been defeated and not just the ideology of this side of the House.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, South-West (Mr. Cormack) said détente was a snare and a delusion and my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said it had meant abdication. Whatever its true meaning, we know two things that détente has not entailed. It plainly has not entailed a reduction in the fast and relentless growth of Soviet military power. If anything, it has meant the exact opposite. Nor has it meant any improvement of the lot of those Russians who are not over-enthusiastic about the benefits to the world and to Russia itself of the Russian Communist dictatorship. They are still liable to be given sulphur injections in their veins or suffer other barbarities. The hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mrs. Short), who gave a somewhat idyllic picture of life behind the Iron Curtain, did not touch on that aspect.
  There can be no dispute about the growing threat of Russian military power. Since the Leader of the Opposition's famous and highly successful speech on 29th January, there has been abundant confirmation of what she said. She has been backed up by the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe, General Haig, the former United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Schlesinger, the present United States Defence Secretary, Mr. Runsfeldt, the German Defence White Paper, the Brookings Institution and other authorities. Apart from the Russians, the only discordant squeak came from, of all people, the British Secretary of State for Defence. No doubt he would like to forget that outburst. But as he attempted to play down the warnings given by my right hon. Friend, and as we have heard in the debate from the hon. Member for Kings-wood (Mr. Walker) that the threat is grossly exaggerated, as well as having some fairly odd comments on defence from the hon. Member for Oldham, East, it is necessary to detail the threat once again.
  322
  As the Supreme Allied Commander in Europe has said, there has been an explosion of Soviet military capabilities. The Soviets are continuing to increase their land, sea and air forces, both in quantity and in quality, to an extent far exceeding anything that can be remotely justified for defence. It is evident that, apart from its size, the Soviet army is not the right shape to be used for defensive purposes.
  To take some of the salient features of this threat, first, on land: in the number of tanks, which we know is usually considered to be a crucial yardstick, the Warsaw Pact has a nearly three-to-one preponderance. In Central Europe the Warsaw Pact has 150,000 more troops than NATO and has geographical advantages in build-up and reinforcements. In the air, the Warsaw Pact outnumbers NATO by two to one and, as General Haig recently said, the Soviet air force has become offensive in character.
  But it is at sea that we are witnessing the most serious build-up and it is there that we face the greatest danger. The West depends entirely on the freedom of sea communication, and the Soviet fleet now exceeds anything that could be remotely justified simply for defence. Russia has 400 submarines, compared with Germany's 50 in 1939, and she has four times as many as she had 10 years ago. She is still building submarines at the rate of one every month. She has also doubled the number of her missile-equipped cruisers during the past six years. No wonder Admiral Lewin said last year that the maritime balance was "dangerously marginal".
  Mr. Brezhnev who, we hear, made a five-hour speech today said last year:
  "The materialisation of détente is simply inconceivable without an extension of detente to the military sphere. I believe that conditions have now become more favourable for this."
  There has been precious little sign of that assertion of Mr. Brezhnev's being put into action by the Russians.
  In the face of this undeniable Russian danger, one would have expected any reasonable and well-intentioned British Government, first, to do everything in their power to promote and foster by their diplomacy and foreign policy the unity of the Western Alliance and the unity of Western Europe and, secondly, to foster and increase the military

  323
  strength of NATO. The Government have done neither of these things. They have done the opposite.
  We shall be debating the Government's defence White Paper in detail after it is published, but I take it that even the Government propaganda machine will agree that the cuts announced last week do not exactly strengthen our defence forces or our contribution to NATO. Obviously, they weaken them.
  It was notable that the Minister of State in a reasonably robust speech in some areas did not mention the defence cuts that his Government have made. There have been three cuts in the space of two years.
  When the right hon. Gentleman referred to the talks on MBFR, he said that this was an area in which no risks could be taken. Surely the greatest possible risk in talks on mutual balanced force reduction is to reduce forces unilaterally. What conceivable incentive is given to the Russians to reduce their forces in exchange for our reducing ours when we reduce ours on our own in advance of the talks?
  The propaganda machine cannot deny that the savage cuts in defence announced last year have greatly weakened our military capability and our contribution to NATO. The effect of these cuts is not just to weaken us and NATO as against the Russians, though that is their most important effect. Their other effect is to weaken this country within NATO and within the counsels of the West. Regrettably, the general behaviour of the present Government in Europe has had the same damaging effect. That is something for which the whole country may pay dearly in the weeks and months ahead.
  First, we had the farce of the so-called renegotiations, which did enormous harm. Then we had the tragi-comedy of the Foreign Secretary's and the Prime Minister's much trumpeted demand for a separate seat at the Energy Conference and their finally settling for, I think, parity with Luxembourg. We must also include in this unhappy tale the cod war with Iceland.
  Certainly the attempt to safeguard the interests of British fishermen is undoubtedly laudable. However, I doubt whether many people could truthfully say
  324
  that they admire the way that it has been conducted. It is fairly certain that our allies have not been greatly impressed by what they have seen. It is a great pity that last year the Government did not adopt the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and appoint Dr. Luns as mediator. If they had done so, they might have avoided the danger of weakening NATO.
  In these ways, amongst others, the Government have greatly reduced British influence in NATO and the EEC. The Government's inability to influence events has been further increased by the complacency and the lack of vision of the Ministers most closely affected. We never had great hopes of the Prime Minister and therefore we were not unduly surprised by his flight of fancy last autumn when he allowed himself to say that his Government could point to
  "A record of influence and achievement "
  in international affairs
  "unparalleled by any Government "
  since before the war. No wonder politics and politicians are in disrepute in this country today!
  If one pays the Prime Minister the compliment of thinking that he believed what he was saying—in this instance it is a pretty dubious compliment—one can only conclude that his divorce from reality in the area of foreign affairs is now complete. In fact, no previous British Government, either before or after the war, has had less influence in the world, and especially in Europe. Indeed, this Government's record is a particularly unfortunate combination of bluster followed by blunder.
  We had some hopes of the Foreign Secretary. We are all extremely sorry that he is not here today. Like everyone else, I wish him a speedy recovery. Certainly I shall moderate my criticism of him in his absence, but in virtually everyone else's absence I cannot remove my criticism altogether.
  The Foreign Secretary is responsible for a suprisingly jejune Fabian tract,
  "Challenges and Opportunities for British Foreign Policy."
  It is largely the result of a lecture delivered at the end of September during the Labour Party conference. It was then revised and published in December. Even

  325
  as late as the end of last year the Foreign Secretary was evidently unaware of the extreme dangers of Angola. As my hon. Friend the Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) pointed out, the process of the Soviet-Cuban build-up must have taken several months. Yet many other matters are mentioned in this pamphlet, but the word "Angola" does not appear.
  The Foreign Secretary did manage to mention the Soviet Union, but if anything his references to Russia are even more revealing than his failure to refer to Angola. Apart from mentioning Russia two or three times in passing, what he said on page 15 about Britain and the Soviet Union was:
  "In an era of détente the successful efforts we have made to improve Anglo-Soviet relations enable us to play a more constructive part in those multilateral negotiations in which we and the Soviet Union are involved."
  His only other substantive reference appears on page 11 where he says:
  "During our visit to Moscow in February the Prime Minister and Mr. Brezhnev signed an important declaration of common intent to prevent the proliferation of nuclear explosive devices while at the same time promoting the peaceful use of nuclear energy. This was a unique declaration, and has heralded a period of particularly close Anglo-Soviet co-operation."
  That must have made even the Fabians sit up, although no doubt it would have pleased the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, North-East.
  The House would like to know of the tangible results in Angola and Southern Africa of what the Prime Minister claims to be the "unparalleled influence and achievement" in international affairs of his Government and what the Foreign Secretary claims to be a "particularly close" Anglo-Soviet collaboration. Where or when will this unparalleled influence and the particularly close co-operation achieve the departure of the Cuban soldiers and the Soviet advisers from Angola? When will this unparalleled influence and this close co-operation achieve anything at all? We look forward to hearing the replies to these questions from the Minister of State.
  Certainly most hon. Members agree that our prime objective must be to get the Cubans and the Russians out of Angola, but that will not be easy. It is in this sphere perhaps more than any other that Britain's decline in power and influence with the Russians and the Western Alliance is to be most regretted.
  326
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) said, the credibility of the West has been damaged. Practically all my hon. Friends, including my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet, have asked why the Government have taken no action at the United Nations. There should have been the maximum of diplomatic activity. We heard also this afternoon from the Minister of State that the Government tried to get a group statement from Europe a few weeks ago, but they failed, and that, I fear, is another indication of our current lack of influence within the alliance.
  The Minister of State interrupted my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham when my right hon. Friend said that he favoured helping Zaire with supplies and he asked whether my right hon. Friend would favour that course whether or not Zaire wanted it. My right hon. Friend replied very reasonably that he thought that it was a good idea to offer help to Zaire and other countries, a sentiment echoed by one or two of my hon. Friends.
  We are inconvenienced by the Minister of State speaking last. It would have been much more helpful if we could have heard him on some of these matters at the beginning of the debate. I realise that this debate may have been further complicated by the illness of the Foreign Secretary.
  We all agree that the attitude of the moderate African States is crucial and what the Government propose to do, if anything, to help them must be crucial, too. One of the clearest lessons of international affairs since the war is that smaller and poorer countries are much more concerned with local issues than with idealogical matters.
  Below a certain level of wealth, ideological issues have no meaning, let alone importance. And it is vital, as many of my hon. Friends pointed out, that the struggle with Russia should not follow racial lines. If the West becomes identified merely with the whites in Africa and Russia with the blacks, we shall lose and so will the whites in Southern Africa. That is a lesson which Mr. Vorster seems very much to have taken on board. Apart from his incursion into Angola—and I agree that that is a big exception—he has pursued a sensible and

  327
  sustained policy of trying to accommodate the concerns of black Africa with the interests of his own country.
  No doubt South Africa is now using all its influence to achieve agreement in Rhodesia. Certainly all hon. Members this evening are looking for a just settlement in Rhodesia, because we all appreciate that that is vital for everyone—both black and white—in Rhodesia and for the future of Southern Africa.
  Russia's future conduct in Southern Africa will reveal its view of détente. This afternoon the Minister of State agreed that her behaviour in Angola was not consistent with the spirit of détente. One of the main causes of the present troubles and confusions is the fact that détente has tended to mean something quite different in the West from what it means in Russia. In the West many people have taken détente to mean the end of the cold war—a genuine attempt to ease strained relations and to begin to live in peace with the Soviets. In other words, détente has often been seen as an end in itself. The Russians see détente as something very different. To them it is not an end at all. It is merely a means to their end of Soviet aggrandisement and eventual Soviet domination of Europe and the world. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, South (Mr. Sproat) said, the aims of the Soviets have not changed.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) said in his adaptation of Clausewitz, détente to the Soviets is merely the continuation of the cold war by other means. We are all in favour of détente, as my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said the other day, provided it is genuine, but to be genuine it has to be mutual. At present it is not. At present we get the disarmament and the Russians get the détente. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) disagrees with that. He is laughing now, but he could hardly argue that the Russians have been disarming. I understand that he agrees with me. Unless both disarmament and détente are mutual, the situation will deteriorate faster and faster.
  As my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion so forcefully said, there can
  328
  be no détente without effective containment of Soviet imperialism. My hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Critchley) said—and I am sure that it is true—that the Russians regard the world wide balance of forces as having shifted fundamentally against the West. They believe that that is why we support détente and that it is a sign of weakness by the West. It is therefore up to us to demonstrate quite clearly that that is not true and that it is not why we support détente.
  Therefore, we must reverse the decline in Western self-confidence that has taken place over the past few years as a result of Vietnam, Watergate, the economic recession and Angola. No doubt some American reaction after Vietnam and Watergate was inevitable, but that reaction, as manifested by some of the antics, revelations and leaks of Congress, certainly seem excessive. In any case, the rest of the alliance can help America to recover its balance if we in Europe make it plain that we are prepared to play our full part in the defence of Western values.
  General Haig said the other day that the super-Power rôle that the United State was no longer able or willing to play should be taken over collectively by the West. That should be our aim and that was very much what the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) said this afternoon. Unfortunately, the British Government have given a bad example to our allies by down-grading defence. Regrettably, the Government have disregarded the Chancellor's wise warning of 1969, when he was wearing a different hat. It is a familiar quotation, but it bears and will get constant repetition>:
  "once we cut defence expenditure to the extent where our security is imperilled, we have no houses, we have no hospitals, we have no schools. We have a heap of cinders."—[Official Report, 5th March 1969; Vol. 779, c. 551.]
  That was very true, and it has been disregarded by the right hon. Gentleman himself as Chancellor.
  We in the West need to arouse ourselves to a proper awareness of our own inherent strength. Both economically and spiritually we are easily superior. Nowhere else in the world do individuals have the freedom to express their ideas and opinions without fear of arbitrary

  329
  punishment, and nowhere else in the world has an economic system with anything like the same skill and efficiency.
  On the other hand, as my hon. Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr) said, the Russians still need the wall and barbed wire to keep their peoples inside. They deny all freedoms and individiual rights. Dissidents, those with so-called reformist tendencies, are sent to mental institutions. Despite vast expanses of agricultural land, they cannot even feed themselves.
  Therefore, we are stronger, but it is no good being stronger everywhere else if we are weaker militarily. We are quite capable of redressing that balance. Only an effort of will is needed, and we must see that that effort is made.
  10.32 p.m.
  The Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. David Ennals): I am probably unique in being the only Minister in the present Government who has never sat on the Opposition Benches. It gives me a certain advantage, but though it gives me that, it also gives me an excessively jaundiced view of some of the more extreme propositions that I have heard from Opposition Members, and particularly some of those who were Ministers in a previous Conservative Government. I was interested in some of the propositions put forward by the right hon. Members for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) and Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), and by the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Kershaw) and I wondered what they were like when they were Ministers of Her Majesty's Government. They must have been restrained. One thinks just how much easier it is to be sitting on the Opposition Benches than it is to be in Government.
  I cannot say that I admired the speech of the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mr. Gilmour), although I wish that I could say so. He had a good deal of denigration of my right hon. Friends, but I suppose that that is his task. He was decrying also the record of influence and achievement of this country in the world. I was surprised that he did that. As far as Europe is concerned, the decision taken to confirm Britain's membership of the EEC by the support of the public has given us an increased influence in Europe. I believe that our
  330
  relationship with the United States is better and closer than it was at the time that right hon. Gentlemen now of the Opposition were in Government. Our rôle and influence in the Commonwealth is stronger and more significant than it was when right hon. Gentlemen were in Government. I also believe that our influence at the United Nations is far more significant now.
  This debate is concerned with East-West relations. I have listened to the speeches of many Opposition Members, and they might do me the courtesy of listening to my reply. If they do not want to listen they may as well leave the Chamber. I intend to reply to the debate.
  As I have said, the theme of the debate is East-West relations. I shall not follow the right hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham in anticipating the defence debate. I shall concentrate on Southern African issues that have been central in speeches from both sides of the Chamber. In spite of what has been said by Opposition Members, I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) that the most significant world division is not between East and West but between North and South. I hope that we shall have an opportunity to debate those issues before too long.
  There has rightly been some strong denunciation of Soviet policy. There have also been some extravagant statements. I agree with some of the criticisms that have been made. I was impressed by the moving plea of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) on behalf of Jews in the Soviet Union. The Government are not satisfied with the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement. We recognise that the CSCE symbolises a determination to build up more normal relations. It is for all the participants to see that the undertakings that were made in Helsinki are fulfilled. We cannot expect dramatic changes overnight, and especially on Basket III matters that were discussed at the opening of the debate. The Final Act represents the beginning and not the end of the process. The House will know that there will be a review conference when we shall consider and take note of the extent to which countries have fully respected the Agreement.

  331
  I agree with those who have said that the Soviet Union cannot expect to pursue policies which run contrary to the spirit of détente and at the same time expect the concept of détente to emerge unscathed. Of course, it would be folly to take the view, as has been taken by some Opposition Members, that the advantages of achieving a greater measure of co-operation with the Soviet Union and its friends are one-sided. It seems that some are opposed to the whole concept of détente. It seems that détente has become a dirty word on the Conservative Benches. I believe that it is in our interest to seek closer relations on a wide range of issues.
  I believe that disarmament is a good example. Action to halt the spread of nuclear weapons is a good example of co-operation with the Soviet Union which has been greatly enhanced since my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister visited Moscow a year ago. Britain and the Soviet Union, together with the United States, are the depository powers of a series of international treaties designed to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons. In his speech to the United Nations Assembly—I believe that this was another important initiative—in September last year my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State proposed that all non-nuclear weapon States, whether or not parties to the non-proliferation treaty, should have their full fuel cycle under IAEA safeguards. We have therefore tabled at the Board of Governors of the International Atomic Energy Agency a draft resolution of which the Soviet Union is one of a number of co-sponsors. Together with other Governments we have had useful and co-operative discussions about the supply of nuclear materials and technology. I believe that we must build on that and any other area of disarmament.
  The draft treaty banning environmental modification for hostile purposes which is now before the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament is another good example of the practical co operation—
  Mr. Cormack: Will the right hon. Gentleman concede that it is possibly in the interests of the Soviet Union to cut down on nuclear armaments while build-
  332
  ing up conventional armaments, including submarines, at such an enormous rate? The nuclear deterrent does at least stand for something today.
  Mr. Ennals: As the hon. Gentleman knows, we are concerned not only with stopping the spread of nuclear weapons to other countries, but with conventional weapons in MBFR. As my right hon. Friend has said, not much progress has been made, but it is an area in which we shall continue to make efforts.
  I do not agree with those who have suggested from the Opposition benches that détente implies a concept of ideological truce. That has never been our concept of détente. The Russians, for their part, have made it clear that détente has nothing to do with the ideological struggle which they regard as an objective fact of international life. There is certainly to be no armistice in the war of ideas. Only today Mr. Brezhnev is reported to have said that it is quite clear that détente
  "is concerned with inter-State relations.…Détente does not in the slightest abolish, not can it abolish or change, the laws of class struggle."
  We must therefore make it our business to ensure that we prosecute our half of that struggle as firmly as we can, and I can see no reason why we should fight shy of it. We must go on arguing our case for our Western ideas and for human rights and freedoms, just as we expect them to argue their case.
  Mr. Blaker: How is the Minister of State proposing that we should pursue the war of ideas in the Soviet Union? Does he think that the 40 copies of the Financial Times on sale in Moscow will be enough?
  Mr. Ennals: I wish I had not given way to the hon. Gentleman. I hope they will be pushed up to 50 by next week. If this is the level of debate, I shall know when to give way again.
  I want to move on to the central issue in the debate, which has centred around the dangers of a Communist expansion in Southern Africa.
  Mr. Amery: The right hon. Gentleman said that some of us on this side of the House were beginning to think détente was a dirty word. Appeasement was a very honourable word before

