Sitting of 12 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at Eleven o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]
NEW WRIT
For Cambridge, in the room of David William Stennis Stuart Lane, Esquire (Chiltern Hundreds).—[Mr. Humphrey Atkins.]
ORDERS OF THE DAY

  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [LORDS]
  Considered in Committee.
  [Mr. OSCAR MURTON in the Chair]
  The Chairman: Following the usual practice, I propose, with the Committee's agreement, to put en bloc the Questions in sequence on clauses and schedules to which no amendment is offered. I shall read out the list of numbers of clauses and schedules in sequence, and if any hon. Member wishes to speak on any one of them he should say so at the time.
  We shall now take Clauses 1 to 32 en bloc if that is agreeable.
  Mr. Daniel Awdry: I appreciate that the Bill is purely consolidation, but I wish to make one or two points.
  The Chairman: Will the hon. Gentleman indicate with which clause he is dealing?
  Mr. Awdry: I am dealing with Clause 1 generally, Mr. Murton.

  SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [LORDS]
    Clause 1

      RIGHT TO SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS
      Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
      Mr. Awdry: Although the Bill is a purely consolidation measure, it is highly technical and extremely complicated. The
      810
      Joint Committee considered the Bill for a second time because of the passage through Parliament of the Supplementary Benefit (Amendment) Bill. The Joint Committee has taken account of the amendments proposed to existing legislation in the Amendment Bill and has therefore amended the consolidation measure accordingly. The new Bill—the Supplementary Benefit (Amendment) Bill—has only two clauses and one schedule, but it is a grotesque example of legislation by cross reference and I doubt whether any Member of the House could make sense of it, even if he or she were to study it for an hour or two with a towel round the head.
      I believe that this consolidation measure, which affects millions of our citizens, will greatly help all those who are connected in any way with the administration of supplementary benefits, and I believe that this is a major achievement.
      This was the last Bill which the Joint Committee handled under the chairmanship of Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and as a member of the Committee I wish to take this opportunity of paying my tribute to him. As the House knows, Lord Simon served as Member for Middlesbrough, West from 1951 to 1962. He was Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department from 1957 to 1958, Financial Secretary to the Treasury from 1958 to 1959 and Solicitor-General from 1959 to 1962. For nine years he was President of the Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division, and he was appointed a Lord of Appeal in Ordinary in 1971.
      Lord Simon has been Chairman of the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills since 1972. He has borne a great deal of the burden of the work of the Committee and, indeed, has followed the legislation through the House of Lords. He has taken us through highly complicated and difficult legislation with great clarity, courtesy and good humour. I am sure that he never had to deal with a more complicated measure than the Supplementary Benefits Bill which we are now discussing. We have relied enormously on his experience, advice and expertise and Parliament is greatly in his debt.
      The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I, too, should like to pay tribute

      811
      to the work of Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and, for that matter, to the Joint Consolidation Committee. My right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General paid tribute to Lord Simon on Second Reading.
      I agree with what the hon. Member for Chippenham (Mr. Awdry) has said. This is a major feat of consolidation and an excellent example of the effect that the Committee has had on the simplification of statute law. If none of us has to put a towel round his head, that in itself will be a tribute to the work of the Committee.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause 1 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 2 to 32 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

    Clause 33

      ORDERS, RULES AND REGULATIONS
      Mr. Arthur Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 20, line 36, leave out subsection (1).
      The Chairman: With this we are taking Government Amendment No. 2.
      Mr. Davidson: If hon. Members want me to explain these amendments I shall be happy to do so, but they are both purely consequential.
      Amendment agreed to.
      Amendment made: No. 2, in page 20, line 39, leave out 'an order,'.—[Mr. Arthur Davidson.]
      Clause 33, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Clauses 34 to 36 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
      Schedules 1 to 8 agreed to.
      Bill reported, with amendments; as amended, considered.
      Motion made, and Question, That the Bill be now read the Third time, put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 56 (Third Reading), and agreed to.
      Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

  EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (LAWYERS' SERVICES)
  11.12 a.m.
  The Solicitor-General (Mr. Peter Archer): I beg to move
  That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2133/75 and R/646/76 on Lawyers' Services.
  This debate is provided on the recommendation of the Select Committee, and it is happily timed, because, while it is always difficult to make a firm prediction about future progress it is likely that it will be considered by the Council of Ministers at an early date, and the Ministers will need to be in possession of the views of the House.
  This draft directive is concerned with the provision of services on a temporary basis in one member State of the EEC by lawyers qualified in another. Its purpose is to facilitate the provision of these services on a reciprocal basis while providing adequate safeguards to ensure that their clients the public, are properly protected. It is not concerned with lawyers engaging in regular practice in another State; it is not concerned with the mutual recognition of qualifications; it is concerned with visits for particular business. But that objective is important, and it is one which the Government fully support.
  The proposal to abolish restrictions on the provision of these services was first made as long ago as 1969. In the European Parliament it was met with something less than universal acclamation, and by 1972 official negotiations had reached an impasse.
  In 1974 the position was radically altered by the decision of the European Court in the cases of Reiners against the Belgian State and of Van Binsburgen, where it was held that those articles of the Community Treaty which confer the right to provide professional services in all Community countries did not require to be activated by directive but that they had had direct effect throughout the EEC since 1969.
  The court rejected the argument that that right was not applicable to lawyers because it involved what Article 55 calls "official authority". It follows that a lawyer qualified in one member State has