  333
  Munich. It became a dirty word. I have a feeling that détente, since Angola, is coming into the same category as appeasement. The right hon. Gentleman and his right hon. Friends should be very careful not to get too caught up with it.
  Mr. Ennals: When the right hon. Gentleman was out of the Chamber, one of his hon. Friends was arguing precisely the opposite case. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will read Hansard for the reply.
  I want to move on to one of the central issues of the debate—the dangers of Communist expansion in Southern Africa. Let us recognise that up to now the Communist Powers have not had much success in subjugating the people of Africa. Even those countries which are heavily dependent upon Soviet support have proved themselves to be African first and Communist second. Sometimes African leaders have kicked over the traces and sent their Communist advisers packing with a good deal of independence, which some of us may have respected. But, as hon. Members have pointed out, we have potentially a very different situation following the massive Russian and Cuban support for the MPLA in Angola.
  There are those who say that we should not underestimate the ability of the Angolan leaders to disengage themselves from dependence on the Soviet Union when the military conflict is at an end. I hope they are right. I believe that Angola will want to pursue a policy of non-alignment and non-intervention and that the Angolans will find themselves embarrassed by a heavy Soviet and Cuban presence. Certainly it will be our wish to discourage them from over-dependence upon the Soviet Union.
  I have to tell right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite that I do not accept for a moment that the situation we are describing in Angola is in any way similar to that of the victims of Nazi aggression during the late 1930s, as implied by some of their speeches. Elsewhere in the Third World the Communists, and particularly the Soviet Union, have in the past gained from a willingness to arm and equip liberation movements which would usually have preferred western aid. This is still their great attraction for
  334
  politicians in areas struggling for independence, despite the fact that much of the developing world looks to the Western Powers for help in its economic development.
  In Angola the prospect of taking in the Russians and the Cubans as permanent lodgers must be very far from attractive. But the power of choice still lies with the landlord and not with the tenant.
  There are serious political problems in Southern Africa which must be squarely faced if the opportunities for Communist exploitation are to be reduced. One has to ask why it is that progress has been made by the Communists in different parts of Africa. The situation in Namibia, Rhodesia and South Africa is both a challenge to African nationalists who demand an end to White minority rule and an opportunity for those countries which are ready to supply the arms and troops to support the liberation movements. Whatever the arguments may be about whether the chicken comes before the egg, it cannot be denied that the continuation of white minority rule in Southern Africa has encouraged guerrilla activity and external intervention. Clearly the Communists do not intend to miss this opportunity. They have made that clear.
  Indeed, Pravda said the other day that the MPLA is an
  "important link in the national liberation movement on the African continent"
  and that the
  "strengthening of popular power in Angola"
  was
  "a stimulus for the development of the liberation struggle of the people of Namibia, the South African Republic and Zimbawe".
  A similar message came from Havana yesterday.
  What action can we take? This has been one of the central issues in our debate. First, we can condemn, as we have done, external intervention. The Soviet Union must be made to see that the Western Powers cannot be expected to play the détente game if they, for their part, break the rules of the game. Secondly, we must use all our influence to bring about a change in the political situation in Southern Africa which at present provides a challenge to the Western world as much as to the Communists.
  Mr. Lee: While my right hon. Friend is dealing with that, and so as to ensure that the Soviet Union does not get a gratuitous trick, can we have an assurance that Lord Greenhill is telling Mr. Smith to get out?
  Mr. Ennals: That is not the purpose of Lord Greenhill's visit to Rhodesia. I will deal with that in a moment.
  We must not appear, as some Tory Members seem to appear, to be protectors of white minorities. As long as there is no progress towards majority rule in Rhodesia, as long as South Africa practises her policies of apartheid—and I was fascinated by the support which the hon. Member for Havant and Waterloo (Mr. Lloyd) gave to this—and maintains her unlawful occupation of Namibia, there will be the threat not only of guerrilla activity but of external intervention.
  I come to the Angola issue. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) argued that the struggle being waged in Africa today is ideological, not racial. That may be their view. It is certainly not the view of the vast majority of the African States represented in the Organisation of African Unity. Of course, some, especially Zambia and Zaire, are genuinely concerned about the Soviet and Cuban presence in Angola and its possible repercussions elsewhere.
  The right hon. Member for Farnham spoke about Zambia and Zaire. We recognise that the economies of both countries have suffered gravely as a result of the dislocation caused by the Angolan war. I have in mind particularly the Benguela railway which is largely a British-owned company. The railway carries the greater part of the copper exports of Zambia and Zaire as well as much of their imports. It has been closed to international traffic since August and this has had a serious effect on the economies of those countries. Naturally we are giving this problem close attention. I can assure the House that we are taking a constructive view on the question of aid to Zambia and we have already given assistance to Zaire.
  Mr. Robert Hughes: Can the Minister say something about how quickly a diplomatic mission will be established in
  336
  Luanda? Can he also say what is the Government's attitude towards bilateral aid for Angola, or multilateral aid through the EEC, or civil aid to those parts of Southern Africa which need it?
  Mr. Ennals: We have already said that we want to establish diplomatic relations. Just as soon as the Government in Luanda are ready, we shall appoint a diplomatic mission. As for aid, some relief supplies are already being sent and we are ready to discuss with the Government of Angola the help they will undoubtedly need in the build-up of their country.
  We seem to suppose that what happened in Angola happened all of a sudden. We should not delude ourselves. Much of what went wrong was due not to ideology but to the long period of colonial rule by the Caetano regime, to the pent-up frustrations of the liberation movements as they saw themselves being left behind and dominated from Europe while other countries moved towards independence.
  A bad situation was made worse by South African intervention. I was glad that the two Opposition Front Bench speakers recognised the mistake made by South Africa. I believe that South African intervention in Angola changed the whole view of black Africa towards external intervention in that country. It gave the Communists the moral cover for their intervention, because it could be represented as making common cause with Black Africa's deeply-felt hostility towards South Africa's racial system.
  Mr. Maurice Macmillan: Is the Minister seriously suggesting that this move by South Africa had any effect on the attitude of, say, President Kaunda of Zambia, considering that South Africa had been supporting the Zambian economy when it was selling copper at a loss for months, if not years?
  Mr. Ennals: It is not for me in this House to attempt to speak for President Kaunda.
  I want to turn now to Rhodesia. Many hon. Members have expressed anxious concern about the possibility of a conflagration in Rhodesia, which could bring unprecedented hardship and suffering to people there who are of British stock or who have close ties with Britain. I

  337
  am sure that that concern is shared in the country at large. It is a concern that we extend also to the African population of Rhodesia, who have already been denied full rights as citizens and who will suffer just as much as the Europeans from bloodshed.
  Whatever our views about the responsibility for the situation in Rhodesia—I have no doubt where mine lie—no one can possibly want events to take the turn which some hon. Members have predicted. The question which we should be asking ourselves is how best we can serve the interests of the millions of British subjects of all races who will suffer if there is warfare in Rhodesia.
  We do them no service by talking at the eleventh hour in terms of some sort of military intervention designed to fend off a guerrilla incursion assisted by foreign forces. Questions of military credibility apart, to do so now could only aggravate African suspicions of the basic good faith of our entire approach to the Rhodesian problem. If we could not contemplate an opposed intervention in Rhodesia in 1965 in order to suppress or forestall UDI, how could we seriously contemplate one now? To pose the question is to answer it. The truth is that we could not do so then and we cannot do so now.
  The best hope for all the people of Rhodesia must even now lie in a peaceful solution of the underlying political problem which is the reason for their country's isolation from the international community.
  I believe that realism obliges us to acknowledge that there may be great difficulty now in preventing a breakdown in the search for a settlement. But we can and must continue to do everything in our power to promote a peaceful solution. We must hold ourselves ready to make practical contributions not only towards trying to bring about a settlement but towards sustaining and implementing such a settlement if the opportunity arises. I believe that very much will depend on the response which Mr. Smith gives to the visit of Lord Greenhill, who is due to arrive tomorrow morning in Salisbury.
  In considering our reactions to these developments in Southern Africa, we must recognise that the Africans will not welcome a further extension, as some hon.
  338
  Members have suggested, of the East-West conflict into Africa. As the EEC statement, which I am glad has been welcomed on both sides of the House, indicated, they want to conduct their own affairs. They want to maintain a relationship of co-operation with the West and especially with the EEC, and I have no reason to believe that this will not apply in the case of Angola, too. Most of all, they want to see an end to white domination, racial discrimination and privilege.
  Several hon. Members suggested that NATO should play an active rôle in Southern Africa with a view to containing what they described as the "Communist threat" to the area. I think that this is a theme which was developed by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion and by his right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham. They seemed to be calling for a NATO force to be sent to the scene, with land and air forces on the spot and naval forces stationed just outside. The right hon. Member for Farnham went so far as to call for an end to economic sanctions against Rhodesia and a resumption of the supply of arms to South Africa. Others suggested a renegotiation of the Simonstown Agreement.
  Really, have the Opposition thought of the effect of their policies on the people of Africa, where the hatred of apartheid is very deep and is seen by the Africans as a far more offensive challenge to them even than Communism?
  What is the sense of the proposal that was made for NATO involvement? NATO is a defensive alliance between nations which have agreed to respond collectively to attack on any one of them. It has not been set up to act as a world policeman. It has not been asked by the continent of Africa to act in their defence. NATO has not been called upon to do so. It is not an organisation for military intervention outside the territories of its members. This effectively precludes the involvement of NATO as an organisation in the affairs of Southern Africa, even if that were welcome to the nations concerned.
  Members of NATO are nevertheless concerned about the implications of Soviet and Cuban involvement in Angola for the spirit of détente. I am aware that

  339
  the Russians have argued that there is no connection between their activities in Angola and détente itself. For our part, we have made it clear that we do not accept this thesis. We have condemned their involvement, and we have called for it to end. In our view, the spirit of détente places upon us all an obligation to behave with restraint and responsibility. That applies to the Soviet Union. It applies to right hon. and hon. Members in this House, too. To disregard that principle could be damaging to the spirit of détente to which the Government rightly attach considerable importance.
  Mr. Donald Coleman (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  10.59 p.m.
  Mr. John Page: We have listened to a really disgraceful
  340
  speech by this Minister. He is the master of double talk, and it is no wonder that he has been deserted by his kith and kin, from every other Ministry and his own, in the present Government.
  Just a moment ago, he said that this Government would not react to an incursion into Rhodesia by guerrillas even if such an invasion were supported by foreign troops. That is a most extraordinary statement. I should think that this is the first time in history that a Minister of the Crown has said that a Crown Colony would not be supported even if it were invaded. It is a statement the Minister should have to withdraw and for which the Government must answer.
  It being Eleven o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put, pursuant to the Order of the House this day.

  ARMED FORCES BILL
  Ordered,
  That Mr. John Watkinson be discharged from the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill and that Mr. Paul B. Rose be added to the Committee.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  STANDING ORDERS
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Unless there is any objection, I propose to put the three Standing Order amendments as one Question.
  Ordered,
  That Standing Order No. 60 (Constitution of standing committees) be amended as follows:
  Paragraph (2), after 'business)', insert 'or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures?.
  That Standing Order No. 62 (Nomination of standing committees) be amended as follows:
  Paragraph (1), after 'business)', insert 'or measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures'.
  That Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instrument, &c.) be amended as follows:
  Paragraph 3(ii), after 'motion', insert 'to the effect'.
  At end add—
  ?(6) The provisions of this Order shall apply to measures under the Church of England Assembly (Powers) Act 1919 and instruments made under such measures as if such measures and such instruments were statutory instruments; and the notice referred to in paragraph 3(ii) of this Order may, in respect of such measures and instruments, have been given by any Member.'.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  VIOLENCE IN THE FAMILY
  Ordered,
  That a Select Committee be appointed to consider the extent, nature and causes of the problems of families where there is violence; and to make recommendations.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee do consist of Thirteen Members.
  And the Committee was accordingly nominated of Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mr. Michael Brotherton, Mrs. Joyce Butler, Sir William Elliott, Mrs. Winifred Ewing, Mr. Bruce
  342
  George, Mr. Patrick Mayhew, Mrs. Millie Miller, Mrs. Ann Taylor, Mr. Cyril D. Townsend, Mrs. Audrey Wise and Sir George Young.
  Ordered,
  That the Committee have power to send for persons, papers and records; to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House; to adjourn from place to place; to report from time to time; and to report Minutes of Evidence from time to time.
  Ordered,
  That Three be the Quorum of the Committee.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  ADJOURNMENT
  Motion made, and Question proposed. That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]

  TEA EXPORTS (DUTY-FREE SHOPS)
  11.0 p.m.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: Having sat in the Chamber since 4 o'clock hoping to catch the eye of the Chair, I take a crumb of comfort from being able to raise on the Adjournment a subject of some importance particularly affecting one of my constituents. It is a matter of principle, the question whether the Government are genuinely intent upon supporting small exporting firms in accordance with statements often made by many Ministers.
  The question is whether a small company should be permitted to sell its products through the outlets of the duty-free shops at London Airport. One of my constituents has asked me to raise it as he is an executive in a company which has sought this outlet for its products. The firm is the Tea Planters and Importers Company, a well-known and well-established company of great repute. It has an international reputation for high-quality blended teas, which it buys in the market place in Calcutta, Colombo or Canton.
  The company's present exports amount to about £250,000 each year. In the main they are the result of a mail order business which the company has built up among customers who return to it after having sampled its products. The company is confident of substantially increased business if it can have permission to sell its products through the

  343
  duty-free shops, particularly at London Airport, because there is no doubt that if the returning travellers buy the products at that point of sale, there is a strong likelihood of repeat orders in the years ahead. As one who has sampled the company's products and who uses Heathrow Airport frequently, I can confirm that the products are very acceptable and certainly suitable for sale through that outlet.
  After the management decided that that was a sensible course, it naturally approached the concessionaires at Heathrow—Hills Airport Shops Ltd.—who investigated and, after considering the question with great care, decided that here was a product likely to sell in substantial quantity. They agreed that they would like to display these blended teas. It was then necessary to approach the British Airports Authority for permission, as it still has control over what is sold in the duty-free shops. The Authority wanted to be convinced that the selling price of the products would be less than the equivalent sterling price at which they were available abroad. It was satisfied with the company's answers and the project thus had the support of the concessionaires and of the Authority.
  As a result, this small company received an initial order worth £1,900 as the start of a three-month trial period. This was subject to the consent of the Customs and Excise. I am sorry to inform the House that the Government, through the Customs and Excise, stepped in to prevent the orders being fulfilled, saying that permission would not be given for the products to be sold through these outlets.
  At this stage, my constituents asked me to take up the matter and I have been in correspondence with the Minister of State, whom I am glad to see here tonight. He told me in a letter in November that the Government were relying on the Customs and Excise Act 1952 for the ruling. Apparently the Customs and Excise have the right to prohibit the sale of any goods to which they take exception through these outlets.
  I understand that the basis of the refusal was that non-dutiable goods should not be sold through duty-free shops—that any product which does not
  344
  attract duty in this country is not suitable for sale in these outlets. But when the 1952 Act was introduced duty-free shops did not exist. It was not designed to take account of the sort of situation I have been describing.
  The Minister of State was inclined to help the company and he suggested to me that it should endeavour to sell its products through other outlets in the departure lounge. In effect, this meant the company had to try to sell tea through W. H. Smith and Son Ltd as this is virtually the only other outlet in the lounge. It must be evident that this is totally unsuitable, even if W. H. Smith was prepared to sell tea on its book shelves.
  If it is so important that the only goods available in duty-free shops should be those which incur duty in this country, who does the Minister think will be buying these products? The people who spend money in these shops are those returning home from this country. When I go abroad, I do not usually spend money in the duty-free shop at Heathrow, but rather in the shops of airports abroad as I leave them. The object of these shops is to collect travellers' loose change in local currency which would be of no use when they got home.
  If one accepts that travellers returning home are those most likely to purchase these products, it is relevant to point out that the products incur duty in foreign countries. The tea would incur a duty of 20 per cent. in Norway, 17·65 per cent. in Sweden, 15 per cent. in Denmark, 12·4 per cent. in Finland and in Germany it would have a tax of 4·15 deutschemarks per kilo plus a 5·5 per cent. tax. In the Netherlands it would incur a duty of 4 per cent. and in France 7 per cent., and so on.
  On this basis the company was able to convince the British Airports Authority that its prices at Heathrow would be less than the sterling equivalent of the price at which the product would be available overseas. Thus, the product incurs duty for those people who are likely to purchase it, and thus it must be an attractive product for anyone who is departing from the country.
  I wish to refer back to the Customs and Excise Act, 1952, on which I understand the Minister is basing his case. From meetings with Customs and Excise

  345
  it has become apparent that Customs and Excise use Section 80 of the Act for their case. The case is built on flimsy grounds because Section 80 states:
  "The Commissioners may approve, for such periods and subject to such conditions, as they think fit, places of security for the deposit, keeping and securing.…subject to such conditions and restrictions as aforesaid, of goods for exportation".
  I maintain that anything sold to a traveller leaving this country is as good as any item which is exported from this country to an overseas market.
  If the Minister does not accept that proposition, Section 80(4) states:
  "The Commissioners may at any time for reasonable cause revoke or vary the terms of their approval of any warehouse under this section."
  So there is plenty of latitude whereby Customs and Excise can give permission.
  The case is not founded upon law and it is perfectly possible, instead of the Commissioners using Section 80 to make an administrative decision, for them to designate the associated warehouses as export points and to operate them under Sections 47 and 49 of the Act. Section 49 deals with the exportation of goods not liable to duty but for which export documentation is required. That is an easy way for the Minister to give his permission for these products to be sold at London Airport and other duty-free shops.
  A matter of principle is involved here, not a matter of law. I defy the Minister to point to any part of the Act which specifically prohibits him from giving his permission to the company. If the Government are determined and genuine in their desire to help small exporters, there is no reason why the Minister should refuse consent. He may have a brief in front of him prepared by Customs and Excise, but that is of no consequence.
  At present this company is exporting £250,000 worth of tea a year. If the Minister says "Yes" to the company tonight, there is no doubt that that figure will substantially increase. That would help our balance of payments.
  I ask the Minister not to shield behind the Act, because it is not sufficient a shield to prevent his giving his consent. I ask the Minister to discard his brief
  346
  and to say that he will support this company in its efforts to increase its exports.
  11.15 p.m.
  The Minister of State, Treasury (Mr. Denzil Davies): I am sorry to say that I cannot go along with the hon. Gentleman's invitation to discard my brief. However, I have some sympathy with his constituent, who is an employee of this company, about the arrangements for a retail outlet for the sale of high-quality teas to departing passengers at the airports. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the question of principle. Unfortunately, as in so many of these cases, there are one or two, or possibly more, conflicting principles. We adhere to the principle of helping exporters. Unfortunately, another principle is involved which we have to balance against it.
  Perhaps I should first point out that there are, of course, two areas in the airport where sales to outgoing passengers can be made. First, there is the general concourse area, before the passenger has passed through Customs, immigration and security controls. Secondly, there is the departure lounge when he is on the air side of those controls.
  The establishment of sales facilities in the concourse area raises no special problem about Customs or security controls and would be a matter simply for negotiations with the airport authority. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we are not preventing the company from selling its product in the concourse area. Indeed, many other products are sold in that area.
  The company wishes to have a facility in the departure lounge, and it is this desire which gives rise to the problem. From the point of view of the security of an airport—and in these days, unfortunately, it is necessary to think not only of security against evasion of Customs duties but of the physical safety of aircraft and travellers—there must be a firm boundary between the part of the airport which is on the air side of the controls, to which only limited access is permitted, and the part which is on the land side of the controls, which is open to the general public. Close control must be maintained over the movement of goods and of persons between one side and the other.
  Mr. Robert Taylor: The British Airports Authority gave its permission for the sale of these goods. Therefore, it must follow that the British Airports Authority has not raised an objection on the ground of security.
  Mr. Davies: I was making a general observation. I accept entirely what the hon. Gentleman has said. We are concerned with the security on the air side, which involves not only the security against evasion of Customs duties but the security of aircraft passengers. This means that there have to be limits on the sales activities which can be carried on in the departure lounge of an international airport. I shall refer to these two types of activities because the hon. Gentleman has mentioned them.
  First, if, as at most major airports, there is a duty-free shop in the departure lounge, tobacco, wines and spirits and other goods are sold free of duty and value added tax. Secondly, whether or not there is a duty-free shop, there will be light refreshments and facilities for the sale of newspapers, periodicals and some other goods which passengers may require for their comfort or convenience on their journey. The goods sold through these facilities are not normally subject to duty and are not sold free of VAT.
  I turn to the legislation mentioned by the hon. Gentleman. I make it clear that Customs take the view—I do not think this can be challenged—that a duty-free shop is, legally, what is known as a Customs bonded warehouse. It is an essential part of the Customs arrangements for control over bonded warehouses—including duty-free shops—that they are places for handling goods which, though liable to duty or tax, have not in fact borne it.
  A bonded warehouse cannot be used for goods which are not subject to any duty or tax. The control arrangements are based on the principle that dutiable and non-dutiable goods should not be mixed. It is essential to have controls to ensure that goods sold in duty-free shops which duties and VAT have not been paid are duly exported and are not improperly directed to home use. I do not accept what the hon. Member said about passengers at an airport not buying from a duty-free shop when they are
  348
  outgoing. Some incoming passengers buy from the duty-free shop, but not all passengers buy only when they come into the country and not when they leave.
  The tea which the Tea Planters and Importers Company wishes to sell in the airport departure lounge is not subject to duty of any kind and is zero-rated from valued added tax. I took note of what the lion. Member said about the tax position in other countries. Because of the tax position and because of the need to separate dutiable goods from duty-free goods, Customs had to say that they could not agree to the tea being taken into a duty-free shop for sale there. Most people expect in a duty-free shop to buy goods which are dutiable, but from which the duty has been removed.
  The Customs would not rule out the possibility of the company making arrangements to supply its tea through one of the sale facilities in the departure lounge other than the duty-free shop. We are not therefore preventing the sale of this commodity. We are merely saying that from the point of view of the Customs we cannot agree to its sale in the duty-free shop. The hon. Member mentioned the sale of tea through W. H. Smith. It is a matter for arrangement between the company and the British Airports Authority to determine where the goods can be sold on the air side of the departure lounge.
  I recognise that this solution may not be altogether satisfactory for the company. I should add, however, that the Tea Planters and Importers Company is by no means the only company to have made a case recently to be allowed additional facilities to make sales or provide services to passengers in the departure lounge at our international airports. Other suggestions have been put forward, for example, for making use of the departure lounge as a sales point for other luxury kinds of foodstuffs; and there have been representations on behalf of organisations in the travel industry which would wish to be able to make a service available to travellers on the air side of the official controls.
  It would obviously not be possible for arrangements to be made for the sale of tea without paying regard to the interests of other traders who might wish to have

  349
  similar facilities. This leads to the problem not only of the physical limits on the facilities which could be made available in a departure lounge, but the larger problem that if the number of organisations permitted to have personnel and goods moving to and from the air side of the official controls is increased, the more difficult becomes the task of the control authorities.
  The hon. Member will, however, be interested to know that the Customs and Excise have recently set in hand a review of their own policy as regards the carrying on of business activities on the
  350
  air side of the controls. This review will take a little time to complete, because it is not just a Customs matter—it will call for consultation with airport authorities and the other official interests—and I cannot predict the outcome of the review. But I can give an assurance that the interests of the hon. Member's constituents, as of other organisations with similar interests, will be kept in mind in the course of the review.
  Question put and agreed to
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes past Eleven o'clock.

  CHANNEL TUNNEL
  CHANNEL TUNNEL
  WEST GERMAN CHANCELLOR (TALKS)
  WEST GERMAN CHANCELLOR (TALKS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (VISITS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  ECONOMIC AFFAIRS (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)
  NEDC
  NEDC
  EEC HEADS OF STATE
  EEC HEADS OF STATE
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  PRESS (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  CZECHOSLOVAKIA
  TUC AND CBI
  TUC AND CBI
  ENERGY PRICES
  ENERGY PRICES
  TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  TAXATION (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  BANK OF ENGLAND
  BANK OF ENGLAND
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  CENTRAL POLICY REVIEW STAFF
  SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STATE SECURITY
  SOUTH AFRICAN BUREAU OF STATE SECURITY
  ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS
  ECCLESIASTICAL APPOINTMENTS
  GAMBLING (ROYAL COMMISSION)
  GAMBLING (ROYAL COMMISSION)
INDUSTRY
  paper and Board Industry
  paper and Board Industry
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Waste Paper (Recycling)
  Waste Paper (Recycling)
  Chrysler (United Kingdom) Ltd.
  Chrysler (United Kingdom) Ltd.
  Zip Fasteners
  Zip Fasteners
  Shipbuilding
  Shipbuilding
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Departmental Publicity Costs
  Departmental Publicity Costs
  Price Restraint (Costs)
  Price Restraint (Costs)
TRADE
  Companies Acts
  Companies Acts
  Paper
  Paper
  Saudi Arabia
  Saudi Arabia
  Insurance Companies
  Insurance Companies
  Cars (Japan)
  Cars (Japan)
  Imports
  Imports
  PVC Imports
  PVC Imports
  Footwear
  Footwear
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Medical Students
  Medical Students
  Research
  Research
  Tate Gallery
  Tate Gallery
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
DEFENCE
  BBC (External Services)
  BBC (External Services)
  Warships
  Warships
  Simonstown
  Simonstown
  Dockyards
  Dockyards
  Missiles
  Missiles
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Flatfish Stocks
  Flatfish Stocks
  Tractor Manufacturers
  Tractor Manufacturers
  Potatoes
  Potatoes
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
  Tubercular Cattle
  Tubercular Cattle
  Farm Tenancies
  Farm Tenancies
  Hill Farm Compensation Payments
  Hill Farm Compensation Payments
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Sierra Leone
  Sierra Leone
  Zambia (Detained British Lecturers)
  Zambia (Detained British Lecturers)
  Rhodesia
  Rhodesia
  Soviet Union (Newspaper Correspondents)
  Soviet Union (Newspaper Correspondents)
  Soviet Union
  Soviet Union
  Passports
  Passports
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Dwellings
  Dwellings
SCOTLAND
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Erskine Bridge
  Erskine Bridge
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Hill Farmers' Compensatory Payments
  Hill Farmers' Compensatory Payments
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Police (Complaints)
  Police (Complaints)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Building Societies (Interest Rate)
  Building Societies (Interest Rate)
  Public Sector Costs and Prices
  Public Sector Costs and Prices
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Mortgages (Tax Relief)
  Public Expenditure (Scotland)
  Public Expenditure (Scotland)
  Tax Arrears
  Tax Arrears
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Double Taxation Agreements
  Double Taxation Agreements
  Tax Yields
  Tax Yields
  Investment
  Investment
  Budget Surpluses and Deficits
  Budget Surpluses and Deficits
  Gross National Product
  Gross National Product
  Exports
  Exports
  Inflation
  Inflation
  Occupational Pensions
  Occupational Pensions
ENVIRONMENT
  Homeless Persons (Warrington)
  Homeless Persons (Warrington)
  British Railways Board
  British Railways Board
  Goods Traffic
  Goods Traffic
  Railways
  Railways
  M25 (M16)
  M25 (M16)
  M62 (Farmers' Compensation Claim)
  M62 (Farmers' Compensation Claim)
  West Lancashire District Council
  West Lancashire District Council
  Footpaths and Roads Protection
  Footpaths and Roads Protection
  Parking
  Parking
  Road Lighting (Costs)
  Road Lighting (Costs)
  Local Councillors' Allowances
  Local Councillors' Allowances
  Castle Point District Council (Housing Scheme)
  Castle Point District Council (Housing Scheme)
  A5 (Roman Settlement)
  A5 (Roman Settlement)
  Windscreens
  Windscreens
  Local Government Expenditure
  Local Government Expenditure
  Parcels Carriage
  Parcels Carriage
  Eastern Regional Sports Council
  Eastern Regional Sports Council
  Motor Insurance
  Motor Insurance
  M54 (Telford)
  M54 (Telford)
  Noise Advisory Council (Exhibition)
  Noise Advisory Council (Exhibition)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Licensing Law
  Licensing Law
  Disaster Unit
  Disaster Unit
  Fines
  Fines
  Arrested Persons
  Arrested Persons
  Judges' Rules
  Judges' Rules
  Mr. Maurice O'Mahoney
  Mr. Maurice O'Mahoney
  Prisoners
  Prisoners
  Mr. Maurice O'Mahoney
  Mr. Maurice O'Mahoney
  Immigrants
  Immigrants
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
WALES
  Smallholdings
  Smallholdings
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Frauds and Abuses
  Frauds and Abuses
  Development Commission
  Development Commission
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Doctors
  Doctors
  Medical Schools
  Medical Schools
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Deaf Persons
  Deaf Persons
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Benefit Payments
  Benefit Payments
  Hospital Building
  Hospital Building
  Energy Conservation
  Energy Conservation
  Hospital Beds
  Hospital Beds
  National Health Service
  National Health Service
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Supplementary Benefit Appeal Tribunals
  Barton, Oxford
  Barton, Oxford
  Tobacco Substitutes
  Tobacco Substitutes
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Hospitals (Complaints)
  Representation of the People Act 1948
  Representation of the People Act 1948
  Social Workers
  Social Workers
  Violence in Marriage (Select Committee)
  Violence in Marriage (Select Committee)
  Grovelands Hospital, Southgate
  Grovelands Hospital, Southgate
  Road Accidents (Cost)
  Road Accidents (Cost)
  Dental Treatment (Schoolchildren)
  Dental Treatment (Schoolchildren)
  Heating Costs and Allowances
  Heating Costs and Allowances
  One-Parent Families
  One-Parent Families
  Child Poverty Action Group (Report)
  Child Poverty Action Group (Report)
  Family Allowances
  Family Allowances
  Mobility Allowance
  Mobility Allowance
  Aliens
  Aliens
  Wives
  Wives
  Motor Industry Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Motor Industry Workers (Unemployment Benefit)
  Benefits
  Benefits
  Disabled Persons
  Disabled Persons
  Pay Beds
  Pay Beds
  Death Grant
  Death Grant
  Pornography
  Pornography
  Boarding-Out Allowances
  Boarding-Out Allowances
  Pneumoconiosis
  Pneumoconiosis
  Homeless Persons (Cleaves Case)
  Homeless Persons (Cleaves Case)
  Republic of Ireland
  Republic of Ireland
  Local and Health Authorities (Joint Schemes)
  Local and Health Authorities (Joint Schemes)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Disabled Persons (Telephones)
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  Mentally Handicapped Children
  District Management Teams (Minutes of Meetings)
  District Management Teams (Minutes of Meetings)
  Hypothermia
  Hypothermia
  Invalidity Pension
  Invalidity Pension
  Skelmersdale New Town (Hospital)
  Skelmersdale New Town (Hospital)
  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Health Authorities (Finance)
  Spectacles
  Spectacles
  Elderly Persons (North-East Essex)
  Elderly Persons (North-East Essex)
  Private Patients
  Private Patients
  Herts and Essex Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Herts and Essex Hospital (Maternity Unit)
  Family Fund
  Family Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  National Insurance Fund
  Geriatric Beds
  Geriatric Beds
  Sterilisation
  Sterilisation
ENERGY
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Select Committee Report)
  North Sea Oil and Gas (Select Committee Report)
  Fuel Prices
  Fuel Prices
  Inflation (North Sea Oil Equipment)
  Inflation (North Sea Oil Equipment)
  Oil Prices
  Oil Prices
  Pensioners
  Pensioners
  Energy Bill
  Energy Bill
  Opencast Workings (Blight Compensation)
  Opencast Workings (Blight Compensation)
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
EMPLOYMENT
  Industrial Tribunals
  Industrial Tribunals
  "Safety Representatives and Safety Committees"
  "Safety Representatives and Safety Committees"
  Mercenaries
  Mercenaries
  European Community
  European Community
  Educational Establishments (Health and Safety)
  Educational Establishments (Health and Safety)
  Wales
  Wales
  Clothing, Textiles and Footwear
  Clothing, Textiles and Footwear
  Prices Index
  Prices Index
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Fatal Accidents
  Fatal Accidents

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

BRUNEI AND UN RESOLUTION 3424
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will consult with the Sultan of Brunei regarding the implementation of the resolution of the General Assembly of the United Nations affirming the right of Brunei to self-determination and independence and asking Britain to facilitate democratic elections following the lifting of the ban on political Parties and the return of political refugees.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, we have transmittted to the Sultan of Brunei Resolution No. 3424 of the General Assembly. However, Brunei is a sovereign State in treaty relationship with the United Kingdom. We have no responsibility for its internal affairs, but we have made our view on participatory government known to the Sultan, and continue to do so. A formal review of the treaty is now proceeding at the request of Her Majesty's Government.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, while thanking the Minister and welcoming his reply, as I do very often, may I ask him this supplementary question? Although Brunei is internally self-governing, has not the United Kingdom very considerable responsibility, not only in view of the past, but because so many of its officers are now active in the administration of Brunei? Is it not the case that there have previously been consultations, and is my noble friend aware that one's
620
hope is that the consultations would now lead to a democratic society in that country?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am very grateful to my noble friend for the concluding remarks in his supplementary question, and I warmly join with him in his hope that Brunei will move steadily, and indeed quickly, to democratic institutions. As to our responsibilities, as my noble friend knows, Brunei has never been a colony and is not a colony in relation to the United Kingdom. We have certain limited responsibilties there by treaty, not through rights or otherwise of colonisation. As to our influence, I would say that to some extent in the last few years we have been able to influence the Brunei Government in the direction of a phased release of political detainees.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, will the Minister bear in mind that in 1970, when a democratic Opposition secured all the elected seats, Parliament was dissolved, and that since then there has been no democracy in the territory at all? In the negotiations with the Sultan, will Her Majesty's Government do their utmost to secure that democratic liberties and human rights are gained there?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I would not markedly dissent from the first part of my noble friend's supplementary question; and to the second part of it I say again, "Yes".
The Earl of SELIKIRK: My Lords, may I ask the Government whether there is any sign of rapprochement between the Government of Brunei and the Government of Malaysia?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; I would express a cautious optimism as to the improvement of relations between these two countries. I had a recent opportunity to talk to the Sultan and, indeed, to Ministers in the Malaysian Government, when I put Her Majesty's Government's view that nothing can be solved or improved in this area except on the basis of peaceful agreement. I am bound to say that I was gratified by the response in both capitals to the suggestions I made.

TIVERTON AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL
2.41 p.m.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government why a decision has been confirmed by the South-Western Regional Health Authority to terminate all tonsillectomy operations at the Tiverton and District Hospital, greatly to the inconvenience of local people, when that hospital has had an unblemished record of successful operations with no failures over a period of very many years.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the decision was not one for the South-western Regional Health Authority. It was taken by the Exeter Health District management team, and subsequently confirmed by the Devon Area Health Authority. It was motivated by Departmental and regional guidance on ear, nose and throat services, with particular reference to the safety of patients.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that there is a widespread feeling that these measures of centralisation in the National Health Service do not always achieve the economies or the improvement in service which are claimed for them, and sometimes result simply in the service being more remote and less accessible? I think he may find that this may well be one of those cases.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, there is no criticism whatsoever of what has happened at Tiverton—let me make that perfectly clear—but I think we must bear in mind that developments in medicine have led to a greater interdependence of the various branches and to an increasing realisation of the need to bring together a wide range of specialised facilities for diagnosis and treatment. This is becoming increasingly necessary; and, if I may say so with very great respect, it can be done only at district general hospital level. It is really for the benefit of the patients.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to believe that the first part of his Answer gave me more pleasure and satisfaction than the second part?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, if it is for the benefit of the patients, may we ask whether the local community health council was consulted, and what its view was? Presumably it would be representing the views of the patients.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my understanding of the situation is that it was not opposed to it, but I think I ought to tell your Lordships that this matter was in fact decided as far back as 1972 by the then Regional Hospital Board, and what has happened since is merely a review of the situation and a confirmation of that decision.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, could my noble friend say where the residents of Tiverton now have to go for their tonsillectomies?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know the actual hospital. What I do know is that with any reorganisation of this kind certain people must of necessity be put to a certain amount of inconvenience. This is inevitable. With a tonsillectomy operation there are provisions, particularly where a child is involved, for the parent to stay overnight.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, does the noble Lord appreciate that I know the answer to the supplementary question of Lord Segal if he would like me to give it?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I was hoping that the noble Viscount was going to say so.
Viscount AMORY: My Lords, I can phrase it as a question. Does the noble Lord understand that patients must go to a new big hospital on the far side of Exeter, a distance of 16 or 17 miles; that the bus fare is over £1, and that for parents going to see their children in hospital that represents a substantial additional cost?
Several Noble Lords: Hear, hear!
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, this is perfectly true. Noble Lords may say, "Hear, hear", but one must weigh

623
this against the need to provide in every kind of operation a back-up service should anything go wrong. This has not always been possible in the past.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that the one who seems to be on trial here is the superintendent of the particular hospital? If anything goes wrong so far as the medical side of that hospital is concerned in regard to the care of the patients, surely it would come to the ears of the medical superintendent and it would be his responsibility then to take action with the Medical Council or the Regional Hospital Board, or whatever channels exist? We are moving in the direction here of laying the blame indirectly on the medical superintendant of that particular hospital.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am grateful for the intervention of my noble friend, but may I point out that the number of in-patients' beds required for any given population in regard to this matter is comparatively small. We require only about 12 beds per 100,000 population. It is necessary in these matters, as well as others, that full medical, nursing and technical staff are available, and that they are available throughout the year. It has been done simply and solely so that there will be two, and sometimes three, consultants available all the time to deal with anything that may go wrong, or that may need expert treatment.

THE EASTER ACT 1928
Lord MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the first Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government on what date it is intended to bring into force the Easter Act 1928.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, it remains the postion that the Government do not think it right to bring the Act into force until the full concurrence of the Churches has been obtained. We continue to hope that agreement will be reached, and the Government would be ready to do what they could to help bring this about.
Lord MERTHYR: My Lords, in view of the fact that this Act cannot now come into full operation until the end of next year, would it not be a good idea to celebrate the golden jubilee of the passing of the Act by bringing it into force now?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, that is certainly a most attractive suggestion and I will communicate it to my right honourable friend; but it would be only frank of me to say that the present Government, like their predecessors, take the view that there should be wide agreement between the Churches before we move in this matter.
The Lord BISHOP of ROCHESTER: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether he realises that some of us who look forward immensely to Lord Merthyr's annual question on this subject are beginning to wonder whether, a country that took the initiative in this matter might not, now that there is such widespread agreement among the Christian Churches, take a view that they will announce their intention to bring this Act into force unless a responsible Christian body can prove objections to the contrary?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I will draw my right honourable friend's attention to what the right reverend Prelate has said.
Baroness WOOTTON of ABINGER: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what is the purpose of passing legislation in Parliament if it may remain inoperative at the whim of successive Governments until it celebrates its golden jubilee; and, furthermore, why there are others not quite so ancient?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I feared for a moment that my noble friend was going to ask a question about the Firearms Act. The particular point concerning the Easter Act situation was that the Act can be brought into operation only by an Order in Council, which would have to be approved by both Houses of Parliament, and in 1928 it was provided that regard should be had to any opinion officially expressed by a Church or other Christian body before this could be done.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, is it too much to hope that a good deal of the

625
Government legislation could be inoperative over the next few months?

PEERS AND PARLIAMENTARY FRANCHISE
2.48 p.m.
Lord MERTHYR: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether any decision has been reached about enabling Members of this House to vote at Parliamentary Elections.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the Government incline to the view that such a change might be made when a suitable legislative opportunity arises.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, could the noble Lord go a little further? What does he mean? Is there likely to be a suitable legislative occasion? Does he mean that he thinks that Peers should have the power to vote at Parliamentary Elections?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord will be appreciative of the fact that the reply I have given is similar to the reply that I gave on a previous occasion; namely, that the Government are perfectly prepared to look at this matter, but they cannot at the moment give any assurance that they would provide Parliamentary time for such a Bill.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, in connection with Parliamentary Elections, can the Minister say whether Peers might take part in elections to the European Parliament and whether this is an allied subject?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Baroness will appreciate, this matter is covered in the Government's Green Paper.