  813
  the right, arising directly from the Treaty, to provide services in another State under whatever conditions are generally applicable to lawyers there.
  But the court agreed that the right did not extend to allowing someone to perform functions in a member State which the national law had justifiably and in the public interest reserved to qualified members of its own legal profession. Consumers, too, have rights and they are entitled to a measure of consumer protection in order to ensure that those who offer legal services are properly qualified to provide them.
  In consequence of this decision, and in the new situation created by the accession of the United Kingdom and the Republic of Ireland, a meeting of Ministers of Justice of the EEC countries in November 1974 instructed the Commission to prepare a revised draft. This is it. Unlike its predecessor, it is not framed directly to allow lawyers generally to provide services. It takes account of the decisions and it clarifies the rights which exist already under the Treaty and sets out the conditions and safeguards under which those rights are to be exercised.
  There are always problems when one seeks to arrange for those practising a profession in one country to render services in another. The structures of the profession may be different in the two countries. But if we are dealing with law, the problems are multiplied. The doctor who understands the human body in this country is likely to find that bodies function similarly in France. But a lawyer familiar with one legal system may find that he has no expertise either in the substantive law or the procedure of a different system. So, a qualification to practice German law, however impressive, is not a certificate of expertise in English law, or vice versa.
  The way in which the directive approaches the problem is first to refer to all services performed by the legal profession, not just to legal advice and advocacy—matters which in this country we sometimes call "non-contentious business". This is in contrast with the original 1969 draft, which was confined to advocacy and advice.
  The directive then turns to the problems arising from the differing structures of the profession by specifying a list in
  814
  respect of each country of the classes of person there designated generally as lawyers. In relation to the United Kingdom, that includes advocates, barristers and solicitors. It declares that freedom to provide services means the freedom to provide those services which are undertaken by the designated profession in the host State, although a visiting lawyer may retain his own title—for example Rechtsanwalt or avvocato.
  It makes an important distinction between court work and other work. In respect of court work, a visiting lawyer will be subject to the rules of professional conduct of the host State and may be required to work in conjunction with a lawyer who practices before the court he is visiting . In respect of other work, the rules of professional conduct to which he is subject are those of the country where he qualified, subject to a certain matter to which I will advert later.
  Before turning to some of the specific questions which have arisen, I will mention a point which may strike those who have read the text. Like other EEC documents, this one is couched in general terms—what some of us call "open texture". It is inevitable where it has to be implemented in nine countries, because it cannot use the precise legal terminology of any of them. It means that we are not governed by a word which might have a technical meaning in Scots law but not in English law, or vice versa.
  I turn next to some of the specific issues which have given rise to discussion in the United Kingdom. Over the last year there has been very full consultation between the Government Departments concerned and the representative bodies of the legal professions. The Government are most grateful for the assistance which the professions have given. In addition, we have had the benefit of the report of the Select Committee. We have also had the Eleventh Report of the Select Committee in another place.
  As a result of this detailed examination, our negotiatiors in Brussles have been able to argue a number of points where we believe that the draft could be and has been improved. In respect of most of them, we confidently expect that the proposals which will ultimately be submitted to the Council of Ministers will be in an acceptable form. Hon Members will have found in the Vote Office a supplementary explanatory memorandum

  815
  submitted by the Lord Chancellor's Department, dated 9th November, which draws attention to the likely changes of substance.
  Mr. John Davies: Perhaps the Solicitor-General will be dealing with this matter later, but will he say whether the amended form of submission to the Council of Ministers will, as far as he knows, take the form of an amended instrument by the Commission to the Council, or whether it will be prepared within the Council machinery itself? It has very serious consequences from the point of view of scrutiny and I should like to know in which of the two forms it is likely to be.
  The Solicitor-General: I understand that it will be an official document. If I am wrong about that I shall endeavour to correct it at a later stage, but I take the right hon. Gentleman's point.
  I now turn to some of the specific questions which have been discussed in this country. Anxiety was expressed about the need to reserve to lawyers of the host country an unshared right to prepare specific classes of legal document which may require specialised knowledge of a particular branch of the law. Mention was made particularly of the preparation of documents relating to the transfer of land and to the administration of the estates of deceased persons, as well as to the drafting of pleadings.
  Part of the problem was that in relation to conveyancing and probate it was said that the directive did not create genuine reciprocity between the United Kingdom and the Continent, because in Europe these activities are the preserve of notaires, who are excluded from the scope of the directive, while here they are the function of solicitors who are included in the directive. The result would have been that an avocat could come over here to do this work, which he could not do at home, while a solicitor would not be entitled to undertake such activities when visiting another member State.
  This anomaly was pointed out in the European Parliament by the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker Smith), and the Commission submitted an amendment to
  816
  cover the point. Subsequent negotiations have led to a revised text which is likely to protect member States if they wish to reserve to prescribed categories of lawyers the preparation of formal documents for obtaining a title to administer the estates of deceased persons, and the drafting of formal documents creating or transferring interests in land.
  The proposed provision is discretionary but it would enable the United Kingdom to reserve the preparation of the chief documents in connection with conveyancing and succession to nationally qualified lawyers. There is no specific exemption for the drafting of pleadings but, as I have indicated, by Article 5 member States may impose an obligation on the visiting lawyer in relation to court work to act in conjunction with a lawyer practising before the court in the host country and who would, where necessary, be responsible to that court.
  In addition, the visiting lawyer will be subject to the conditions and rules of professional conduct of the host Member State. This will enable an adequate measure of control to be exercised over the visiting lawyer in respect of all aspects of court work, including the drafting of pleadings and the conduct of cases in court.
  A further problem is the position of the non-practising lawyer. In the United Kingdom, a lawyer who is employed by a commercial undertaking or public body remains a member of his profession and subject to his professional code of conduct. He does the same work and can act for his employer in the same way as if that employer were a private client. On the Continent it is more usual for the employed lawyer to be required to leave his profession altogether on accepting a salaried position, although this varies and in some member States the situation is closer to that of the United Kingdom.
  The Commission's proposal did not take this distinction into account, and in relation to United Kingdom lawyers the scope of the directive was limited to those in private practice. Perhaps not surprisingly, the bodies representing employed lawyers felt that they should be allowed the benefit of the directive where they are required to go abroad on behalf of their employers. I am pleased to say that this view has found favour in Brussels, and the directive is likely to refer simply to