RHODESIA
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the leave of the House, at a convenient moment after 3.30 p.m. my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts will repeat a Statement on Rhodesia.
CITY OF ABERDEEN DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Brought from the Commons, read 1a; and (pursuant to the Private Legislation Procedure (Scotland) Act 1936) deemed to have been read 2aand reported from the Committee.
MAPLIN DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (DISSOLUTION) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, an Amendment (privilege) made; Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.
NATIONAL COAL BOARD (FINANCE) BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
2.51 p.m.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Shepherd): 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 Shepherd.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[Viscount HOOD in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Repeals of the principal Act]:
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 21, at end insert:
(" (2) In paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1 to the principal Act there shall be inserted after the word "objects" the following words:
"on grounds of sincerely held personal conscientious conviction not motivated by hope of financial gain of material advantage or".").
The noble and learned Lord said: I rise to move the Amendment standing in my name. In doing so, I apologise to this Chamber, and, if necessary, to another place if matters should go that way, for taking up the time of your Lordships

627
once more upon this Bill which has already been so frequently discussed and of which no doubt others besides myself are really heartily tired. But the question of conscience which I now seek to isolate and to which I now seek to revert is of such paramount importance to all of us in both Houses that it is not an imposition on my part to ask your Lordships and, if my Amendment should meet with approval in this Committee, another place to give it consideration for an hour or two in the context of this Bill.
May I remind your Lordships of the state of play on this issue and say why I think another look at it is desirable. My first reason is that, even as recently as the Second Reading this time round, two of the most respected Members of the Labour Party, whom I am happy to see sitting below the gangway, forming a sort of cave of Adullam among the Cross-Benches, showed a misunderstanding of what this issue was about. There are further reasons, and I shall develop those as I go along.
The Amendment refers to Schedule I to the Act of 1974, and paragraph 6(5) of Schedule 1, which this Amendment seeks to amend, deals with the situation which arises if, particularly in a closed shop context, a man is dismissed because he will not join a particular trade union. The Schedule at present provides that unless he has a religious objection—the phrase used is "grounds of religious belief"—forming grounds for his action, he is not to be considered as being unfairly dismissed. It makes no similar provision for somebody who, either because he has no religious belief but still has conscientious objections or, if he has religious belief, has conscientious objections which do not relate to the religious belief which he has. In that event, under the general provisions of the paragraph, he is not to be considered to have been unfairly dismissed if, on those grounds and no other, he neglects or refuses to join a trade union. The question we have to consider is whether that is fair.
I said that only as recently as the Second Reading this time round two of the most respected Members of this Chamber, Members of the Party opposite, misunderstood the position, because it will be within the recollection of your Lordships that the argument was pre-
628
sented at length that one could not confront the unions, one could not contemplate again the possibility of unions or union members suffering from a failure to obey orders of a court. Indeed, only a little earlier (just before Christmas) we heard a speech from the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, which I thought fell into the same error; because the noble and learned Lord said rightly during the course of a lengthy speech that one could not—and he used "lawyers' language" as one would expect from him —specifically enforce a contract of employment. I hope to show that none of that has the smallest reference in this context because, as was pointed out by the noble and learned Lord during that speech and as was illustrated (but no more than illustrated) by the decision of the industrial tribunal in the case of the "Ferrybridge Six", there could be in this context no confrontation with the unions, no failure either by the unions or the union members to obey any decision of any court, and there could indeed be, if I am right and if the noble and learned Lord is right, no possibility of the person so affected regaining his job.
If an employer—and it matters nothing from this point of view whether the employer is a public corporation like the Central Electricity Generating Board or a private employer operating for profit—chooses for his own reasons to conclude and operate a closed shop agreement with the union, the only question for decision is whether, if by refusing to join a union somebody loses his job as a result, he is to be entitled to compensation or not. That compensation, under the unfair dismissal proposals which were re-enacted by Schedule 1, is payable by the employer and enforceable against the employer only; so the question of the specific enforcement of the contract of employment does not arise, contrary to what I believe the noble and learned Lord then thought. The question of any confrontation between a union or union members with the court does not arise either.
The sole question is whether we protect a Plymouth Brother by giving him a right to compensation against his employer but not a respectable Agnostic, or whether, if they are acting sincerely and on conscientious grounds, we put the two on the same footing. To my mind no case

629
has been made either in this House or in another place for not putting them on the same footing. When we have dealt with this question before, perhaps naïvely I inserted, or sought to insert, in the Act—as did the Liberal Party below the gangway, in slightly different words but to the same effect—conscientious grounds or grounds of conscience as well as grounds of religious belief. Twice during the course of the 1974 Bill, which we now have here again, and once during the Protection of Employment Act 1975 the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, said in terms that if we had only drafted it a little differently he would have supported us. He made the suggestion that in our draftsmanship, instead of using the word "conscience" or "conscientious grounds", we should seek to borrow the words from the Parliamentary Labour Party'sStanding Orders, and that is what I have now sought to do. I do not want to argue as to whether I have got it exactly right because I have not bespoken a copy of the Standing Orders myself and I have not thought it right to acquire one by surreptitious means, but if I have not got it right we can put it right on the Report stage.
I have sought to constrict the matter still further by insisting that the grounds of conscience as defined by the Parliamentary Labour Party'sStanding Orders should not include people who are motivated by hope of material gain or personal advantage. In other words I was seeking to exclude—although I never thought they were affected one way or the other—the so-called free-riders. That is a further refinement tying it even more strictly to disinterested conduct on sincere grounds of deeply held personal conviction, which I understand is the phrase used in the Parliamentary Labour Party'sStanding Orders. Hitherto, as distinct from the Back-Benchers who, like the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, have put forward a variety of arguments, the Government have adopted one ground only for resisting a conscience clause at this point in our legislation. That is—if I may paraphrase what the noble and learned Lord said on previous occasions, and he will correct me if I am being unfair to him, though I do not think I am—you cannot operate a conscience clause apart from religious belief
630
because it it is too indefinite, and difficult to define conscience. I never accepted that and I do not accept it now. I pointed out that the word was used in the European Convention of Human Rights which is enforceable against this country and to which this country is an adherent, and I could not help noticing in passing that the Labour Party has now issued a pamphlet seeking to make the Convention on Human Rights, conscience clause and all, part of the law of England. No doubt it will be interesting to hear the speech of the noble and learned Lord—assuming him still to be Lord Chancellor —when that pamphlet is sought to be introduced as a Bill into your Lordships' House. He may have a certain amount of words to eat when that time comes.
Apart from that, we have the experience of the conscientious objectors' tribunal during the war and the fact that the Labour Party has operated a conscience clause in one form or another from time immemorial. Although, no doubt, like all conscientious questions, it gives rise to difficulty it has not proved so impracticable that it has been removed from their Standing Orders. I do not think Parliament ought to accept, and I am sure public opinion will not accept, that what the Parliamentary Labour Party can operate an industrial tribunal, which usually has a trade unionist on it, can not operate because it is too difficult.
I do not accept that the Lord Chancellor's argument is right, although for the purposes of this Amendment I will assume that it is right. I have taken the hint from the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, when he said that if we adopted this particular form of words he would support us both on the Protection of Employment Act and on this Bill when it came before us again. All I am asking is that Parliament should look at this question again in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, has said about his attitude to the matter and in the light of what I have tried to show about the context in which it is proposed; namely, that all we are discussing is the question of financial compensation payable not by a union or its members but by an employer who chooses to make a bargain excluding non-members of a particular union.
There are two other matters to which I think I am entitled to refer here as mak-

631
think about this again. The first is the Ferrybridge Six. I am prepared to assume in favour of the Government, and in favour of the attitude they have hitherto adopted—and I am prepared to assume for the purposes of this argument, without asserting, because I have not been into that case except to read the judgment of the industrial tribunal—that the Ferrybridge Six were pursuing an unreasonable course. Many people who are motivated by conscientious grounds do pursue unreasonable courses, but the experience of humanity is that they should none the less be respected. I saw with considerable surprise that it was even doubtful whether they should be entitled to unemployment benefit after they had been dismissed, still less compensation. I do not think it should be so doubtful. The sight of the Secretary of State, Mr. Foot, doing poojah in front of the doctrine of sub judice, genuflecting in front of the judiciary in the shape of the National Commissioners was edifying, uplifting and a little surprising. So much so that I do not think it should pass altogether without comment. All the same, I do not think it should be a matter of argument as to whether such people should receive compensation from their employer, though I fully concede it is quite impossible to give them back their jobs.
The other reason I wanted to give was this. As I explained on Second Reading, I am reluctant to the point of determination not to do so, to send back to the Commons our old Amendments relating to the enforceability of the Press charter. I think we were right to select this issue last time round, owing to the overriding importance of the freedom of the Press in the Constitution of this country. But I do not think it would be fair, for the reasons I gave on Second Reading, to do it again; the matter has been fully ventilated. But I must, of course, point out that this Amendment, if passed in the form in which I proposed it, would benefit the Press no less than the other workers in this country.
It would not give to the editor who refused on conscientious grounds to join a union the right to get his job back if he lost it; but it would give him compensation, which is something. The same would be true of any journalist, as it would be of any other worker who was sincerely moved by conscientious grounds.
632
So we are now in a position to examine in isolation what seems to me to be a matter of overwhelming importance for the good name of Parliament and of our Parliamentary democracy; namely, whether we are going to protect an employer against paying compensation to a conscientious worker who does not happen to be actuated solely by religious belief.
I want to say here and now to the noble Lord the Leader of the House, who is a reasonable man, that I have not the slightest desire to stand in the way of the Government's getting their way about the Bill, after proper discussion. I do not want to delay the matter. The last thing I want to see is a kind of game of pat-ball between the two Houses. Quite apart from the Parliament Act, it would do infinite harm to the relations of comity which ought to exist in Parliament. Nor do I want to score off the Government in any way. I think that on this issue I have been right and they have been wrong. But I would rejoice, like the Company of Heaven over the one sinner that repenteth, if I could only persuade them that they were wrong; and I should be delighted to lose, so that I could never utter again the point of Party controversy which, if they stand fast upon their previous decision, one will have to make. I do not want to score off them, nor do I want in any way to score a political triumph. I am sincerely concerned solely with this question of conscience, and the right to compensation where people act conscientiously.
Having said that, I do not think I ought to detain the Committee any longer. I hope there is nothing that I have left unsaid. I only ask the Government to accept that this Amendment is not moved in a spirit of vindictiveness, in a spirit of dilatoriness, or in a spirit of defiance. It is simply that, if I may use the phrase for the first and last time of myself, for reasons of deeply held personal convictions, on conscientious grounds not connected with my religious views, I think that this is something which Parliament in its own interests ought to look at again. I beg to move.
3.13 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD: Whatever our feelings may be about the Amendment, I am sure your Lordships would in no

633
way criticise the way in which the noble and learned Lord has moved it this afternoon. May I start by saying to the noble and learned Lord that I am advised that his Amendment would in no way deal with the Ferrybridge episode. Nor can I leave unchallenged the question whether these men had unemployment benefit withheld from them. That had nothing whatsoever to do with the Secretary of State for Employment or any other Minister. It was an insurance officer pursuing his statutory duty to ensure, before payment was made, that those who claimed it were entitled to it. So, if I may, I will brush Ferrybridge well out of the debate this afternoon.
I should like to suggest that there are two issues: first, the merits of the Amendment moved by the noble and learned Lord; and, secondly, the question of what your Lordships' House sitting in Committee should do, and of our relations with another place. Both are important issues, and that is why I have risen very early in this debate to put not only the position of the Government, but also my own feelings as Leader of the House in regard to our relations with another place.
I have been involved in these Bills concerning industrial relations since the first one was introduced to repeal the Industrial Relations Act. I agree with the noble and learned Lord that, in all our discussions, nothing has given greater concern on both sides than what one might call individual liberty, and the position of a person who is in a union and who is seeking or retaining employment in a closed shop situation. I am sure that the noble and learned Lord will be the first to admit that his Amendment goes well beyond the Industrial Relations Act—an Act in which he played a very prominent role indeed. That Act provided that there should be an exception in cases of dismissal, where a person sincerely has a conscience about joining a union. At the time we had a good deal of debate about the matter.
The noble and learned Lord referred to the tribunal's decision. A considerable amount of case law has now been built up since the passing of the Industrial Relations Act, defining "conscience" in industrial matters as religious belief. The case which the noble and learned Lord had in mind was considered, if I
634
remember correctly, by Lord Thomson, and was Hinds v.Spillers French Baking Limited and Anr. It was argued for the workmen who were claiming unfair dismissal that political beliefs were matters of conscience. I could well believe that this might be argued, but the decision of the court was:
"In our opinion, grounds of conscience necessarily point to and involve a belief or conviction based on religion in its broadest sense, as contrasted with personal freedoms however strongly held, or intellectual creed. We find it difficult to envisage a case in which a worker could object on grounds of conscience, as we understand that expression, to being a member of a particular trade union, without at the same time objecting on grounds of conscience to being a member of any trade union."
The case history has now been built up and, because it is identifiable, religious belief is something on which conscience—according to the interpretation in the Industrial Relations Act—should be sustained. We put "religious belief" into our legislation, because we believe that when one is dealing with industrial relations affairs the law should be as clean-cut and explicit as possible. So we put in religious belief because it can be identified, based upon Scripture. Perhaps it is not solely a reluctance to join a trade union, but is also a reluctance to join any other form of association. It is not the union itself; it is the association which those objectors appear to have in mind. So I would make the case for the Government's insistence on the words "religious belief" in the Bill on the basis that they are clear and specific.
Next we turn to the Amendment before the Committee. This is about the twentieth time that an Amendment on the question of conscience has been moved, either in this House or in another place. All have been seeking to identify, as the noble and learned Lord has tried to do this afternoon, the statutory grounds upon which a person who objects to trade union membership should receive special treatment. This question has been debated many more than the 20 times I have just mentioned and I think now we should take a little stock of where we are heading. The noble and learned Lord has moved his Amendment on grounds of conscience. There were many Amendments which (shall I say?) were disguised as "grounds of conscience" but which were quite clear and specific. They were

635
seeking to nullify the consequences and the effect of a closed shop into which the employers and the trade unions themselves had voluntarily entered.
Let us be clear, since there may be misunderstanding on the Benches opposite, that the legislation proposed by this Government does not enforce a closed shop agreement upon any employer or employee. It is for both sides voluntarily not only to agree to a closed shop but also to take into account the terms and conditions. I will say to the noble and learned Lord, and I am sure that he will be the first to confirm it on behalf of this House, that very many, if not all, of the closed shop agreements governing our major industries include clauses dealing with conscience. The record is that the trade unions and employers have all taken a very tolerant view of those who genuinely believe that they could not and should not belong to a union. In fact, I would say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that much of the difficulty that surrounded the Ferrybridge decision, and the reason why the decision was taken by the tribunal that there had been unfair dismissal, was not that these men had been unfairly dismissed. It was because the employers, the Electricity Board, had not taken similar proceedings against a very large number of men within the industry who were not members of the union; and this was because the unions themselves were taking a tolerant and relaxed view of their non-membership. It was only because these six men were taking a much more abrasive attitude and acting like grit within the trade union machinery and the relationship of trade unions with employers that action was taken.
If your Lordships look at the Amendment which has been moved by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylehone, you may wonder what a tribunal or court would make of those words. The courts have already been severe about certain drafting which your Lordships' House insisted upon putting into previous legislation. I do not know what the courts would make of these words. However, we are dealing with a matter which one always hopes would not have to go to the courts, because this concerns a relationship between employers and employees. If, therefore, there is
636
doubt about what a learned tribunal would make of these words, what would an employer make of them? It is the employer upon whom the penalty would fall; it would be the employer who would have to make up his mind what these particular words mean. Would they mean that a man who holds strong Conservative political views and finds that the whole system of the trade union movement is so alien and disruptive could say, "I have conscientous convictions about not joining a union"? I can think of a number of other political organisations who might well claim the same, and I have not the slightest doubt that the noble and learned Lord would not wish these people to be able to use those particular convictions for not being members of trade unions. These words could be construed so widely that I have to say to the Committee that if they were put into the Bill they would nullify the lawful closed shop; and yet your Lordships have agreed that closed shops should no longer be unlawful.
I have to say that if these words were put into the Bill and were to be construed as I believe they could be construed, then one would have a very grave situation indeed. I believe, and I have said this many times on the Floor of the House, that our legislation should be aimed at keeping men at work and that we should look to the unions to find ways and means of overcoming difficulties with the object of keeping men at work. I believe that these words could be so interpreted that men might well lose their jobs by believing that these words gave them a certain position which the tribunals or the courts might find that they did not hold, and that instead of being able to be retained in work their jobs would be lost. I must say frankly, too, that as an employer I would not know what to do about taking on an applicant for a job if these words were included in the Bill. I might well have to say to myself, "What is this man's political opinion likely to be? What views may he have, other than religious views, which might mean that I find myself in a position where, in order to fulfil my contractual obligations to the unions with whom I have entered into an agreement, I take on this man, only to find that I have to dismiss him and will perhaps have to pay him compensation?"
I come back to a view in which I passionately believe: that, if you are

637
dealing with legislation which is for the purpose of improving industrial relations, the drafting of the law should be as free from ambiguity as possible. Not once, except when he mentioned the position of editors, did the noble and learned Lord suggest who might be within the ambit of this clause and who might be excluded from it. As the noble and learned Lord himself has said, this matter has been considered on many occasions. There was an Amendment moved in another place to provide for personal convictions as a ground for objection to trade union membership. It is true that the wording of that Amendment, which was discussed both in Committee and in Report in another place and defeated by substantial majority, was not word for word identical with the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord, but its import and intention are the same. Therefore, I do not believe that the noble and learned Lord can really say that his Amendment raises a new issue. I believe that on its merits this Amendment should not be accepted. I believe it would he highly dangerous to the health and stability of the refreshing developments that we have seen over the last twelve months in the field of industrial relations in terms of the activities and co-operation of employers and employees.
I come now to the question of what your Lordships' House should do. I said at Second Reading that the contents of this Bill have been considered exhaustively and that I doubted very much whether anything fresh can be produced. May I first say how pleased we all are that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is back in his place. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggested that we should send the Goodman Amendments back to give the Commons yet another chance to consider them. The noble and learned Lord did not agree, and here I find myself in full agreement with him. In fact his words were very close to those that I delivered in his absence, because he was sitting judicially when I was speaking; but both of us referred to the deep sense of frustration that there must be in another place if this House keeps sending back to them matters which they have considered, not once, not twice, but three and four times. If this Amendment were to go back to another place it would occupy at least two and a half to three hours, and as the noble and learned Lord
638
knows, two and a half to three hours is of great value in another place, both to the Government and to the Opposition.
So the noble and learned Lord agrees with me that the Goodman Amendments should not be sent back. I suggest to him that the issue which he has put forward so reasonably today has already been considered two, three, if not four times in the House of Commons. But when a vote is taken in the House of Commons it is not just to oppose the Amendment that has been moved; it is to approve the inclusion in the Bill of words that the Commons themselves wish to see in the Bill. So every occasion on which this matter has been decided by the House of Commons has been concerned not only with the rejection of proposed Amendments, but with the insistence of the majority of the House of Commons that the words that are in the Bill, and which I hope your Lordships will agree, should remain in the Bill.
How would it be seen in the House of Commons if this House were to send this Amendment back, rejecting that which was in the Bill and to which your Lordships agreed, perhaps reluctantly, last Session; and, if that is not bad enough, seeking to reject the words that your Lordships agreed to and which are now in the Employment Protection Act? Is it conceivable, is it really being suggested by the noble and learned Lord, that in regard to this matter we should have different words in one Act of Parliament from those in another Act which this House approved during the last Session? I believe that if we have any respect for ourselves as a Parliamentary assembly we should not do that sort of thing.
If this matter goes back to another place, I personally have no doubt what the decision will be, and I suspect that the noble and learned Lord himself knows because he needs only to look at the record of the views expressed by a substantial vote in the House of Commons. The noble and learned Lord said, "Send it down, let it be rejected, then it comes back and we will acquiesce". If I really thought that what the noble and learned Lord was proposing had the remotest chance of being accepted by another place, I would not speak in this way. I am as much concerned about the status of this House in respect of another place

639
as any noble Lord. That is why I am asking your Lordships to act sensibly here; to act as you did last Session in relation to this Bill and in relation to the Act that is now on the Statute Book.
I do not believe that any accusations will be made to the noble and learned Lord and to the noble Lords behind him that they, as a Party, acted with cowardice in allowing the Bill to go through. They have made their views abundantly clear on more than one occasion, and no one really believes that because the House of Lords, with a Conservative built-in majority, overturns the views of a Labour Government, that is anything more than representative of the Conservative majority in your Lordships' House. But as a House we have a great deal more to do in the future in a constructive role. I believe our voice will have far greater weight with another place if today we take the view that we have done everything possible in relation to this legislation; that we have given another place a full opportunity to consider the matters that we considered important, but we recognise that the other place has the popular mandate and that sooner or later their views must prevail. I suggest to the Committee that if its Amendment were to be withdrawn no harm would be done, and a great deal might well be achieved in the sense that, in my view, and in the view of many, this House will have acted responsibly. We have used our Parliamentary procedures to the full; we have not abused them.
3.36 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: I rise to advance the somewhat startling proposition that on these Benches we agree with much of what has been said both by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, and by the noble Lord the Leader of the House. If this Amendment were to be considered in a vacuum —simply on its own merits—it would meet with the enthusiastic support of my noble friends on these Benches. We have always felt and contended that it is quite wrong to restrict to a claim on religous grounds only the right of an. employee, who does not wish to join a union and who loses his job as a result, to bring an action for wrongful dismissal. We are aware, of course, that grounds
640
of conscience have worked perfectly satisfactorily as a means of determining whether or not a person is entitled to object to military service. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House has said, we accept that in many cases both unions and employers have been able to operate a conscience test. We know that the Donovan Commission in paragraphs 603 to 617 recommended the adoption of the conscience test rather than the narrower religious one; we believe it is an affront to many people who may not have specific religious convictions to suggest that, for that reason, they do not have consciences.
For all those reasons we believe that, on its merits, this is a thoroughly desirable and thoroughly commendable Amendment. We believe that the Government's alternative proposal, restricting the right to a purely religious belief, might cause real hardship to individuals and quite unnecessarily restrict their freedom. But we are not considering this Amendment in a vacuum. We are considering it in the light of a particular political situation; in the light of the development of the relationship between two Houses of Parliament. One of those Houses is elected, and for this purpose it matters not by whatever ludicrous system it may be elected. We have the procedure of amendment and counter amendment which we have gone through exhaustively on this Bill as between the two Houses over the last year or so.
At one stage your Lordships will remember an Amendment was carried in this House which substituted for the religious test the words, "or reasonable grounds of conscience". When that Amendment was sent to the other place it was rejected by them and they reinserted their religious test. That came back to your Lordships' House and, on 20th October last year, your Lordships, perhaps unwillingly, accepted that they wished it to remain in the Bill. But the fact is that those words would now be enacted in this Bill, and they would be part of an Act of Parliament were it not for the incidental fact that there happened to have been a disagreement between the two Houses on the issue of the Press charter. As the noble Lord the Leader of the House reminded us, in this House we have always accepted, however unwillingly, the religious test rather than the conscience test in the Protection of Employment Act.

641
In all these circumstances I would venture to suggest that where that situation has arisen we can justify now reverting to something which contradicts that which we have already agreed only in the light of possible developments. First, it might be said there have been wholly new developments since October of last year which warrant taking another look at this question; but I would suggest to your Lordships that that is not so. We know of the Ferrybridge Six and the difficulties in Barnsley with the National Union of Journalists, but I venture to doubt that those are matters wholly unanticipated, or that they are not precisely the sort of matters liable to arise where the closed shop legislation of the present Government takes effect.
The only other way of justifying reverting to this issue at this stage is if it could be argued that on a previous occasion it was not possible to find a satisfactory wording for the conscience test, and that that has now been done. Again, if I may say so, I find that difficult to accept. I cannot believe we ought to regard the Standing Orders of the Labour Party as being necessarily monuments of legislative clarity!
In those circumstances, my noble friends on these Benches would suggest that the House perhaps finds itself in something of a dilemma today, an Amendment being put forward which on its merits is entirely commendable, but being put forward, we would suggest, at a time wholly inappropriate. For that reason, I began by saying that there is much in what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said on the merits; there is much in what the noble Lord the Leader of the House said as to the desirability of bringing this matter forward at this time. We on these Benches have considered this matter as best we can. Somewhat reluctantly we come to the unhappy conclusion that if there is a Division on this Amendment today, it would not be possible for us to support either side for the reasons I have given.
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, there is to be a Statement. I think it would be in the interests of the House if we were to resume the Sitting of the House in order that the Statement can be made. I hope that we do not spend too long on it, because we have an important debate,
642
and it would be a pity to interrupt the flow of argument. I beg to move the House be now resumed.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

RHODESIA
3.44 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, with the permission of your Lordships, I shall repeat a Statement being made in another place by my right honourable friend the Minister of State. The Statement is as follows:
"I will, with your permission Mr. Speaker, and that of the House, make a Statement on Rhodesia.
"The House will be aware that there has been increasing evidence that the talks in Salisbury between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo have not so far achieved agreement and that the gap between the two sides has seemed still to be very wide. Shortly after Mr. Nkomo's recent visit to London to see my right honourable friend, there were some indirect indications that Mr. Smith has reconsidered his position about some British involvement in the negotiations for a constitutional settlement in Rhodesia.
"My right honourable friend therefore thought it right to send a message to Mr. Smith seeking clarification of his attitude. At the same time he made it clear that he would see no role for the British Government unless he was satisfied that Mr. Smith was ready to go very much further to meet current African proposals for an early transition to majority rule. My right honourable friend naturally emphasised the serious consequences for all the people of Rhodesia of the end of the prospect of a negotiated settlement.
"In the light of the reply received last weekend my right honourable friend has decided to send a representative to Salisbury in order to assess Mr. Smith's position. A former Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, is accordingly leaving

643
for Salisbury this evening. The Government are grateful to Lord Greenhill for agreeing to undertake this task.
"The purpose of Lord Greenhill's mission is purely exploratory. He will try to find out whether Mr. Smith's attitude is now such that there is any real possibility four helping to promote a settlement which would provide for an early and orderly transfer of power in Rhodesia. He is not taking with him proposals, nor will he be in a position to negotiate or take part in substantive discussions about a possible constitutional settlement. In the light of Lord Greenhill's report, my right honourable friend will consider with his colleagues whether there is some way in which Her Majesty's Government might usefully become involved."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, I am sure my noble friends would wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for his courtesy in giving us the information contained in the Statement. On this side of the House we appreciate the manner in which this very delicate matter has been handled, requiring, as it does, both statesmanship and diplomacy. It was understood that the meeting between Mr. Nkomo and the Foreign Secretary held in London quite recently was secret, and I think this is the first time we have had any indication of what the contents of those discussions might be.
My Lords, it is clear that the progress between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo has still not gone as far as to reach any form of settlement. From the Statement we can now understand that clearly some differences exist. However, it is also clear that the radical change in the military and political situation in that part of the world, the establishment and apparent non-removal of the Cuban troops and the establishment of their families in Angola, will certainly affect the lives eventually of all the citizens of Rhodesia. I am sure it is also clear to all sides of the House that time is of the essence in this matter. In view of the urgent desire on all sides of the House, I am quite certain, for the avoidance of violence and bloodshed, we commend the action of
644
the Government in sending such a distinguished diplomat as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, and wish him every success in his difficult and delicate task.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for repeating the Statement made in another place. On behalf of my noble friends I should like to give the Statement a cautious welcome: a cautious welcome for the announcement of the proposed visit to Salisbury of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow; a welcome because I think that an early settlement is very much to be desired for the reasons which have been expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and a cautious welcome because I should not like to see the British Government involved in a long and fruitless period of semi-negotiation.
My Lords, as the Statement said, the crux of the matter is whether Mr. Smith is now prepared to talk seriously about majority rule, and I hope that his intentions in that respect will be quickly ascertained. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, would agree that it is important that any settlement should be acceptable to Rhodesian Nationalist opinion outside Rhodesia as well as inside, and also to the Governments of Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique and Tanzania. But most important of all is that the settlement should be acceptable to Rhodesian public opinion, and that this should be clearly expressed in a suitable test of public opinion. Like the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, we wish to see a settlement in Rhodesia based, as the greatly-to-be-welcomed Statement by the EEC Foreign Ministers put it yesterday on the self-determination of the Rhodesian peoples.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I am sure that the entire House will join with me in welcoming the tone and content of the two statements we have just had, from the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, on behalf of the Opposition Front Bench, and also the noble Lord, Lord Banks, for the Liberal Party. Nothing they have said can do anything but help in this very delicate situation, as the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, so aptly described it. I welcome what Lord Banks said about our extending a cautious welcome

645
to this move—certainly a very warm welcome, and gratitude, to my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow for undertaking this mission—and great care in not expecting too much from it. I join with them in expressing the hope, which I know is shared by the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary, that this move may expedite, may make possible, an early settlement, not only for the future of Rhodesia and all its peoples, but also for Central and Southern Africa.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that one of the concomitants for a satisfactory settlement of this very delicate problem is that at all costs the confidence of African opinion should be retained? In that context may I ask him two questions? First, when was the decision taken to send Lord Greenhill? Secondly, have steps been taken to inform Mr. Nkomo, and, if so, what has Mr. Nkomo's reaction been?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I cannot say precisely when Lord Greenhill was invited to undertake this mission, but I should say that it was very recently indeed. We have, naturally, had in mind the possibility of a move such as this, without precisely deciding who would be the most suitable emissary for this purpose. Of course, Mr. Nkomo and everybody else involved in this delicate situation in Rhodesia will have been informed of our decision to send a special emissary at once to assess the situation, and certainly to assess Mr. Ian Smith's present attitude to the possible involvement of Britain.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether the Government will bear in mind that, whatever may be the outcome of Lord Greenhill's visit, the key to a settlement in Rhodesia is now the control of the security situation and the position of the Security Forces during the period of transition, however long that may last? If this country and this Government are to play a constructive part in reaching a settlement, they must beforehand make up their minds whether they are prepared, perhaps in conjunction with other Southern African Governments, to do something to ensure the continuance of internal and external security in Rhodesia.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, in responding affirmatively to what the noble Lord, Lord Alport, has said, may I also say how much I agree with my noble friend Lord Wigg when he says that any agreement must, of course, command the full support of the African peoples.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, in view of the fact that the African nationalists outside Rhodesia have made it quite plain that a Government formed by Mr. Nkomo would be just as unacceptable to them as a Government formed by Mr. Smith, what is the object of this intervention? If Mr. Nkomo became the ruler of Rhodesia he would have to fight for his political life against the other nationalists, in the same way as his opposite numbers on the other side of Africa have done, and he would, equally, be defeated by the superior arms of the Cubans. If we achieve an agreement and Mr. Nkomo becomes Prime Minister, are we going to send troops to support him? We do not have any troops to spare.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, nor have we any hard and fast assumptions. As usual my noble friend very forcibly puts forward what are not facts but assumptions. Even if the chances of Mr. Nkomo—who has so far engaged in peaceful negotiation—areas small as my noble friend suggests, that is no reason why we should not grasp at every opportunity of helping him and other moderate elements among the African peoples.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, the noble Lord will understand that I do not wish to add fuel to a situation which is already highly inflammatory, but may I ask the Leader of the House whether, after Lord Greenhill's visit, there might be an opportunity to debate the whole question of Southern Africa?
Lord SHEPHERD: My Lords, of course, we arc always willing to consider representations for debate through the usual channels. The noble Lord himself referred to the sensitive position, and I suggest that a decision on whether we have a debate should be taken in the light of the general circumstances. This is a matter which we can certainly discuss through the usual channels.
3.57 p.m.

TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL
House again in Committee.
Debate on Amendment No. 1 resumed.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I hope that noble Lords can recall the words of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and I should like to say how fully I agree with what he said. I think that it is too late in the day to send a revised conscience clause back to another place without any prospect of fruitful result. After all, it is fruitful result that we want; it is not merely to have a clash with another place. We want to do business, if business is to be done. But, as my noble friend the Leader of the House said, we know what the answer is likely to be, because we have debated this matter in both Houses so many times. It would have been possible for noble Lords opposite to put down this Amendment long ago and not left it until this late hour.
Moreover, I think if the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, had wished to lean so heavily on me he might have found out whether I was able to bear his weight. He is apparently relying on me for his form of words, but has failed to get them right, and, presumably, is hoping that I will give him support. I hope that there is no underlying political motive in what is happening this afternoon. We are all talking about integrity and conscience; so it would be unbecoming if I were to say that this looks very much like a political ploy. Is it that noble Lords opposite want to enforce the Parliament Act on some aspect of this Bill, without, presumably, wishing to imperil the main Amendment to the Bill, which is contained in the suggested Amendments from the House of Commons? It looks as if, in default of any other line of attack, noble Lords opposite have gone back to conscience.
May I say also as gently as I can that I doubt whether, by history or temperament, noble Lords opposite are entitled to bear the torch of freedom of conscience in trade union affairs. After all, the history of trade unionism is littered with the martyrs of conscience, not at the hands of their fellow workers but at the hands
648
of their employers. Although in these days we all stand for freedom, and wish to see workers protected from the tyranny of their unions as well as from the tyranny of their employers, nevertheless I think they might now and again leave it to some of us on this side of the House to uphold the Ark and the Covenant of individual freedom in industrial matters.
I stated my views on conscience. I object to conscience, I object to religion, as the criterion for deciding whether a person has good grounds for objection to a particular compulsion or course of action. But I am not going to weary the Committee with an examination of the meaning of words and whether, as in the judgment of the tribunal that was quoted by my noble friend the Leader of he House, there is any basis for a genuine objection to doing something, except that of religion. I do not accept that view myself, and I would hope that one day it would be possible to find a basis for conscientious objection not based on any religious faith.
However, when this House preferred conscience to religious belief and sent the Bill to the other place, the other place preferred religious belief to conscience and so it came back in that form. Those who were stoutly defending religious belief as a basis for objection to joining a union were the Agnostics in another place. But, for my part, I am prepared to leave the matter where it is. I do not like it, but the debate has to end somewhere. We cannot go on with a game of battledore and shuttlecock between this House and another place. If it comes to the final point surely we must concede—especially in this matter—the right of another place to the final judgment of this issue. I am not prepared on any grounds at all to endanger the inclusion in the Act as it is finally passed of the so-called "Press charter". That is the really important matter that we have to consider, and that is really why the Bill comes back to your Lordships' House with suggested Amendments from the Commons, which I sincerely hope will provide a wide measure of agreement.
Apart from the possible political and procedural consequences of insisting on this Amendment there are one or two other points that might be considered which I suggest can give comfort even

649
to uneasy consciences in this matter. The first is that the obstacle to joining a union on grounds of conscience or religious belief usually occurs at the outset of a closed shop agreement. It is when the closed shop is being agreed to that the question of conscience mostly arises. It is then that the pressure of the unions for a closed shop is applied to nonmembers. It is among the non-members that the conscientious objectors are likely to be found. It is therefore at the point of negotiation and agreement between the unions and the employers that the position of conscientious objectors has to be resolved. My noble friend the Leader of the House made precisely the point that we arc dealing, after all—and I have emphasised this many times—with employers and unions coming together to negotiate a closed shop agreement, and there can be many terms and conditions within it before it is finally acceptable.
I heard the other day of a closed shop agreement which had been negotiated between Burton's, the tailors, and the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers. They were already organised as to something over 90 per cent. but the question arose as to what was to happen to those who were not members of the union and who might have conscientious objection to joining. According to my information, the agreement reached was that workers should not be compelled to join the union and have their job put at jeopardy if they had genuine, conscientious grounds for refusal. There was nothing about religion; it was conscientious grounds. The agreement provided for a joint committee of employer and union to determine appeals for exemption on grounds of conscience. That seemed to be an eminently tolerant and sensible arrangement. It provided that those who were exempted from union membership on conscientious grounds should pay an amount equal to the trade union subscription to some charity.
There is nothing to prevent other closed shop agreements following these sensible lines. I suggest that no worker will be dismissed by the employer for refusal to join a union unless the employer is pressed by the union or unions to do so. The pressure comes from the unions, and much therefore depends on the tolerance of the unions. I suggest also that few unions will press for the dismissal of a fellow
650
worker if he has genuine objections on conscientious grounds, or other genuine reasons of conviction or religion, if that worker can satisfy either his fellow workers or a committee appointed to adjudicate on the strength of his feelings. In most cases those who have this kind of objection to joining a union are known already. It is not something they can trump up at the last minute. Union representatives have been going round seeking their membership probably for years, and they have probably been met all the time with this position of conscientious objection. Therefore, one does not necessarily have to have religion as a basis; one has to have however a reputation for being an honest, truthful, and sincere person. I believe that the unions will know that grounds exist in particular cases for a worker's objection to joining the union. We shall probably find in many closed shop agreements provisions of the kind that I have mentioned, which will avoid any serious trouble.
The unions are not really out to penalise conscience, but they are out to stem the possible tide of hypocrisy. This is what the unions have to guard against. After all, their ultimate aim is solidarity and not necessarily the membership of the last worker unit in an undertaking. It is solidarity, trade union strength, that they are seeking to get by a closed shop arrangement. Subject to their consent to exemptions, which, in the case I have quoted, seems to be possible on tolerant grounds, there should be no real trouble in many of these agreements. I think, therefore, that we should leave the matter where it is and hope that the common sense of employers and unions will prevail to get in closed shop agreements provisions which will overcome any real ground for concern.
Both unions and noble Lords want to safeguard in men and women those qualities of character, of integrity and strength of conviction, which are too valuable in a democratic society to be made the victims of tyranny on one side or the other. And if there is any common sense to be expected in this situation, as I am sure there is, and if there is any reasonable degree of tolerance to be expected in this situation, as I am sure there is, then let us give it a try and see what happens. If there are serious grounds for concern

651
in the future, then it will be possible to come back to this matter; it will be possible to promote fresh legislation to safeguard workers from unreasonable treatment, martyrdom and loss of employment.
I appeal to noble Lords to view this matter with a full understanding of the traditions, the history and the motives of unions and the history of trade unionism in this country, and to place some confidence in the trade union movement to fulfil its obligations to the community without doing an injustice to individuals whom Parliament might feel it had to intervene to protect.
4.12 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not want to intervene if it is the desire of your Lordships to continue this debate, but I rise in case I may be right in surmising that that is not your Lordships' desire. I would, I am bound to say, find it easier to answer some of the arguments which have been put, and particularly the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, if I was really able to understand them to the full. Lord Houghton is not a person from whom I wish to score debating points, but I must remind him of what he said when he last addressed your Lordships on this matter. He said:
"What is good enough for the Parliamentary Labour Party is good enough for a Labour Government's Act of Parliament on any matter you like affecting conscience or religious belief".—[Official Report, 23/9/75, col. 196.]
I really wonder whether, having regard to that quotation, the noble Lord will in years to come feel altogether satisfied with the speech which he has just delivered. In fact, of course, he has just delivered a speech which establishes the principal point which I was seeking to make; namely, that a conscience clause not confined to religious belief is, at least in his opinion, workable. Lord Houghton appealed to the Committee to consider the Montague Burton agreement, of which I was previously unaware. He said it contained a conscience clause which had no relation to religion and was clearly workable, and therefore it is not correct, as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said, that such a clause would open the door to every kind of abuse.
652
The noble Lord also said, truthfully, that this problem is likely to arise in its most acute form and probably in most numerous cases where a closed shop arrangement has just been arrived at between a union and employer. I agree with him, but that is just what makes mincemeat of the argument addressed by Lord Shepherd, because he was thinking that an employer would be reluctant to take a new man on if he thought he might be a potential conscientious objector. But he is entirely free, whether or not this Amendment is passed, to reject a would-be applicant for employment on any grounds whatever because this Amendment has no kind of application to persons applying for employment; it applies only to compensation for those who are dismissed from employment which they already have.
Lord Shepherd began by saying that he appreciated the way and the spirit in which I had proposed the Amendment, and I was grateful to him for that acknowledgment. The only other thing that Lord Houghton suggested was that this was a political ploy. I do not suppose that those on the Benches behind me would support me for an instant if they thought it was a political ploy, but if there are any noble Lords on the Benches opposite who think that this is a political ploy, let me hasten to disabuse them. Lord Shepherd was correct in thinking that this Amendment is put forward on its merits, and that brings me to the other two speeches which have been made on this subject.
There are two separate issues which have to be considered: is this Amendment inherently desirable and is it something which we ought to send back for another look by the other place? The second issue arises only if an affirmative answer is given to the first, because clearly if this Amendment is not inherently desirable we ought not to pass it, even if it were the first blush of a virginal Bill. But I find a little difficulty in supporting, or even understanding, Lord Shepherd and Lord Wigoder in saying that even if, in effect, we thought the Amendment was inherently desirable—as Lord Wigoder expressly said that it was—we ought not to send it back for another look by the other place. Let me assure the Committee, as I say, that I recognise no less than Lord Houghton and Lord Shepherd that in this particular