  817
  barristers, advocates and solicitors, without specifying that they shall be in private practice.
  This is subject to one further qualification. A new provision is to be recommended which will allow those member States which do not permit lawyers in the salaried employment of a private undertaking to represent that undertaking in judicial proceedings to exclude foreign employed lawyers to the same extent as their own nationals. The Government's view is that this is acceptable in substance. If an employed lawyer could appear in a country which did not allow its own employed lawyers to do court work, there would be reverse discrimination. In any event, most employed lawyers employed abroad will be concerned with advice rather than advocacy, but the form of the new provision may leave something to be desired. It speaks only of lawyers employed by private undertakings, and it will have to be further considered in Brussels.
  There is one other outstanding matter of importance. This concerns Article 4(4), which deals with the code of conduct which is to be applied to the visiting lawyer in relation to non-court activities. As I said earlier, he would be subject to the professional rules of the country where he qualified and those of the host State would not apply; nor would what are described as the conditions of the host State, which might include detailed requirements about the organisation of lawyers' offices, or the way in which they keep their accounts.
  This position is not acceptable to the majority of member States and, consequently, in the Brussels negotiations it has been proposed that, while the lawyer should remain subject to the rules of professional conduct of the State where he is qualified, this should be without prejudice to what the text calls the "fundamental ethical principles" applicable in the host State, with particular reference to certain generally accepted principles, such as confidentiality.
  This solution would be acceptable to the United Kingdom and, I understand, to our own profession, but certain member States are not content with that. They seek to apply not only the fundamental ethical principles of the host State but all the conditions, which would bring into
  818
  play an array of complicated professional requirements which it is hardly practicable to apply to a lawyer on a purely temporary visit.
  A solicitor might find himself barred from giving legal advice in a State which has a rule that a lawyer may have only one office because at home his firm happens to have two offices. The Government's view is that that solution would be objectionable and would defeat the objective of the directive, which is to facilitate services.
  I do not believe that this difficulty is insuperable. I repeat that in the Government's view the position with regard to the directive as a whole is satisfactory, subject to finding an adequate solution to that problem. But, of course, the Government will take into account the views that hon. Members express today. Obviously, it is an advantage in some situations for a client to have the services of people skilled in the law of a different country without unnecessary restrictions.
  Before concluding, I apologise in advance to the House that I shall have to leave during the debate. My right hon. Friend the Lord Advocate and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be here. Unhappily, the saints who were able to perform the miracle of bilocation did not leave us their secret. But I hope that hon. and learned Gentlemen will accept that there is no disrespect intended.
  11.30 a.m.
  Sir Derek Walker-Smith: The House will be grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General for his characteristically clear and cogent exposition of the matter of this directive, which has been a long time coming into being because of the various difficult considerations surrounding it, to which he gave expression and explanation.
  I am sure that the House will readily excuse the hon. and learned Gentleman. We know the difficulties always attaching to his office; and those difficulties, if I may say so without striking any partisan note, are scarcely likely to be less at present than in the normal case. I am sure that we shall be very happy to have the matter left in the able hands of the learned Lord Advocate—certainly those of us who have known him and

  819
  admired his contributions to the House over a period.
  This directive is concerned with the liberalisation of lawyers' services in the Community. We can see from Article 3(c) of the Treaty establishing the European Economic Community that this directive seeks to serve one of the main objectives of the Community as there expressed in the words:
  "the abolition, as between Member States, of obstacles to freedom of movement for persons, services and capital".
  This objective is furthered by Article 59 of the Treaty which refers to the progressive abolition of
  "restrictions on freedom to provide services"
  and in Article 60 which in paragraph (d) includes in the category of "Services"
  "activities of the professions."
  The full realisation of this principle would involve the right of establishment by professional men of one member State in the territory of other member States as well as the recognition of their qualifications to act or advise ad hoc on a temporary basis across the frontiers of those member States.
  This directive, as the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, is concerned only with the latter aspect—with the freedom to provide services, not with the full right of establishment which is envisaged by the Treaties as something to be achieved at some stage in the development of the Community.
  There are two desiderata in these matters, both valuable in themselves but, as so often happens, not easy in their reconciliation. The first desideratum is a reasonable interchange of professional skills between the member states—a sort of cross-fertilisation. The second is that this should be achieved without any lowering of professional standards and qualifications and without the consequent prejudice that such lowering would have for those for whom the services are provided. That is a reconciliation easy to state but a good deal more difficult to achieve.
  That being so, it is not surprising that this directive has taken so long to come into being. I myself have been actively concerned with the evolution of the directive over a period—that is, in its latter stages, of course, following the accession
  820
  of the United Kingdom to the Community. I have been engaged in effect in two functions. The first has been as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament, where it has been my duty to preside over the discussions on the directive at the various sittings of the Committee. I say "to preside", but I should perhaps indicate that the chairman of a committee in the European Parliament is not like the Chairman of a Standing Committee in the House. He has a participating role as well as a role of guiding the procedural processes of the committee.
  The second function was as spokesman for the European Conservative Group in the debates upon the matter in the plenary session of the Parliament. In this second regard I made some modest contribution with a number of amendments designed to improve the directive which, by common consent, is better now in its revised form than it was when it originally came to the Legal Affairs Committee some time ago.
  The Solicitor-General has kindly re ferred in particular to my amendment to Article 1(1) of the directive which was accepted by the European Parliament in plenary session. That is the amendment which refers to the conveyancing position and the wording of which is to be found in Commission Document R 646/76 and also in the Lord Chancellor's supplementary memorandum of 9th November. That memorandum also refers to other improvements or probable improvements in the directive some of which again were the subject of amendments which I moved in the European Parliament.
  Certainly it is the view of the Law Society and of the Senate of the Inns of Court and Bar that improvement has been achieved. During the passage of the directive through the European Parliament—that is, through the Legal Affairs Committee and through the Parliament as a whole—I was in close consultation with these two bodies, but did not in any sense regard myself as mandated by either of them, though as a practising member of the Bar I obviously have a connection with the one and, indeed, as a practising member of the Bar have a connection with the other since that, as the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, is where our clients also