653
matter at this particular stage another place has the last word; it has the last word by law and even if it did not have the last word by law I would acknowledge its right to use the last word as a matter of constitutional propriety. However, that does not mean that if, on a matter affecting the conscience of the individual and the protection of an individual against unfair dismissal, we happen to hit on something which is right intrinsically and has not been thought of before, we should not ask the other place to look at it.
Lord Shepherd said that it would take two or three hours to discuss the matter in another place. I accept that, and having been perhaps for longer than most Members of your Lordships' House a Member of another place—for longer than I care to remember, from 1938 onwards—may I say at once that I take that argument extremely seriously. I would not ask another place to spend two hours of its valuable time, not even one hour of its valuable time, discussing a matter unless I thought it was of sufficient importance intrinsically that it should do so. On reflection, I do think that it is of sufficient importance to ask them to do it. The noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said that there was not the smallest chance of another place concurring in our opinion, even if it is a right opinion.
I wonder whether that is an argument which really bears examination. We must realise the constitutional facts of life. The whole situation would be transformed overnight, in a moment, in a trice, in the twinkling of an eye, if the Government accepted it. I am not really asking for another place, on a free vote, to consider the question of conscience, for I believe that, if it did so, the arguments which I am proposing would overwhelmingly win. I am asking the Government to give the advice—if they are persuaded and to the extent that they are persuaded—for the Government and its members to search their own consciences, which are not necessarily their religious beliefs, and to see whether they cannot have another look at this.
There are reasonable men in the Government. There is the noble and learned Lord who decorates the Woolsack. There is the noble Lord the Leader of the House. There is the Home Secretary.
654
They are all members of the Government. I simply do not understand the arguments of merit which have been put to us. Nor do I understand why it is considered improper for this House to ask the Government to reconsider the matter when everybody knows that, if the Government did reconsider the matter in this sense, there would be no difficulty about obtaining the adherence of the other place. Nor is there the smallest danger of losing the so-called "charter" to which the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, attaches so much importance. The only effect of this going back to another place and of being rejected—unless the Speaker were advised to certify, instead of sending it back here and saying that the Commons would not agree, which I hardly think he would do on a single Amendment—wouldbe that we should have to look at it again. As I say, I do not dispute that the Commons have the last word, so I do not feel, on balance, that there is anything in that argument.
Nor is there anything whatever in the argument that the words in the Schedule to the 1974 Bill to which I personally take objection are repeated in the Employment Protection Act. If the Government took the view that we could improve this Bill, they could as easily improve the Employment Protection Act. What stands in our way is not the conscientious objection to what we say of the tribunes of the people, but the members of the Government—or, rather, perhaps without seeking to probe the secrets of the Cabinet Room at any rate until the next volume of memoirs comes out, some members of the Government.
I turn last of all to the so-called merits. They really depend on one proposition and one proposition only. That is that one cannot work a conscience clause. I should have thought that after this debate and after the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, one could hardly make that argument stand up but, when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, says to me that nothing has happened since the last time we discussed it except perhaps that I have taken the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, at his word, I venture to say that a good many things have happened. Not least of these is the suggestion that we should adopt a European convention which has a conscience clause in it. That suggestion comes from the Labour Party.

655
It is quite clear that the conscience clause in the European convention will apply to the present Bill and, if the Labour Party's suggestion were accepted, it would become part of the law of this land. But let us assume that the Labour Party's suggestion is not accepted. It means that this country may have the humiliation of being hauled before the European Convention Commission for a breach of this piece of legislation which we are being asked to pass without amendment at this moment.
I sincerely ask the Government to think again. Of course if they refuse they have their machine-made majority in the House of Commons and of course if they use that machine-made majority we shall have to give way. I have never pretended

CONTENTS

Aberdare, L.

Grenfell, L.

Northchurch, B.

Aldenham, L.

Gridley, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Allan of Kilmahew, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Allerton, L.

Grimthorpe, L.

Peterborough, Bp.

Arran, E.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Piercy, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Platt, L.

Auckland, L.

Hankey, L.

Powis, E.

Audley, L.

Harcourt, V.

Rankeillour, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Reading, M.

Belstead, L.

Hartwell, L.

Redesdale, L.

Berkeley, B.

Hawke, L.

Reigate, L.

Birdwood, L.

Hereford, V.

Roberthall, L.

Brecon, L.

Hill of Luton, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Broughshane, L.

Hood, V.

Sackville, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Homsby-Smith, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Cathcart, E.

Hunt of Fawley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Chelwood, L.

Inglewood, L.

St. Helens, L.

Cholmondeley, M.

Jessel, L.

St. Just, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Sandford, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandys, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Saville, L.

Croft, L.

Lloyd, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Long, V.

Sempill, Ly.

Daventry, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

de Clifford, L.

Lyell, L.

Somers, L.

de Freyne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Stamp, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Deramore, L.

L.

L.

Derwent, L.

Mancroft, L.

Strathspey, L.

Dundee, E.

Marley, L.

Suffield, L.

Dundonald, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Tenby, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Merrivale, L.

Terrington, L.

Elles, B.

Mersey, V.

Teviot, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mills, V.

Teynham, L.

Elton, L.

Milverton, L.

Thomas, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Molson, L.

Tranmire, L.

Faithfull, B.

Monck, V.

Vickers, B.

Falmouth, V.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Ferrers, E.

Mottistone, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Glasgow, E.

Westbury, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Moyne, L.

Wolverton, L.

Grafton, D.

Newall, L.

Yarborough, E.

the opposite, but will they be wise, in the light of the arguments, to do so? I do not believe that they will be and I do not believe that, when it goes forth that this House has decided and decided only this, that a person who, for conscience other than religious belief, is dismissed from his employment can have from his employer, and only from his employer, compensation for unfair dismissal, this House need fear the verdict of public opinion. For that reason, I am bound to say that I am not convinced by the noble Lord the Leader of the House.
4.26 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 128; Not-Contents, 91.

NOT-CONTENTS

Allen of Fallowfield, L.

Gardiner, L.

Maelor, L.

Ardwick, L.

Geddes of Epsom, L.

Maybray-King, L.

Arwyn, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Melchett, L.

Aylestone, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Balogh, L.

Greene of Harrow Weald, L.

Northfleld, L.

Beswick, L.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Blyton, L.

Hall, V.

Pannell, L.

Bradwell, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pargiter, L.

Brown, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Henderson, L.

Peddie, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Phillips, B.

Burton of Coventry, B.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Champion, L.

Hoy, L.

Popplewell, L.

Collison, L.

Hughes, L.

Rhodes, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Jacobson, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Crook, L.

Jacques, L.

Shepherd, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Slater, L.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Kissin, L.

Snow, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Leather! and, L.

Stedman, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Delacourt-Smith of Alteryn, B.

Leigh, L.

Stow Hill. L.

Llewelyn-Davies, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglas of Barloch, L.

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

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Loudoun, C.

Wigg, L.

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Feather, L.

McCarthy, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Fulton, L.

McLeavy, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
4.36 p.m.
Lord SHEPHERD Lord SHEPHERD moved Amendment No. 2:
After Clause 1, insert the following new clause:
Freedom of the press
After section 1 of the principal Act there shall be inserted the following section:—
"Charter on freedom of the press
1A.—(1) If, before the end of the period of twelve months beginning with the passing of the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act 1975, there is agreed among parties including employers of journalists (or employers' associations representing such employers), editors (or editors' organisations), and trade unions representing journalists, a charter containing practical guidance for employers, trade unions and editors and other journalists on matters relating to the freedom of the press, the Secretary of State shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of that charter.
(2) For the purposes of subsection (1) above, practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the press must include guidance on the avoidance of improper pressure to distort or suppress news, comment, or criticism, the application of union membership agreements to journalists (and in particu-
658
lar the right of editors to discharge their duties and to commission and to publish any article) and the question of access for contributors.
(3) If no such charter has been agreed as mentioned above, or if a draft charter laid before Parliament (under subsection (1) above or this subsection) is not approved by resolution of each House of Parliament as mentioned in subsection (6) below, the Secretary of State shall after consultation with the Press Council and such of the parties referred to in subsection (1) above, such organisations representing workers, and such organisations representing employers, as he thinks fit, prepare in draft a charter, as follows:—

(a) where, or so far as, there appears to the Secretary of State to be agreement among the parties referred to in subsection (1) above on any matter relating to the freedom of the press, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance as he thinks appropriate to give effect to that agreement;

(b) where, so far as there appears to the Secretary of State to be no such agreement on any of the particular matters referred to in subsection (2) above, he shall incorporate in the draft charter such practical guidance on that matter as he thinks fit,

and the Secretary of State shall lay the draft charter before both Houses of Parliament.
(4) A charter agreed as mentioned in sub-section (3) above, shall define its field of retary of State in accordance with sub-section (1) above, or prepared by the secoperation.

659
(5) A charter agreed as mentioned in subsection (1) above, or prepared by the Secretary of State in accordance with subsection (3) above, shall provide for the constitution of a body which shall have the functions of—

(a) hearing any complaint by a person aggrieved by a failure on the part of any other person to observe any provision of the charter;

(b) issuing to the parties a declaration as to whether such a complaint is well-founded; and

(c) securing the publication of its decision.

(6) If a draft laid under subsection (1) or (3) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the charter in the form of the draft.
(7) A charter for the time being in force under this section may be revised from time to time by agreement between such parties as are referred to in subsection (1) above, and the Secretary of State shall lay a draft of the revised charter before both Houses of Parliament.
(8) If a draft laid under subsection (7) above is approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament, the Secretary of State shall issue the revised charter in the form of the draft.
(9) On issuing a charter or revised charter under subsection (6) or (8) above the Secretary of State shall make by statutory instrument an order specifying the date on which the charter or revised charter is to come into effect.
(10) A failure on the part of any person to observe any provision of a charter which is for the time being in force under this section shall not of itself render him liable to any proceedings, but in any proceedings—

(a) any such charter shall be admissible in evidence, and

(b) any provision of such a charter which appears to the court or tribunal to be relevant to any question arising in those proceedings shall be taken into account by the court or tribunal in determining that question."

The noble Lord said: May I remind the Committee of the procedures that we are adopting in regard to this Amendment? The text of the Amendment is of course precisely the same as that of the Commons suggested Amendments sent to us by another place under the provisions of the Parliament Act 1911, which did not form part of the Bill. Those suggested Amendments we considered, as was our duty under the Parliament Act, when we gave this Bill a Second Reading. We did not, however, move that the Commons suggested Amendments should be agreed. If the suggested Amendments had been agreed at that stage, this new
660
clause on Press freedom could not have been tabled and discussed as a normal Committee stage Amendment capable of becoming part of the Bill in the normal way. The chance for noble Lords to pass this Bill as a normal Bill, but containing some safeguards for Press freedom, without resort to the Parliament Acts would have been lost. Noble Lords will know well from what I said on Second Reading that this is a chance which I sincerely hope they will take, and that they will therefore agree to this Amendment today.
This new clause is of course substantially the same as that introduced by my noble friend Lord Houghton during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House on the original Amendment Bill as subsequently amended in both Houses on the proposal of the Government, or with their agreement. It provides for a charter giving practical guidance on matters relating to the freedom of the Press to be agreed by relevant parties within the Press industry, and to be given Parliamentary backing. The key matters relating to Press freedom on which guidance must be given are spelt out in subsection (2). The charter must also provide for a body to be set up to deal with complaints about non-observance of the charter's provisions. Moreover, the charter would, like the Industrial Relations Act's Code of Practice, have a status in legal proceedings to which it was relevant. It could therefore assist a person who took legal action to which the charter was relevant in winning his case.
Some changes have been made from the final version supported by the Government during the 1974–75 Session. Most of the changes are minor, drafting improvements. In particular, however, new provision is now made for the situation which might arise if Parliament did not approve a charter laid before it. The Secretary of State would, in these circumstances, be under a duty to pursue consultations on the preparation of an alternative version until one was produced which was acceptable to Parliament. The Government support all the provisions that are in this Amendment. They have been arrived at as a result of close co-operation between both Houses. I think that the contents of the Amendment are well known to Members of your Lordships' Committee, and I do not think I

661
need go into any further detail on it. I hope that the Committee will agree to this Amendment so that this Bill may reach the Statute Book by our normal processes with the question of the Press fully dealt with in it. I beg to move.
4.40 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I do not know that we can let it go quite as simply as that. I was expecting the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, to rise, which was the reason why I did not rise myself. While he is collecting his thoughts, may I say this to the Committee. I agree that the wise thing would be to pass this into the Bill. I confirm what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, has just said about the position under the Parliament Act. I have made my criticisms of the proposed charter but, like the tribunal in the earlier part of the Bill about unjust exclusion and reasonable exclusion or expulsion which is proposed to be set up by the TUC, my belief is that, contrary to my better convictions about its value, it would be wise now to let it have a run.
Lord ROCHESTER: Before the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, rises in his place, I think it might be for the convenience of the Committee if, very briefly, and in the most general terms, I were to express the view of my noble friends on this Amendment. It is not quite in the form that we should have preferred it; particularly in relation to the point that, in our view, the freedom of the Press is one so basic as to mean that its preservation should be safeguarded in some way by law rather than that aggrieved persons under the charter concerning Press freedom should merely have the right to complain to some independent body or that the provisions of the charter should be admitted in evidence before a body of that kind, a court or a tribunal. However, our view and that of the majority of your Lordships was taken as far as it reasonably could be taken in the last Session of Parliament and it would not be appropriate, as we see it, to pursue that view further now.
Similarly, as regards this Amendment based on the proposition first put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, we do not propose to oppose it now. As the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, reminded us in our debate at Second Reading, there is built into this
662
Amendment the safeguard that the draft charter to which it refers will eventually have to be approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament. If, therefore, the Bill is passed there will be further opportunity for whatever charter emerges from the Bill later to be debated. I recall, too, in our discussions last year on the noble Lord's Amendment, that it was said that the half loaf that it represented was, at any rate, better than no bread at all. I recall that various estimates were then made as to what precise fraction of a loaf the noble Lord's Amendment amounted to.
May I say that, in my opinion for what it is worth, based on some experience of the practical difficulties of bringing the law into the field of industrial relations, it is anyway a large slice of bread. If there is one thing more than another in the industrial field which our country stands in need of today it is, in my view, that at least some measure of agreement should be sought and found between the main political Parties, on the one hand, and between the Government and both sides of industry, on the other, as to the main policies that should be followed. When it comes to the crunch we all tend to feel that any such agreement should be based upon our view rather than upon the view of the other fellow.
In this instance the policy involved is not one of our choosing, but we on these Benches have all along recognised that in introducing the original Amendment the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, was trying, in a genuinely disinterested way, to bridge a gap between two sincerely held but differing opinions. It is in that same spirit that by noble friends and I should now like to give the policy involved in this Amendment a fair crack of the whip and we very much hope that it will prove successful in the event.
Lord GOODMAN: I do not know why my medical advisers are so benevolently disposed towards every Member of your Lordships' House as firmly to advise me to remain on my feet for a very short period. We have had a very low-key debate on the whole and that is probably a good thing. I think that it has been particularly distinguished by contributions from the Liberal Benches since the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder,

663
conforms so closely to Ruskin's famous definition of Gothic architecture, "petrified vertical motion"!
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: As chairman of the Ruskin Association it seems to me that the noble Lord has got the quotation totally wrong. If he is proposing to base his theme on that quotation in addressing your Lordships, he is without doubt wholly wrong.
Lord GOODMAN: I will be prepared to discuss the matter with the noble Lord afterwards, in the Library.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: May I say with the greatest respect, and despite the Conservative proposition that I should not be heard, that on the third Bench of the Liberal Benches I cannot hear what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has to say in relation to his introduction on Ruskin.
Lord GOODMAN: I can only say that for the noble Lord to be so alert as to interrupt and correct me, he does well in not having heard a word of what I said. But I do not think that Ruskin's views about Gothic architecture are fundamental to our discussion.
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: I should like—
Several Noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord LLOYD of KILGERRAN: We are in the technological age and Ruskin does not count in this.
Lord SHEPHERD: I hope that we shall not continue this exchange. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, had the Floor of the Committee and that we should now permit him to deliver his speech. I hope he will keep off Gothic architecture for a moment.
Lord GOODMAN: I give a solemn pledge not to mention Ruskin, architecture, or any cognate subject.
There are two matters on which I should like to touch in the course of what I assure your Lordships will be a brief speech. The first is the constitutional position and the second is the merits of the proposal. On the con-
664
stitutional position, we have had a very interesting and enlightening discussion in the last few weeks about how the Parliament Act works, how the interchanges between the Houses operate and what can and cannot happen.
The last time I addressed your Lordships I made it clear that I was a confirmed constitutionalist and had no intention of challenging the supremacy of the other place. This I totally accept. Although I am a confirmed constitutionalist—indeed perhaps because I am one—I saw no reason why we should not be able to exercise the rights that we had under the Parliament Act; and if because of some accident, inadvertence or mistake the Act were to come into operation with a chunk of it we did not like still available to us to be rejected, I could see nothing unconstitutional in our operating that right. I may say that in the short time which has elapsed since my complete recovery from a recent indisposition, I have taken the best advice I can and the most respected and revered advice available in this Chamber, and I am informed that there is nothing remotely unconstitutional, irregular or contrary to precedent if we should decide not to accept the suggested Amendments sent from the other place. This is a right that we exercise.
The whole matter therefore turns simply on the merits. If we consider it is more meritorious and more to the advantage of the situation to reject those proposals, we have an absolute right to do so. There can be no resentment and no suggestion in the country that we have acted unconstitutionally or flouted the other place, that we are exercising a "built-in majority", whether it be Tory or anything else. We have a perfect right to decide to reject the suggested Amendments. I would emphasise that point because I do not propose this afternoon to ask your Lordships to reject the Amendments. What I am anxious to do is to test the feeling of the Committee after there has been the opportunity to hear certain arguments which so far have not been presented and which I shall make as briefly as possible.
There is one feature of this suggested code which is especially obnoxious to me and also to those newspaper colleagues who are associated with me in the conduct of the discussions we have had over

665
many months. I may say that represents a very great majority of the editors of London and provincial papers and many other people associated with the Press. The feature we find wholly obnoxious and unacceptable, even if the idea put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby—a very worthy and conscientious idea of a Press charter —should be accepted, is that it should be drafted by a Cabinet Minister, a Member of the Government. We do not know of any civilised country where the Government intervene to prescribe a code for the Press. We regard this as a really hideous notion, which is contrary to all precepts of freedom and all ideas of freedom of speech and of expression. Even at this late stage I venture to invite the Government to consider whether that particular feature of this legislation—and it is not a fundamental or basic feature—might be withdrawn. That is the feature to which we consider basic objection can be taken legitimately. We think it should be withdrawn.
I should like to say that I do not propose to divide your Lordships this afternoon, but I am asking every Member of this Committee to consider whether, if the Government are unable to accede to this very modest request, it would not be appropriate for us to reject the whole of the charter regarding which this particular provision is so fundamental. That is a situation we may reach on Report stage. I do not say we shall necessarily reach it, because it will depend wholly on the amount of support which is likely to be forthcoming in this Chamber from those of your Lordships who have had the opportunity to weigh the situation. I shall not divide your Lordships on the basis that it is an empty gesture or a piece of futile defiance. I shall divide the House if I feel that enough people share my view that we ought not to have a Press code made for us by the Government, and that it would be a tragic thing in the history of British freedom of expression and freedom of thought if in1976 a Government official is to determine what is to go into the Press and how the Press is to be regulated. If the Government will withdraw that proposal at this stage I shall think it right to withdraw all further opposition.
We have had a good, long and honourable fight. We have been defeated by significant majorities in the other place,
666
and it would be quite wrong to maintain that fight. But we have the constitutional right to reject this charter out of hand. That, I believe, is the only right we have: I do not think we have a right to amend the charter, because then it would be a question of again sending it back to the other place and resuming a discussion that ought to be concluded. But, while we have that right, I think it would be timid, pusillanimous and cowardly not to exercise it if, in the ultimate analysis, we are to be left with a charter which is to be drawn up by a Government Minister. It is really no help to say that it is a charter which has to be approved by both Houses. Having regard to the guidelines contained in the present Bill, once they are operated by a determined and dogged Minister—if I may say so, a Minister of the most obstinate, obdurate, disposition—there is very little doubt that his notions of what the Press charter ought to be will be carried into effect. We shall find ourselves in the utmost difficulty in getting any revisions.
It is right to say that I believe, at the conclusion of a long and by no means happy argument, that the Minister is a man of total sincerity—I have never suggested anything to the contrary—but he is a man totally incapable of changing his mind or of appreciating the implications of this matter which have dawned on a few of us who have taken part in these discussions. I am compelled to say that his latest performance in a speech made the other day only reaffirms this. I should like to quote some observations that he made on this matter which are highly relevant to the sort of charter he is likely to produce. He made a speech only yesterday, and perhaps I might quote to your Lordships:
"Mr. Foot said he repudiated charges made against the Bill that it curtailed the rights of editors, the rights of non-journalists to write for newspapers, and 'the right to work' of individual trade unionists. But let me admit also that, while many of these accusations are wild and malicious, some of them arise from genuine fears and genuine misapprehensions."
The notion that these apprehensions might not be fanciful but valid, and based on a secure and well-founded fear that, if we allow this to happen, people will be prevented from writing and a very small union of 20,000 people, as a result of the Press charter, will find themselves in a position where it is unavoidable

667
that the Institute of Journalists is destroyed, because the consequence of having this Press charter must inevitably be—and I can assure you of this from the discussions I have had—that the Institute of Journalists will have no chance of survival. If we dispense with the charter, then the Institute of journalists has a chance of surviving. Several newspapers might fight doggedly against the closed shop, except under conditions that would allow it to survive. If I may say so, that is something which will happen if there is no charter. If there is a charter, and a charter to be written by Mr. Foot, there is no prospect except that a perfectly worthy institute of 3,000 members will be totally immolated, for no reason except a principle that we do not regard as having sufficient validity to justify the carnage and damage.
This is what we are really concerned about. We are concerned that if there is a charter, it should be freely negotiated. Time and time again I heard the noble Lord, Lord Houghton, say with total sincerity that we did not need the law intervening in these matters. I shall not revive that debate, or comment again as I have commented before about the sad and strange situation where we decide to exclude the law from our transactions in 1976, in the belief that human affairs can be conducted without some legal coercion and some legal compulsion or protection. We have arrived at this conclusion. So be it. But if we do not need the law, why do we need Mr. Foot? If we are to accept the position that, as free men, we are able to negotiate a charter in free terms, let us negotiate it without Mr. Foot and let us spare Mr. Foot, with many arduous duties already falling upon him, from this particular additional one.
In my view, it is common sense and common reason that if there is to be a charter it should be one freely negotiated by the parties concerned. We have great support and encouragement for this view in current developments in the newspaper industry at the moment. In the last two or three months particularly, there have been very happy signs of trade union and employer negotiations being conducted between the parties towards a fruitful conclusion directed towards producing a safer and more secure Press.
668
Great advances have been made in discussions, which I initially chaired until I was compelled to abandon them, and they were then brilliantly and successfully chaired by the deputy who took over. They have produced a result so that voluntarily, without the intervention of any Minister, without any assistance from well-meaning Governments and officials, there is an agreed, negotiated position where everyone has arrived at certain very firm principles as to how redundancy is to be dealt with, how casual labour is to be dealt with—matters which seem to have defied agreement for years. If we can arrive at this situation without the intervention of a Minister we can, I say hopefully, arrive at a situation where we do not need the intervention of a Minister as the ultimate arbiter as to what the charter is to be.
I conclude by saying that at the Report stage I will return to this. If the Government insist that there is to be a charter drawn by a Minister, I would venture to invite those who feel sufficiently strongly about the libertarian aspects of the matter to consider whether they would join with me in defeating this Amendment—something we have an absolute right to do. I do not ask anyone to make a decision until we have had a response from the Government.
I would point out something which I think it is right that I should point out. The original Amendment for a Press charter that my colleagues and I nut forward was to contain in unequivocal terms a provision that nobody was to be excluded or expelled from a trade union, from the newspaper union, without just cause. In short, the first principle of the Press charter was to guarantee that people should not be expelled from their profession or prevented from exercising their profession unless there was a valid ground for doing so. If it was unjust, then the charter was to give them protection. It is difficult to believe that there could be an honourable charter which did not contain that as a first provision. It is difficult to understand why it should be resisted, why anyone should not want that in the clearest terms. But after consideration it was deliberately resisted. I asked for that provision. In fact I went further. If that provision was inserted I was prepared to withdraw all my further objections, even the objection to the Secretary

669
of State, because at least we should know that there was a clear-cut provision, and even the most ingenious and doctrinaire Secretary of State would require a great deal more ingenuity than a human being could command to remove the effect of those clear-cut words. That has been refused. There has been no suggestion that that would be agreed and in the circumstances if the charter remains adumbrated in that form with a provision that the Secretary of State is ultimately to draft the charter I think we should be failing in our duty if we did not take advantage of the constitutional opportunity which has been afforded to us to throw the charter out root and branch.
It would be an unfortunate thing if we did not seize that opportunity, if we do not get the very minor concession and safeguards for which we are asking. The issue has now been narrowed to an enormous extent. We are no longer asking about legal sanctions and legal restraints. We are prepared to accept that in a Chamber which contains at least two former Lord Chancellors, they can sit quiet and supine and accept the fact that the legal system which they have proclaimed and operated for years throughout their professional lives is one that need not be introduced into trade union affairs.
There may be some explanation of this mystery and we may hear it in due course. I have no doubt we shall hear in due course, when the matter of the nature of the legal profession comes before the Royal Commission, from the very same voices what an admirable system it is; how wrong it would be to make any change to it, and we may then be asked how it is that a system so admirable is totally unacceptable to the trade unions. I do not know what the answer to that will be; nor is it a totally relevant inquiry at this moment. But it is relevant to know how, at the same time as we are expelling the law, we are determined to have something which is just as powerful and perhaps more sinister than the law in the person of a Minister who is to be substituted for it.
I am sure I have remained longer on my feet than my doctors would want and, I am certain, longer than your Lordships would want. I would only say that I shall return, if necessary to be carried
670
here by force from Nubians, to the Report stage in order to hear what reply the Government are to give and whether, if the reply is unsatisfactory, we shall all have screwed up enough courage to take advantage of the undoubted constitutional right and show the Government not that we are asserting some advantage by the Lords over the Commons, not that we wish to proclaim that the Second Chamber has better rights than the First Chamber or has rights in excess of what it is historically believed to have, but that we have a right to exercise the machinery and the powers of the Parliament Act if the Government contrive a situation where they are available to us to be exercised. But I hope we shall not have to enter into discussion. Even at this late hour I hone that Mr. Foot will remember that, in making his speech about the fanciful misapprehensions, he is not solely candid and ingenuous in making that statement. I hope he will remember that a great many of his colleagues, who, I think to their discredit, have remained supinely silent over this matter, nevertheless share my anxieties and the anxieties of a great many people about the passage of this Bill in its present form. Even though there is not the remotest possibility of persuading Mr. Foot to a contrary view, I hope that his colleagues may at this last moment stir themselves and remember that perhaps the liberties of England should take priority over political advantage and political convenience.
5.6 p.m.
Lord WIGG: I agree with a great deal, in fact almost all, of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has said, but there are two points upon which I profoundly disagree. First, he does not need to go to the most revered and learned Member of this House to find support for his proposition that this House has an absolute right to do what it wishes within the terms of its own procedures. But that carries with it another responsibility which rests in this House, not in any collective sense but in the responsibility of each individual Member to do his or her duty as he or she may see it. The second point on which I disagree even more profoundly is that he is obsessed by Mr. Foot. Let us assume for a moment that Mr. Foot is just the reverse of the description given to him by the noble

671
Lord, Lord Goodman—that he is not a person who is obstinate, one who having made up his mind will never change it. Let us assume that he is a person like the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, himself, or the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, the epitome of reason and sweetness, objectivity and nobility. I would still object to givng a combination of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the powers which Mr. Foot seeks to take in this charter.
For me, freedom belongs to me and I have only a right to it to the extent to which I seek to attain and retain it, and indeed to widen it. I am astonished at the extent to which we are seeking to rely upon institutions at the expense of relying upon ourselves to exercise the freedom without which, for me anyway, life is not worth living. I live in North Staffordshire, and I had the great honour to live near, to know and constantly to converse with the late Josiah Wedgwood. He wrote a book,Forever Freedom. He started on the Liberal Benches, but he quickly realised the ridiculous political position in which he found himself and wisely joined the Labour Party. But whatever the subject, he was on the side of free men.
I am not going to flog the Jeffersonian concept, on whether it is more important to have newspapers or to have the law, to have Parliament; but I am sure that the free interchange of opinion, the expression of views, is an essential requirement to a flourishing democracy. I believe that to a major extent the crisis of our time is that the media as a whole are not discharging that duty. Newspapers, television or radio are today not discharging the duty which enables individuals of no great resource to discharge the first duty of any democrat or one who seeks to exercise a political function within a democracy, namely, the ability to make up one's mind on very limited evidence.
I would not give to any Minister or to any one man the power to exercise or have access to the potential power contained in this charter. I agree completely with the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that this is not the job of Governments, however noble and good. Certainly, I do not
672
trust the Labour Party or the Conservative Party, because I believe that all power tends always to corrupt. Noble Lords can complete that quotation for themselves; it is familiar to all of us. Therefore, I believe that the approach of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, is wrong in principle, and if I wanted evidence I have listened to it today.
May I be frank? I intend to be frank, whether your Lordships want it or not. I was disgusted with the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. They made it impossible for a person like myself really to get at the innards of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham. He started off in that banal, polite kind of way, "Of course, we all agreed with the way in which the noble Lord delivered his speech." I did not, and if the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, had any political guts he would not, either.
I will enlarge upon the description of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. I will not go to Ruskin or to architecture. I will fall back on a story often told me by my old friend the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who tried to earn an honest copper by writing for American journals. Whenever he came across a new word, he researched to find out what it meant, and he came across the word, "mug ump". He tried to discover what a mug ump was, and his search led him to the conclusion that it is an animal and its mug is on one side of the fence, and its wump is on the other. We found a perfect example in the speeches of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Houghton. What the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, was doing was asking the House of Commons to approve what the noble Lord behind me described as a rogues' charter. It was never thought through. Of course it was a political ploy. If noble Lords had listened very carefully, they would not have followed him into the Lobby.
What did he do at the conclusion of his speech? He talked about the Government in another place, with their machine-made majority. Machine-made majority, forsooth! Does that not apply to any Government or Opposition? What is Party politics about, but the ability of a Government to command a majority

673
in the House of Commons; or of Mrs. Thatcher, on the other hand, even after the broadcast last night, finding one or two Tories to support her? That is what it is all about. When the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, having laughed at his own jokes, gets to the point where he makes a quip like that, he gives the game away. In the meantime, he has cast an aura of respectability over a perfectly legitimate political manoeuvre. But he is trying to make respectable a proposition which, when examined in the clear light of day, would make absolute nonsense of the relations between trade unions and workpeople and employers.
I ask your Lordships to think for a moment of a horny-handed son of toil, who has had a bad run at the dogs and wants a quick couple of hundred quid. What better than to develop a conscience, going along and saying, "Unless you sign on the dotted line, and unless I have a couple of hundred quid which can be left behind in the lavatory or given to me in an envelope, I am going to develop a conscience and will find a few others to do the same"? That is where this proposition will take us, and there has been more humbug talked about this Bill than enough. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, on spelling it out. But in relation to some of his associates in this political battle, I would say that birds of a feather do not flock together. However, the noble Lord has become respectable today, because he is associated with me, and if at Report stage he cannot find any other Teller to join him in the Lobby he can count on me, and when I say, "Count on me", I promise I will be there.
5.15 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I gather that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, was supporting the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in his very modest request and I should like to do the same. I should also like to feel that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will take heed of the point made by Lord Goodman. He based it, as did the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, on a matter of principle, but there is also a practical point behind it which ought to be taken into account. If this code is to be negotiated by the two sides affected by it, then they will have to come
674
to some sort of conclusion—if they can come to a conclusion at all—which covers to some extent the views that both sides hold. But if either side feels that somebody has a power which will be used in a way which is more in keeping with what they want but have not been able to negotiate, then they will not come to an agreement. That argument would apply whether the present Minister in the other place was responsible, and where one side had doubts about his objectivity or impartiality, or whether, by some wonderful magic, he was replaced by another Minister in a different Government who was accepted by the newspaper proprietors' side but not by the unions. I believe that if we genuinely want this code to be negotiated by the people concerned, and get to a pitch where it is likely to be accepted by both sides, then we must not give either side the feeling that if they will not agree the job will be done for them by a Minister who they suspect may well have the same kind of thinking as themselves. This very practical part of negotiation is something which ought to be borne in mind, because many of us have had that experience in other fields. If it has been agreed that unless you can reach a mutual agreement somebody will be brought in as arbitrator, and if at the back of your mind you have the feeling that the arbitrator will be more likely to come down on your side than the other, it prevents a voluntary agreement being reached.
On those grounds, I hope that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will use his influence in getting accepted this very modest suggestion of the noble Lord. Bearing in mind the formidable arguments of the noble Lord on bigger issues than this during the passage of this Bill, if this very modest suggestion, which has both principle and practicality behind it, is not accepted, then it will cause many people, who up till now have said that the point of view held is not that of somebody wanting to be piratical or tyrannical in his approach, to feel that there may be some ulterior motive behind the whole thing. If this Bill is to come out looking clean in its intent, then I should have thought this modest suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, ought to have been accepted by the time we get to Report stage.
5.18 p.m.
Lord SLATER: I should have thought the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would have made his stand and backed the other place in the Amendments which they have submitted to this House. I am surprised that he has gone the other way. Also, I was surprised that the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, talked about giving support to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who referred to Mr. Foot in the other place. One point that has been overlooked is that Mr. Foot is a political animal. He has lived politics for the greater part of his life, and that cannot be said for the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, who belongs to a profession which is entirely different from that of a politician. It was very unfair of the noble Lord to make those charges against the Minister responsible for introducing the Bill, and for considering the Amendments which went from this place to the other place, and which were turned down and sent back for further consideration here.
I sincerely hope that noble Lords took note of what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, said in conclusion. He said, "I have only this to say", and he then went on for another quarter of an hour. The noble Lord talks about repetition and about coming back at Report stage. Will there be repetition of the tripe that he has tried to put over today? Does the noble Lord have a vested interest? It is about time that the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and other people who are sitting on the Cross-Benches had second thoughts about entering the political arena and about what it stands for and means to the general public in this country, instead of coming along and arguing the case, as they have sought to argue it on this occasion, away from the legal profession. No closer amity exists than that within the legal profession. It is like that which exists in the medical and economic fraternities. Therefore, I hope sincerely that they do not get their own way and that we shall fight this issue on the Floor of the House. Let the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, come back at Report stage. We shall be here to listen to a repetition of what he has said in his speech.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: After listening to my noble friend Lord Wigg, I am confirmed in the opinion that
676
the eccentricities which many of us had in another place become more noticeable when we come to your Lordships' House. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, understands what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is proposing to do. He is proposing to remove from the charter the only provision which makes the charter necessary at all as part of the Bill. If there is not to be the ultimate sanction, so to speak, of the Secretary of State to be there in the event of failure to agree, then there is no need to include in an Act of Parliament any exhortation to both sides to get together. They can do it of their own free will; there is no need to include it in the Bill.
We shall have to consider whether the charter remains part of the Bill or whether it is to be completely thrown out. However, I do not intend to anticipate the debate which obviously the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will begin at Report stage. However, I am bound to say that if he intends to come back to this point, some of us will have to go back to the beginning and remind your Lordships why it was ever proposed that a charter should be inserted in the Bill. It was proposed because the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and other noble Lords wanted so many additional legal provisions to be included in the original Bill that some of us got together to discover a means of avoiding more and more legal intervention in industrial relations and a means whereby joint consultation and negotiation might lead to an agreement; and in default of an agreement the Secretary of State for Employment would then have a statutory duty to perform. It is in that framework that one has to consider whether this is a modest proposal. Let us fully understand that this is a wrecking proposal of the charter as it stands in the Bill at the present time.
Lord GOODMAN: I am obliged to the noble Lord for giving way because I want to say—it is of some importance —that it is not the case that if we take out this provision there is nothing left in the charter which needs to be included in an Act of Parliament. It will be remembered that we have left the charter in the situation where there is no legal redress, but there are other forms of redress which have been put into the charter and which, whether we like it

677
or not, we are now prepared to accept. Hence the charter would need to be included in the Act of Parliament if it is to retain that shape and to have won, as the Government did win, the very protracted argument about the exclusion of legal remedies.
Lord HOUGHTON of SOWERBY: I am obliged to the noble Lord and I shall not follow his intervention because I do not wish to prolong the debate. However, it is obvious that when the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, comes back to this matter he will virtually reopen the long discussions we have had on this subject to arrive at the point where we are now, where the charter is a combination of the wisdom of this House and another place and is put to your Lordships' House as a suggestion from the House of Commons as meeting the wishes of another place and of the Government, and as hoping to meet the majority view of your Lordships' House. But clearly the debate is going on and on, and if this is the intention of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, I give him fair notice that I shall play my part in it.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: I wonder whether I may try to pour a little oil on this troubled water?
Lord SHEPHERD: And not for the first time!
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: First of all, this is about as far as we can take the discussion this afternoon, except that either the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or the noble Lord the Leader of the House might perhaps give us a little constitutional advice. I am going to tender my own view of the point which we have reached and if I am wrong I am sure that it would be helpful if I were contradicted. As I see it, the debate arises in this way. In order to comply with the Parliament Act, the Government must introduce the Bill into another place in the form in which it was originally introduced. Therefore it could not contain what I will call now the Houghton Charter. What another place can do under the Parliament Act is to put in what is called a suggested Amendment which is written into the Bill in this House. If it does, it does not obstruct the operation of the Parliament Act
678
because it is a suggested Amendment for which special provision is made in the Act of 1911. What we are discussing now is something which has not happened since 1911. We are discussing, I think for the first time in the history of Parliament, whether to write into the Bill a suggested Amendment in that sense. The noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has made two quite separate suggestions and I think that they have two quite different constitutional consequences. The noble Lord says that he is not going to have a Division this afternoon and I am sure he is right about that. If he is right about that and nobody else divides the House, which is what I have recommended, the suggested Amendment will then be part of the text of the Bill, and there will be a Report stage because the Bill will have been amended.
Then the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, wants something which has been described by various terms—as a "modest Amendment" and as "wrecking Amendment". He wants to leave out the reference to the Secretary of State because of what he said about the Secretary of State. If he wishes he can, unless I am mistaken, propose an Amendment to that effect at Report stage. It will then go down on the Marshalled List and be discussed in the ordinary way. If it were carried, I think it would have to go back to the House of Commons. It is not an Amendment which we have a constitutional right to insert into the Bill and leave there, because if the suggested Amendment is not accepted in its entirety and without alteration it has to go back to the House of Commons for discussion there. If, of course, the Government in the House of Commons rejected the Amendment to the suggested Amendment, that would be the end of it because We have no further powers in the matter. Therefore, what one will have to discuss at some stage is whether the Government are prepared to accept the suggested Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, otherwise we shall be wasting our time.
Obviously, we cannot take the matter much further this afternoon. If between them the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the Government can arrive at some kind of formula which modifies the suggested Amendment, I certainly will not I put any difficulty in their way, but I