  821
  come from. Nevertheless, I did not give any uncritical acceptance of the suggestions which were put before me. I studied them closely, and I certainly agreed with some of them and had some success with them, such as the one which has been mentioned in regard to the conveyancing position, and so on.
  On the other hand, I did not think it possible to accept the suggestion, put forward at one stage, that the visiting lawyer when engaged in actual court proceedings should be put under the control of a lawyer in the host State. I do not think, and I so stated in the European Parliament, that "control" is the mot juste to apply to the relationship between one professional gentleman and another. I did think, and I canvassed this possibility in the Legal Affairs Commmittee and in the Parliament, that the addition of the words
  "under the supervision of"
  as well as
  "in conjunction with"
  might have strengthened and defined the position in regard to the protection of the professional standards of the host State; but I believe that the provisions of Article 5 of the directive as we have it in its present form are a sufficient protection, that the visiting lawyer
  "must work in conjunction with a lawyer who practises before the court in question and who would be, if necessary, responsible to"
  that authority.
  I believe that in essence there has now been achieved a directive which is reasonably satisfactory for its important purposes. It strikes as well as may be the difficult balance between liberalisation, on the one hand—that is, the elimination of restrictive practices—and the protection of professional standards, on the other. That is, after all, a considerable achievement.
  The liberalisation of services and mutual recognition of professional qualifications are not easy in any calling or discipline. But, as the Solicitor-General has indicated, there are particular and inherent difficulties as far as the practice of law is concerned. These difficulties arise in applying the agreed principles to the idiosyncratic practice of the law. They derive from the very nature of the practice of law as compared with the practice of other professions, such as medicine, architecture and engineering.
  822
  The practice of law lacks the universality of those callings. A doctor's skills are readily exportable. His knowledge and training enable him to deploy his skills, with minor adaptations, in any part of the world. With law it is different, because both procedure and content differ from country to country. In one sense there is only one profession of the law, but in another sense there are parallel professions in individual countries.
  To draw attention to these differences is not to derogate from the principle of liberalisation. It is merely to illustrate the difficulties attached to the application and implementation of that principle. The difficulties have been accentuated by the expansion of the Community, and the differences between the patterns of court procedures. In the original six member States procedure is based largely on Roman and civil law, with the investigatory approach, compared with the United Kingdom and Ireland which have the adversary concept, and emphasis on oral evidence and cross-examination, with the restriction of the judicial function to that of hearing and determination.
  There are certain fundamental differences in structure, pattern and approach, but in spite of these, British lawyers certainly would welcome help and co-operation in fitting cases from lawyers from other EEC countries, whether in consultation and advice, or in the actual preparation and presentation of cases in the courts. The difficulties which I have identified do not detract in any way from our desire as a profession to cooperate with EEC lawyers, and to welcome their participation in our proceedings.
  Of course, the difficulties condition the method of applying the principles, and therefore impose the need for safeguards. These safeguards are not designed to protect the preserves of lawyers of the host countries; neither are they designed to exercise any monopoly or restrictive practice to protect the position of lawyers. On the contrary, they are to safeguard court procedures and the interests of the litigant, whose legitimate interest in seeing that his case is presented in conformity with the procedures of the court is and should be a paramount consideration both for lawyers and parliamentarians alike.

  823
  I conclude by welcoming the directive in its improved and amended form and with a word for the future. The Commission will, no doubt, now embark on preparatory studies on the second and more difficult aspect of this matter—the implementation of the freedom of establishment for lawyers. There are many difficulties here and a solution will need to be sought by the full process of consultation with the representative organisations of the legal profession in the various member States, and in full consultation with the European Parliament, its legal Affairs Committee, and, of course, with the national parliaments of the member States.
  There is much work still to be done in this context. I see it as parallel work—work on the elimination of restrictions where possible on the one hand, and work to achieve suitable regulation of the activities of foreign lawyers in the host country on the other. Perhaps there should be undertakings given by foreign lawyers to comply with a code of ethical rules which might be devised in the Community as a whole, along the lines of the International Bar Association rules of professional ethics.
  Meanwhile, we can congratulate ourselves on the appearance of this directive in its improved and practical form, and on a long and not always easy exercise in co-operation among the institutions of the Community, the legal professions and parliamentarians. I hope that we shall see its fruits in the strengthening in the Community and in member States of service to the public, and the maintenance and strengthening of the rule of law.
  11.47 a.m.
  Mr. Ivan Lawrence: The directive is another example of how the purist aim of dismantling all the barriers created by nationality—an aim so desirable in theory—is difficult to implement in practice, and to some extent undesirable for the United Kingdom.
  The foundation of this document is that there is a profession of lawyer which is, in practice, interchangeable in operation between the nine countries of the Community. However, the truth is otherwise because of the differences between our common law and the law based
  824
  on the Code Napoleon. These differences are very substantial and the operation of procedures arising out of the substantive differences may cause difficulties. The position of the notary in foreign systems is not comparable with that of any lawyer in the United Kingdom, for example.
  I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir Derek Walker-Smith) for proposing the amendment in the European Parliament which resulted in the removal of this anomaly. As a practising lawyer and a politician, I also pay very great tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend's excellent work as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee in the European Parliament. Too few lawyers in this country appreciate the dedicated work being done on their behalf and on behalf of our citizens who are represented by lawyers like my right hon. and learned Friend.
  Fortunately, the practical results of this directive are likely to be limited. Possibly they will mean little more than Irish lawyers practising in English courts. The average French, German, Dutch, Belgian, Danish, Italian and Luxemburger lawyer is no more competent to advise a client in English law, or to be effective in audience before an English court, than an Englishman is in their countries. There is good sense in Article No. 5 which requires a foreign lawyer to work in conjunction with a British lawyer when the two are serving jointly the interests of a British client. This needs no further elaboration.
  I ask the Lord Advocate whether he will direct attention to two problems which arise out of the directive. The Solicitor-General said in opening the debate that after the Van Binsbergen case there was a meeting of lawyers in Europe which resulted in the new directive. But the directive states
  "Whereas pursuant to the Treaty all restrictions on the provision of services which are based on nationality or on conditions of residence have been prohibited since the end of the transitional period."
  Therefore, what follows is based upon that "whereas" assumption that all restrictions on conditions of residence have gone. Nevertheless, it appears that the Van Binsbergen case shows expressly that restrictions on residence are permissible where they are necessary for the administration of justice—for example,

  825
  the requirement that a solicitor must have an office within the jurisdiction, or that it is for the public good to require a compulsory subscription to a guarantee or compensation fund. There appears, therefore, to be a contradiction between the situation as it is and the situation envisaged by the directive. If there is a discrepancy there, lawyers in this country would like it resolved.
  The second matter concerns Article 4(4), which deals with activities relating to the representation of a client in judicial proceedings. It provides that these proceedings shall be carried out in each host member State under the conditions laid down for lawyers established in that State. The word "conditions" is causing concern because of uncertainty about its meaning. In a meeting at the end of October of the Joint Committee of the Bars and Law Societies of the European Community the United Kingdom delegation asked the other delegations what they understoood the word "conditions" to mean. It received a variety of vague replies. Even the Germans, who are Insisting upon the inclusion of that term, could not say what it means with any precision. The Joint Committee resolved to recommend that the word be deleted. and I should like some indication from the Lord Advocate as to the effect of that request.
  I wish to acknowledge the good intentions and hard work that has been done on this subject by the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar and the Law Society in trying to make the directive workable in accordance with the ideals of the Community. It is their desire, as it is the desire of any lawyer concerned with European matters, to see not that the profession itself is protected against competition, but that the interests of the British litigant and the protection of the British citizen are, as my right hon. and learned Friend said, the paramount consideration.
  11.55 a.m.
  Mr. Ian Percival: I echo immediately the welcome given to these directives by the Solicitor-General, my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) and my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence).
  I was glad that the Solicitor-General was able to deal with so many of the
  826
  points of detail which have been raised by the many parties which have been considering these directives and have written to us about them.
  I am not able to form a view of the Solicitor-General's comments on these points of detail sufficiently quickly to say much about those comments now. But I think that the value of his having made them today is that it will enable the professional bodies which are interested in this matter to consider what he has said about the up-to-date position, and then to write to us on those points about which they still feel any misgivings. I believe that that is the correct way in which to conduct the various stages of exercises such as this. In that way we may feel sure that those outside the House who are interested have had every opportunity to keep abreast of what is happening inside Government circles and inside the House, and we are able in our own turn to keep fully informed of their feelings on the subject.
  I have however some comments to make on points of details, and certain questions to ask. Let me say at once that I should not take exception in the least if the Lord Advocate felt unable to give me specific answers off the cuff today. I think that very often that is not of much value. If the question is worth asking, it should be worth considering before the answer is given. I therefore preface my observations with those qualifications, and I would much rather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman took time to consider the questions and gave me a considered written reply in due course if there if any problem about giving an immediate answer.
  I turn now to the agreeable task of making further acknowledgements. It is my very real pleasure to pay tribute to the great part played in these matters by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East. Too few people may know that it is largely due to his personal skill, expertise and efforts that this directive is now so very different from that which was first put before the countries of the Community for consideration. It is right that we should publicly recognise that.
  The amendments on which he has played such a significant part contribute most notably to achieving those important reconciliations and balances of which

  827
  he has spoken. In doing what he has done my right hon. and learned Friend, a long-standing and honoured Member of this House, has made an immense practical contribution to overcoming all the difficulties of which he has spoken so eloquently this morning.
  I pay tribute also to the professional bodies for having got together so very well on this matter. They have got together in this country, in the United Kingdom generally and in Europe. That is a welcome development. At times there have been dangers that the different parts of the profession throughout the United Kingdom might be going their own independent ways rather than getting together to discuss their problems. Here we have the opposite.
  It is a development much to be commended and I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East will agree that it has contributed significantly to the results which have been achieved. Although it is always invidious to name individuals, I want to pay a special tribute to Mr. David Edward, QC, Treasurer of the Faculty of Advocates, who has played such a leading role in the process of the several parts of the profession reaching a combined view and putting it forward in Europe, as well as giving us a summary of the remaining points to be considered.
  Article 1 is enormously improved by the addition of the words starting "Notwithstanding". However, I am in a little doubt about what exactly are the words proposed. I assume that the words in the Document 646/76 are those most likely to be inserted in the directive in its final form. I hope that is so because in other drafts and references to the draft of this article which I have seen the word "formal" has crept in. I think it would be unwise to use any adjective other than "legal" which is the one used in Document 646. Otherwise we could be introducing further difficulties of interpretation in our own legal terminology. It is difficult enough to be precise in our own terminology, but when one is trying to be sufficiently precise to achieve the same meaning in the legal terminology of nine countries, one must be even more cautious.
  828
  I hope that the Lord Advocate can deal with the points raised by the Scottish Law Society on Article 1(1). Does the wording in Document 646 cover the preparation of writs relating to heritable or moveable property and the appropriation of documents to found or oppose an application for the granting of confirmation of executors?
  The Lord Chancellor's supplementary explanatory memorandum says that it is expected that the designations in Article 1(2) will be changed so that "solicitor in private practice" is replaced by the word "solicitor" alone. I notice however that in the amendments proposed in Document 646 it is said that Article 1(2), the list of designations, is "unchanged". May we have an assurance that we can take it from the Lord Chancellor's memorandum that Document 646 is not the last word on this matter.
  The discussion on Article 4(4) is about the inclusion or exclusion of the words "conditions of". I understand that they are not in the directive and never have been. They are not included in the amendments proposed in Document 646. Is it therefore that some member States—Germany has been referred to specifically—now wish these words to be included, even though they are not recommended in Document 646? If so, our practical position is one of resisting inclusion rather than seeking exclusion, which is a rather stronger position. I should like an assurance that that analysis of the situation is correct and that it is proposed to resist the inclusion of the words "conditions of". That would reassure those people who are concerned about this matter.
  In some drafts sent to us by various bodies—I have here one from the Senate of the Inns of Court and the Bar which has the words "Text sent from the Lord Chancellor's Office on 20th October 1976" written on the top of the photostat copy—Article 5 (1) reads:
  "they must be introduced, in accordance with local rules or customs, to the presiding judge and, where necessary, the President of the Bar in the host Member State."
  I cannot find these last words in the directive of 1975, in the amendments proposed in Document 646 or anywhere else except in this draft and one other.