679
think that we ought to be very careful about rejecting the suggested Amendment—when I talk about the "suggested Amendment", I am referring to the Houghton Charter—for this reason. Although it was no part of the Bill as originally proposed by another place, in fact it embodies what a great number of people want to see as the law. I have expressed my own criticisms of it and I do not retract them, but I think we must consider the general effect on public opinion. I am not afraid of a row between the other place and ourselves about this because the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is perfectly right: if we do not write the suggested Amendment into the "Houghton charter"—into the Bill—then it will not be part of the Bill and the Bill will go through under the Parliament Act without it. But we must consider the matter with a great deal of care before we take that step.
What I was going to suggest was that possibly the noble Lord the Leader of the House will comment on what I have just said, and also will say whether between now and Report stage there cannot be a discussion between the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and the noble Lord the Leader of the House—because it is not a matter in which I would wish, nor, I think, would my noble friends wish, to take any part. I must warn the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, that I might find it difficult to persuade some of my noble friends to vote with him in the Lobby, either on sending a second matter back to the Commons or on rejecting the proposed Amendment. I say that with reluctance because we have worked together with great amity and in alliance with each other throughout the Bill and what I suggest is based on a political assessment of the situation and without doubting for an instance the reaction to the proposed charter of members of the profession with which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, has been so closely in touch.
I remind them, and him, of two things. The first is that any charter written by the Secretary of State has to have the approval not only of the other place but also of this House, which would not be a foregone conclusion if it contained objectionable provisions. The second concerns one factor which I was not sure
680
that I had got straight in my mind as to what the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, was saying. He said that if the Secretary of State wrote out a charter of his own it would be lethal to the Institute of Journalists. I do not want to enter into journalistic politics because I do not understand them and I am quite unqualified to do so, but it occurs to me that even if he rejected the charter in toto, under the Bill he still would be in no better position vis-à-vis that matter. To my mind his hope has always been that we might be able to persuade the Government to introduce legal sanctions behind it—which we have failed to do. The second hope was that one day this Parliament, like other good or bad things, will come to an end and we shall have a Government which will be more sensitive to some of the arguments which have been put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
In the meantime, I commend to him and his friends the thought which I tried to start when he was collecting his thoughts, that certainly on these Benches, and without in any way retracting our position, we have thought it right not to interfere with the proposed trade union tribunal on the issue of unreasonable expulsion or admission and it might be wiser and more sensible to take a similar line about this charter, notwithstanding the views which I know are deeply held.
There is something which has caused disquiet, and I do not know whether either of the two noble Lords would think it appropriate to comment upon it or whether they would prefer not to comment. Certainly I have been written to three times by the Institute of Journalists during the last ten days, complaining that there was a move by one of the branches of the NUJ to persuade a local authority—Barnsley—to withhold information from members of the Institute. I cannot help thinking that the central organisation of the NUJ might be wise to discourage action of that kind because, quite apart from any other considerations, the freedom of access by all working journalists to sources of information is something to which many of us would attach a good deal of importance in this connection. I have said what I can. I am sure we would be wrong to press this to a conclusion today and I am wondering whether the Government could either confirm or

681
correct my views as to the constitutional position and possibly add any other comments they might think were useful.
5.35 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: I have always contended that the gap between those who support the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, and those who support the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, and the Government is bridgeable; I still believe that is so, despite some of the observations made by some of the supporters of the respective sides this afternoon. I hope the noble Lord the Leader of the House will appreciate fully the great step forward that has been taken this afternoon by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in seeking to reach agreement; he has indicated that he would not desire to persist in his argument that the charter should be legally enforceable. That is a great step forward which removes one of the stumbling blocks to agreement.
The other suggestion that has been made by the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, is that there should be a very simple Amendment to the existing Amendments, which would merely be to omit subsection (3), the power of the Minister. I have no doubt that the noble Lord the Leader of the House will consider carefully the argument which was developed, for example, by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls; that is, that the existence of that fall-back power might prove a positive disincentive to the parties to agree upon the terms of a charter. I am sure the Government will recognise, as they have on previous occasions, that if a charter can be voluntarily agreed between all the parties that is an infinite improvement upon any possible charter that might be imposed by any outside source, quite irrespective of who the Minister may happen to be at a particular time. We on these Benches venture to echo the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that serious consideration might be given to this proposal, in the hope that at long last an agreed solution might be reached at Report stage.
Lord SHEPHERD: It is in fear and trepidation of my noble friend Lord Wigg that I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, that perhaps we have taken this
682
matter as far as we can this afternoon. The procedure that we have adopted—that is, moving this Amendment in Committee—was to ensure that if we were to see this Bill on to the Statute Book by our normal processes and without the use of the Parliament Act, then by moving the Amendment in Committee it becomes part of the Bill. Whatever we may do in regard to this Amendment and right up to the very stage—and one foresees (shall we say?) the worst case in which the Parliament Act procedure had to he adopted—up to the very moment of the processes being brought into operation in the Commons and by the Crown on the advice of the Speaker, this suggested Amendment from the Commons is standing in isolation in limbo outside the Bill. As I said on Second Reading, up to that very last moment, whatever may be happening, it is open to this House by a Resolution to agree to the Commons suggested Amendment, in which case it goes straight into the Bill, wherever the Bill may be. If the Bill is in the House of Commons it still goes into the Bill; it does not have to come here.
So we have a great deal of flexibility, but we have adopted this procedure in the hope that we could get the material into the Bill and pass the Bill without the Parliament Act. I have a feeling that this is still very much the wish of the Committee. I was interested in the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, developed the argument on what we now call the "Houghton Amendment". I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, will remember a number of my speeches where I have said time and time again that it really was not the right role of Ministers to be involved in matters concerning the Press. This was one of the basic arguments I had against the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, in regard to the various legal sanctions that he was pressing upon this House. I have no doubt at all that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment is the very last person who would wish to have placed upon him by Statute any requirement for dealing with laying out a charter for the Press. It was put in, therefore, in recognition of the fact that the two sides might fail to reach agreement upon the charter.
Originally, we said six months; we extended it to 12 months, recognising this particular problem, and the House

683
agreed to 12 months. Only in the case of failure of both sides to reach an agreement upon the charter would the Secretary of State have any decision in this matter, and whatever he may propose would be open to agreement between the two Houses. If there was disagreement, then the Secretary of State has to take the charter back and work on it again after consultation with both sides of industry.
I was asked whether I would look at the matter. Of course I will. But I do not want to mislead the Committee in this matter. A great deal of work went into this particular subject. It is there because there was real, genuine concern about certain matters in the Industrial Relations Bill as it might affect the freedom of the Press. So we put it in, and did so with a degree of reluctance. The Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Houghton of Sowerby, came from his own initiative; it had nothing at all to do with the Government. So it is there. Many Members in both Houses have been involved in it. A great deal of time and research has gone into it. Therefore, I should not like to say we ought to give special consideration to the point of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman. It can be seen by some as a wrecking procedure, for if one side was not prepared to agree to a charter, then there would be no charter. I do not take the sense of both Houses in this matter that that is what they would wish to see. However, I will look at the matter because I have been invited to do so by the noble Lords, Lord Wigoder and Lord Goodman, but I would be misleading the Committee if I were to give any sense of optimism to the noble Lord, Lord Goodman.
This has been a debate of good humour. I must say I feel a sense of gloom and despondency creeping over me that we have to deal with this matter yet again on another day. I feel like the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone—I am slightly "cheesed off" about it, but this is the Constitution and we must go through with it. I would hope we could deal with it with some expectation of getting down to some matters which are just as relevant and important, but matters which we have not discussed as exhaustively as we have this particular matter.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
In the Title:
Lord SHEPHERD: I beg to move the Amendment in the Title.
Amendment moved—
Line 4, at end insert ("and to provide for a charter on matters relating to the freedom of the press").—(Lord Shepherd.)
Title, as amended, agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with the Amendments.

SOLICITORS (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
5.45 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 7 [Investigation by lay observer of Society's treatment of complaints]:
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 5, line 17, at end insert—
(" (12) In part 3 of Schedule 1 to the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 (offices disqualifying for membership) there shall be inserted at the appropriate place in alphabetical order the entry "lay observer appointed under section 7 of the Solicitors (Scotland) Act 1976".").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, under Clause 7 the Secretary of State is entitled to appoint a lay person to see that the Society's treatment of complaints from their clients is satisfactory. This Amendment is in common form and does no more than say that such appointment cannot be a Member of the House of Commons. The lay observer under Clause 7 of this Bill is an addition to the list of those appointments not available to Members of the House of Commons. I beg to move.
Clause 26 [Citation and construction]:
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, this Amendment is consequential to the Amendment I have just moved. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 37, at end insert—
("(2) This Act except in so far as it relates to the amendment of the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975 extends to Scotland only".)—(The Earl of Selkirk.)

SHOPS (HOLIDAY RESORTS— SUNDAY TRADING) BILL [H.L.]
5.47 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. It will be unnecessary for me to take up much of your Lordships' time in explaining the purpose behind this short Bill. Nevertheless, it is a valuable Bill which amends in a very important particular the provision contained, in Section 51 of the Shops Act 1950. Perhaps I should remind your Lordships that in 1936 the noble Earl, Lord Munster, introduced and piloted through his Shops (Sunday Trading Restrictions) Bill, the terms of which are now reenacted in the Shops Act 1950. This was a consolidating measure, bringing within the compass of one Statute the eight Acts previously representing the code applying to retail trading hours and the conditions of employment of shop workers. In passing, I think it is worth mentioning that of the 1950 Act Mr. Justice Humphreys once said in the Appeal Court:
"Thesis one of those Acts in which the opening words indicate a perfectly plain statement of what is to be done, and the rest of the Act is taken up with exceptions to the general statement of the law".
A great deal has happened since 1936 and, indeed, since 1950. There have been many changes in attitudes. Peoples' views on Sunday trading have not escaped these changes, but your Lordships will see that the improvement in law contained in this Bill has nothing to do with the problems—and, indeed, there are problems—relating to what may or may not be sold on Sunday, or which types of shop may or may not be open on Sundays. I warn the House that I may well be returning to some of these problems on another occasion.
My Lords, there is at present the special problem in connection with shopping hours at holiday resorts. These were provided for, in relation to trading on Sundays, by the provisions now contained in Section 51 of the Shops Act 1950. They are that the goods referred to in Schedule 7 to the Act may, subject to an order made by the appropriate local authority, be sold on Sundays, during the hours stated and under such conditions as the local authority may set out. The duration of the order is restricted to a maximum of 18 Sundays in the year. In
686
1936, this probably was ample provision because holidays were then taken in July, August and September. But over a long period of years there has been a continuing attempt to persuade people to take off-peak holidays. At long last there is a greater spread of the year during which holidays are taken, and indeed it is very good to recall that many more people now enjoy holidays, and longer holidays at that.
I think it is relevant to refer to the Crathorne Report, the Departmental Committee Report on the Law on Sunday Observance, to which your Lordships have referred on many occasions. It took a long, hard look at trading, as well as entertainment, sport and pastimes on Sundays. Examining the position at holiday resorts and the power to make orders, the Committee recommended that:
"The local authority should have complete discretion as to the number of Sundays to be specified in the order".
It so happens that this is one of the many recommendations of that Committee which has never in fact become law.
Your Lordships may well ask why I have not gone all out for this proposition. I believe that such freedom would entail an examination in depth of the arrangements for staffing shops, and it would also take out of context one particular item in a Report of importance and length. The figure of 26 Sundays which I seek to have substituted for 18 will enable local authorities to exercise their order-making powers in such a way that all or most of the holiday weeks are covered, thereby giving traders the opportunity to serve the public in the holiday resorts from spring to the end of the summer. I should add that the figure of 26 Sundays will be a maximum. There will not be any need for the local authority to use any more Sundays than is necessary. What is also important is that the Sundays need not be consecutive.
My Lords, there is a wide measure of agreement that this small change will be of real value. It is also my understanding that those representing shop workers accept the need for this slight alteration. I hope I have said enough to show your Lordships that this modest Bill is designed to bring about the opportunity for local authorities to exercise their discretion to meet the reasonable

687
needs of the public at places where they go to enjoy themselves. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Baroness Phillips.)
5.52 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the Bill of which the noble Baroness has moved the Second Reading seems to those of us who sit on this side of the House to be wholly admirable. I was particularly glad to hear her say that the unions concerned are also in agreement that it would be a change that they would accept. I would approach it from the point of view that evidently made the Crathorne Committee report in the kind of terms that they did. This would seem to me to be eminently a question which a local authority is able to deal with on behalf of those who live in the area and those who take their holidays in the area, and also on behalf of the shopkeepers. After all, there is no point in having reorganised local government and being prepared in general to trust them to take many important decisions if what is essentially local matter is not to be within their power. I would therefore welcome the extension of their discretion on this particular count. They need not, of course, use all the 26 Sundays. They need not use any of them.
The noble Baroness did not even tell the House about all the trappings of the order-making procedure which would attend their exercise of this power if they wanted to use it. After all, they do not even do it entirely on their own resolution. They have to make an order; they have to publish it; they have to accept and consider any objections. Even after all that, if they consider it to he expedient, they can make the order only if occupiers of not less than two-thirds of the shops or classes of shops to he affected approve it. So there are many safeguards. I cannot believe that this is not something we should happily leave to the local authority.
My Lords, it has nothing to do with it, but the noble Baroness mentioned the Shops Act which started off fairly simply, but made things more and more difficult as it went along. One of the later sections of that Act refers to "seagoing ships". Seagoing ships are expressly not dealt
688
with under Section 51, with which we are concerned here. I observe this note, which seems to me to carry with it the connotation that sometimes the law really is an ass. It says with regard to seagoing ships:
"The expression is not defined, but it has been held that a seagoing ship is a ship which goes to sea".
And we have the reference in a case heard in the Queen's Bench Division in 1893. There has evidently been a good deal of litigation and muddle on this. I congratulate the noble Baroness on one point which I think everybody would agree would be an improvement in the law.
5.55 p.m.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I could not let this Bill be read a second time without my support. Some of your Lordships will know that for many years I have been interested in Sunday trading. Your Lordships have tried on at least two occasions to improve the Sunday trading provisions of the Shops Act but successive Governments have proceeded to block it in the other place. Your Lordships will also know my opinion of Part IV of the Shops Act, which deals with Sunday trading. I suppose it is the worst drafted legislation that any of us have ever seen. Most of it is incomprehensible. If your Lordships do not believe me, you only need to read what successive High Court judges have said about it to know that I am speaking the truth. The section with which this Bill is dealing is one of the few sections of Part IV which happens to be comprehensible, and very sensible with it.
As the noble Baroness said, since 1950 circumstances have altered. The resorts—I do not like the phrasing "holiday resorts": I prefer to call them "tourist resorts" which is not quite the same thing—have tried desperately hard to extend their season, particularly the Northern resorts, and they have to a large extent succeeded. Now, of course, resorts have a different season as well as the holiday season, with the conferences and so on. These bring in many more visitors, the wives and children of the delegates and so on. So it is necessary to extend the number of Sundays for which the orders can be made. The noble Baroness pointed out why we cannot at the moment give an absolutely free hand to the local authorities to make the orders

689
for any number of Sundays. That will come one day. But at the moment it is important to get this Bill through now without argument with the unions, the Lord's Day Observance Society or anyone else. So, my Lords, I hope that your Lordships will give this Bill a very rapid passage through this House, and I hope to hear an undertaking from the Minister that the Government have firmly made up their mind to give it a fair wind when it gets to the other place.
5.58 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I shall take up very little of your Lordships' time. I am sure we are all very grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, for what she has done this afternoon, because really it is high time that something was done about this. We have heard mention already of the Easter Act, which was passed 50 years ago. This has been going for 25 years, so it is almost the Silver Jubilee. If we go back further to the Sunday Fairs Act, that came under Henry VI in 1448, 528 years ago, and was, of course, on religious grounds. I am sure that most of your Lordships agree that Sunday is not a day that should be entirely devoted to God; part of the time, yes, but other times, no. We should examine, as the noble Baroness said, the other Sunday activities of sport, recreation and theatre and so on.
It is understandable that the shop-workers' union does not want exploitation of, for want of a better word, shop assistants, due to unsocial hours. I believe that one of their arguments has been that if shops opened on Sunday, every shop would have to open in order to survive. I do not believe this. Anyway, there are many shops on the Continent which open on Sunday and shut on Monday.
The other point I would make is that I think this is a great opportunity for the small corner shop in the town; it is probably a family business, and it would very much help them to survive against the giant supermarkets and monopolistic chain stores we have nowadays. May I for one moment point out to your Lordships some of the strange anomalies of the Sunday Trading Act. You cannot sell fish and chips, but you can sell fried chicken and take-away meals. You can-
690
not sell partly cooked meat, but you can sell fresh meat. You cannot sell tinned clotted cream, but you can sell untinned clotted cream. If you go to a garden centre, you may buy their own produce, but you may not buy a potted plant they have bought somewhere else. I think in 1976 we should adopt a whole new attitude. The only reservation I would have on the Bill of the noble Baroness is that it does not go far enough; it should be nationwide.
6.1 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, it is seldom that your Lordships have so many speeches in such a short period of time. It is an indication that the Bill itself is regarded by your Lordships as a good one. May I say, on behalf of the Government, that the Government have traditionally been neutral to Bills seeking to amend the Shops Act, and this is precisely the position of the Government in respect of this Bill. As my noble friend pointed out, her purpose is to provide facilities in the Bill for shops in holiday resorts to be open for a maximum period of 26 Sundays each year as against the 18 at the present moment. I remember only too well, I think in 1967 and again in 1971, when the noble Lord, Lord Derwent, tried to do something about implementing the recommendations of the Crathorne Committee. It may be that my noble friend has decided to approach this by making less radical changes and. by so doing, has commended the Bill to the House.
The only point I need to make is that the drafting of the Bill, so far as our advisers are concerned, is very acceptable as it stands, and one cannot often say that with regard to a Bill that comes before your Lordships' House. It may be a matter of interest to your Lordships to know that it would have no financial, manpower, or EEC implications.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, will he give me the undertaking about the other place for which I asked?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to convey that to my right honourable friend, and I shall certainly do so.
6.3 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, I should like to thank your Lordships for

691
accepting the Bill in such a generous spirit, and particularly the Government. I recall on the last Bill that I brought before your Lordships that the Minister said it was badly drafted, irrelevant, and unnecessary—apart from that, I think it was all right. It was not this Minister. It was a delight to find the Minister not only commenting on the content of the Bill but on the drafting.
To the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, I would say that I cannot personally recall what happened in the time of Henry VIII—indeed, one of my colleagues murmured that it was even before his time—but I agree about the total nonsense of what you can and cannot sell. Most of us in towns, at any rate, see the rather charming way in which certain people open shops, and since they obviously do not read the law they sell almost everything. There is no doubt that there is a great need for many changes. The Minister hit the nail on the head when he said that I had learned one lesson—I hope I have learned others —that in this House particularly you are quite likely to get a Bill accepted if you have one simple idea, but if you have a great radical reform different people will be opposed to it for different reasons. Therefore, I am now adopting a policy of "Softly, softly". Perhaps I should not have told the Minister that.
Of course, I pay great tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Derwent. I recall his eloquent speeches on his Bill. Indeed, he persuaded me to follow in his steps as president of the Administration of Shops Inspectors, which I am enjoying very much. I think I can assure him that the local authorities take a broad view of the expression, "holiday resort", and I believe they are rather keen to have that phrase, which they interpret in their own way. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, highlighted the safeguards which will prevent any local authority going mad. The various processes which have to be gone through are a safeguard to any earnest local authority. I was delighted with his quotation—which I shall undoubtedly use—of the ship that goes to sea. There is little doubt that one does not need to read any prepared jokes one has only to read legal definitions of what the law is. I am grateful to your Lordships for
692
your acceptance of this Bill, and I beg to move.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

  ELECTRICITY: DOMESTIC CONSUMER DISCONNECTIONS
  ELECTRICITY: DOMESTIC CONSUMER DISCONNECTIONS
  IMMIGRATION FIGURES
  IMMIGRATION FIGURES
  DEPENDENT RELATIVE ALLOWANCE
  DEPENDENT RELATIVE ALLOWANCE
  AFFORESTATION: ACREAGE STATISTICS
  AFFORESTATION: ACREAGE STATISTICS