  829
  I cannot find them in any official documents.
  I should be glad if the Lord Advocate could tell us whether it is proposed that these words be added, what is he basis for them, whether there has been agreement between member States which makes their introduction a formality and what will be their effect. I am far from clear how the first part of the sentence could be applied in this country though I see how the second part might be applied here and might be very useful.
  The Law Society of Scotland has suggested that when an advocate from overseas comes here occasionally to practise he should be required to nominate whether he is practising as an advocate or a solicitor. The Lord Advocate would know better than I the basis of that point and I hope that, today or in writing later, he will be able to clarify the matter.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: Perhaps I may point out that there is no difference between barristers and solicitors on the Continent. The legal profession is one profession. Only in this country is there a separation.
  Mr. Percival: That is the point. As long as we have separation—and there are many people who think that for sound reasons in the interests of the public it is desirable to maintain that distinction—it may be important that, when a lawyer comes here from somewhere overseas where there is not that distinction, he should indicate in which of our classifications of lawyer he is purporting to practise. I express no view on that either way. I merely make the point in the hope than an authoritative view may be obtained on it. The reason for this matter's being raised is the very reason posed by the hon. Gentleman in his intervention.
  Mr. David Edward, in the note which we have all had, referred to detailed submissions made to the Lord Chancellor's office about the proposed Article 6. No doubt those detailed submissions will receive the full consideration which all other points raised with the Lord Chancellor's office obviously have received so far. I express the hope that we may in due course be advised about the views of the Lord Chancellor on those detailed submissions and what action may be taken about them.
  830
  I gather that there have been discussions over the past two years relating to Articles 5 and 6, ending with an agreement reached in Perugia among all the Bars and Law Societies of Europe. Is the Lord Advocate able to tell us whether Article 6 gives effect to what was then agreed, or whether it has not proved possible to give effect to that agreement? If the latter, in what respect does Article 6 fall short of or differ from what was agreed on that occasion? That information would be of enormous assistance, because we should then know what is left in issue.
  I should also like some assistance on the question of timing. I seem to have gathered several different versions of the text, over the course of the week. I notice that one refers to two years and another to 18 months. I am far from clear as to which is the latest official figure or what is now expected to be the period allowed for implementation. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Hertfordshire, East said that this was a comparatively minor matter in view of what is yet to come and. he referred to the directive on the right of establishment. There is another interesting directive to come—on the recognition of qualifications—which will be even more difficult than those in the medical and scientific spheres, for the very reasons to which my right hon. and learned Friend referred. I do not know whether the Lord Advocate can give us any indication of the progress that is being made, or whether we are likely to see detailed progress on these matters.
  I should like the Lord Advocate to address his mind in particular to what seems to me one of the most important aspects of what we are talking about—namely, the effect of this on our domestic law. The right hon. and learned Gentleman and I served on the Foster Committee, which deliberated for quite a long time on how this House was to retain supervision or control over law-making in the Community which would oblige us to change our domestic law. It was because of the importance of that that the Foster Committee was set up. It was because of the importance of that matter that the Foster Committee made its first recommendation for explanatory memoranda and it was because of that that

  831
  paragraph 3 of the proposed explanatory memorandum—the effect on law—was perhaps, in his mind and mine, to be the most important of all the provisions in the memoranda.
  We are talking not just about how these provisions will affect the different practices of the different professions, but about how they will affect the domestic law of this country. We have in my view rather less than the full information which it ought now to be possible to give.
  In the first two memoranda issued by the Lord Chancellor's office, reference was made to the need which would arise to amend the Solicitors Act 1974 and in particular the provisions of Section 22. I should have thought that, as the result of the draft as it will be if the amendments in Document R/646/76 go through, there must be a need for amendment of Section 22 and probably of Section 23. The possible amendment of Section 23 has not yet been referred to in any memorandum, so I may be wrong in supposing that would be necessary. However, I doubt whether I am wrong in thinking that.
  Furthermore, the one subject on which we have not touched very much is prohibition on the issuing of any writ or process by anyone except a qualified person. I refer now to Section 20 of the Solicitors Act 1974. I do not find it easy to see how these provisions could go through in their present form without necessitating some amendment of Section 19 and/or Section 20. I express no view whether that is a good or a bad thing. I merely express the view that we ought now to take stock, as we are getting close to a final draft for this directive, of what amendments to our domestic law would be necessary on the basis of agreeing this directive with the proposed amendments.
  We ought to take stock for two reasons. First, we must consider the effect of translating this into practical terms. Secondly, it is important that before this directive is agreed to by the Government, there should be a statement on the lines of the explanatory memoranda setting out clearly what changes it is now believed will be necessary. That is the
  832
  whole purpose of dealing with directives in this way.
  This is an important example of how useful and necessary this procedure is. If people are told in this way what amendments of our domestic law are necessary, they then have an opportunity to comment upon them—and we are all entitled to look to the Government, in view of the procedure that we have adopted, to specify what they believe the necessary amendments to be. For the reasons which I have indicated and whilst I accept that I may be wrong, I doubt whether the extent of the amendments which would be necessary has as yet been set out and specified. I think that it should be.
  I end as I began by welcoming this directive and paying the warmest of tributes to all who have had a hand in bringing it this far with such a large measure of agreement.
  12.20 p.m.
  Mr. Marcus Lipton: I fear that this will develop into a rather dreary date. It is not being attended by many of my hon. Friends, and it was only by accident that I found myself in the Chamber for the purpose of hearing the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival).
  I think that we have lost a golden opportunity to harmonise our professional legal system with that of the Common Market countries. We continue to maintain a difference between the two professions of solicitor and barrister, and I think that the time has come to merge the two. The hon. and learned Member for Southport did not commit himself either way on that topic, but I have long felt that the two professions ought to be merged and that barristers and solicitors in this country should be treated in the same way as lawyers in all the other European countries.
  Mr. Percival: I will make my comment on that shortly in an endeavour to be as neutral as I can and to avoid going off at a tangent on matters that are no doubt interesting but have nothing to do with this debate. The hon. Gentleman is suggesting that on the Continent all lawyers are treated alike, but he could not be more wrong. One finds that there are avocats, avoués and notaires, to

  833
  mention only three kinds in France alone. The hon. Gentleman has based his argument on a false premise.
  Mr. Lipton: My impression is that vis-à-vis the courts they are treated in the same way. Any lawyer in any of the Continental countries can act as an advocate or notary in whatever capacity he wants to carry out his legal professional duties. That is why, although I see nods of disapproval—
  Mr. Percival: Disagreement, not disapproval.
  Mr. Lipton: I am fortified in my belief by the knowledge that what I am saying is not altogether disapproved of. Hon. Gentlemen opposite think that I am wrong in fact, but I believe that in principle I am right. That is the only contribution I wish to make to the debate.
  12.23 p.m.
  The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I begin by expressing my gratitude to all those who have taken part in the debate for the general welcome they have given to the directive.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central (Mr. Lipton) made it clear that he wishes to see a fusion of the legal professions in this country, whether or not there is such a fusion in any other country. It is true that this matter is under discussion, and no doubt it will be the subject of evidence to the two Royal Commissions that are under way on the legal profession. My hon. Friend need not feel that his point of view will not be represented in a proper forum because this directive does not deal with the matter.
  Mr. Lipton: That lets me out.
  The Lord Advocate: I hope that despite his remark from a sedentary position my hon. Friend will continue to stay with us.
  The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) was most gracious in what he said about the directive and the consultations that have taken place, and I should like to associate myself with his remarks in that general connection.
  I associate myself also with the tribute paid by the hon. Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) to the right hon. and
  834
  learned Member for Hertfordshire, East for his activities on the European scene and in particular his work as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of the European Parliament.
  I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his comment on the adequacy of Article 5 as it stands. He touched on an important matter that was exercising the mind of my hon. Friend the Member for Lambeth, Central—namely, the universality of the legal profession. With delicate courtesy he left aside many of the difficulties to which my hon. Friend referred and which, as Opposition Members made clear when my hon. Friend was speaking, raise issues that are far from simple.
  We in this country assume that the legal professions on the other side of the Channel are unitary, but that assumption is far from accurate. This is a matter on which we need not feel that an undue attack is being made on the legal professions as they exist in this country, but that does not mean that there are not difficulties. Clearly there are, and they have been touched on in this debate.
  The Law Society of Scotland made a point on this issue and stressed the anxiety—this was referred to by the hon. and learned Member for Southport (Mr. Percival)—that a Continental practitioner may come to Scotland and attempt to exercise the rôle of solicitor and advocate because he can do that in his own jurisdiction. The answer to that, although I do not give it authoritatively—luckily, I cannot give authorative replies from the Dispatch Box—is contained in Article 4 of the draft directive as its stands, particularly if one works out the consequences of paragraphs 1 and 3 of that article. I hope that that will meet the case, although I do not pretend that this is a matter that is entirely free from doubt or that I am attempting to give an authoritative answer.
  I am grateful to the hon. and learned Member for Southport for the prospective immunity that he conferred upon me from giving instant opinions. I am not a great enthusiast for instant opinions, and I think that the hon. and learned Gentleman said that he is not either. Therefore, I shall not go beyond

  835
  what I feel I can honestly say on these matters from the Dispatch Box today.
  I hope that I can comment fairly widely on the points that have been made during the debate, but I shall not attempt to give positive answers where I feel that I cannot do so. I give a general undertaking that if I do not today touch on a point which has been raised—hon. Members will understand this—if it is possible to do so I shall write and give further guidance later.
  I turn first to the point raised by the hon. Member for Burton. He raised an interesting matter on the memorandum submitted by the legal profession about the effect of the Van Binsburgen case and the meaning of the first "whereas" in the preamble. This is a reference to the abolition of all restrictions in the preamble and it is a matter which, along with other matters, is under active consideration by the Council's legal service. That is the only factual answer that I can give the hon. Gentleman. The ultimate interpretation of what the European Court decided in the Van Binsburgen case must be a matter for the European Court itself, and the hon. Gentleman will understand why I do not venture into that field.
  The next point raised by the hon. Gentleman—and by others too—arises on Article 4(4) where one sees the words "conditions of". The question is whether they are in or out. The answer is that the words are out, but there is a danger that there may be pressure to put them in. As I understand the situation, it is vital for us, in order to meet such pressure, to have a clear understanding of what "conditions" means in its various translations in European languages. Certainly the precise meaning, or even any clearly-defined meaning, of this term is hard to seek. The German word bedingung is fraught with a penumbra of vagueness. That may not be altogether untrue of the word "conditions" in the other European languages concerned.
  Mr. Lawrence: Can the Lord Advocate give some indication of what the Germans have in mind as being the meaning of the word "conditions"? It seems to be somewhat superfluous. Can the Lord Advocate personally explain
  836
  why the word "conditions" is causing this problem?
  The Lord Advocate: I shall take refuge in the prospective immunity which the hon. and learned Member for South-port conferred on me, but I think that linguistically and legally the word is different. It is a matter which the Government are most actively pursuing. It is obviously vital to know what conception is embodied in that particular terminology.
  The hon. and learned Member for Southport raised a number of detailed points which I shall try to answer in the sequence in which he presented them. He made an interesting observation about the use of the word "formal" in Article 1(1) and indicated that "legal" would be better. It is difficult to choose precise words to confer a general meaning in the different languages of the different juridical systems of the member countries of the Community.
  Mr. Percival: I was pointing out that the proposed meaning includes the word "legal" and does not include the word "formal". I was expressing a view that there would be no virtue in seeking to change it to "legal" and that the concept of "formal" would be even more difficult.
  The Lord Advocate: I misunderstood the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made. If he prefers the word "legal" without any qualification by the word "formal", I can understand the point. My personal view is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has an accurate approach to this matter.
  I have already dealt with the question of "conditions" and I cannot elaborate on that. In connection with Article 5 (1), the hon. and learned Gentleman asked me what was the meaning of the words "where necessary". He drew attention to the fact that under Article 5 there is the concept that visiting lawyers should be introduced to the presiding judge and where necessary, the president of the Bat in the host member State. The hon. and learned Gentleman gave qualified approval to the latter saying that that would be a useful exercise but he rather questioned what was intended by the words "where necessary". I cannot answer him specifically but, with his approval, I shall write

  837
  to him and try to give a rather fuller explanation of why those words are there.
  I cannot give an answer to the earlier point about introduction in accordance with local rules or customs. But it would not be inappropriate, in countries where practitioners are far from the capital, or even another State, for the judge to meet a strange practitioner who comes from another jurisdiction, so that the judge can know who the person is. That would seem a fairly obvious courtesy, and maybe that is all that is intended. This is perhaps another matter about which I can write to the hon. and learned Gentleman.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman expressed certain anxiety about Articles 5 and 6 and the effect that they might have with regard to the exercise of two functions in this country—the advocacy functions and solicitor functions of practitioners coming from a jurisdiction where both facilities might be exercised. I think I have already answered that point.
  My understanding of Article 4, particularly paragraphs 1 and 3, is that it would exclude a practitioner from exercising both roles, and I think he would have to elect—as the Law Society of Scotland suggested—the function he intended to undertake.
  I have noted the point that the hon. and learned Gentleman made about Article 6. This matter, including the matters raised by Mr. David Edward, are under consideration. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me about the explanatory memoranda dealing with the list of practitioners in Article 1(2). I can assure him that the most recent memorandum from the Lord Chancellor is accurate and that the words "practising" and "in private practice" have been deleted.
  As far as timing is concerned, again I do not think I can give an instant reply. The hon. and learned Gentleman drew attention to the discrepancy between two years and 18 months. That may not be an absolutely vital discrepancy, but it is interesting. I cannot give any guidance today, nor can I give any guidance about progress on reciprocity.
  The hon. and learned Gentleman raised an interesting point about the Solicitors Act 1974 in particular. The
  838
  answer that I shall give applies both to that Act and the corresponding Scottish statute. A visiting lawyer will be subject to the provisions of the Solicitors Act in so far as he carries out the activities of a solicitor. As at present drafted, these enactments would appear to prohibit certain activities being carried out by persons other than English, Welsh, Scottish or Northern Irish solicitors, advocates or barristers. Since under the EEC Treaty and the operation of this directive some of those activities are to be opened to visiting lawyers, the provisions of the Solicitors Act will have to be varied—as the hon. and learned Gentleman envisaged—to permit a visiting lawyer, in terms of United Kingdom law, to carry out those activities.
  The relevant provisions will require to be detailed and it would be premature to consider what may be necessary, or how a legislative change should be effected, until the directive solidifies in its final form. I particularly note the plea made by the hon. and learned Gentleman that at as early a date as possible a fuller explanation should be given in a statement by the Government about their intentions in this regard. I take note of that request.
  Mr. Percival: I go a little further and express the view that we have now gone a sufficient distance along the road that we should now say, before the matter goes further, certainly before the directive is agreed, what amendments to our domestic law would be necessary if the directive went through as it is now envisaged.
  The Lord Advocate: The hon. and learned Gentleman is pressing me hard. I must respectfully stick where I stood. A hypothetical examination of the amendments which would be necessary at any particular stage of this draft directive would be rather time-consuming and not necessarily helpful to the general public. I take the hon. and learned Gentleman's point, but I would be wrong to suggest that it would necessarily be impossible to produce a statement about the Government's thinking on this until the directive had been formally ratified by everybody If I can go further than that, I shall write to the hon. and learned Gentleman to that effect.

  839
  In conclusion, may I touch on one or two matters in addition to those which have been raised both in relation to the law of England, Scotland and Northern Ireland and—
  Mr. John Davies: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that he was about to touch on one or two matters that had not been raised in the debate. Unfortunately, I was outside the Chamber when he started his remarks. I am not sure whether he dealt with the question I raised, which was whether we shall have a new draft directive from the Commission to consider in the light of the further consideration which is now being given. The essence of the problem is contained in Article 6. The House will perhaps want to know exactly in what form that is to be presented in due course before the final decision is taken. Is the Lord Advocate able to help me?
  The Lord Advocate: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I had noted his question, which I intended to answer by saying that it was one of the questions on which I would hide under the immunity which the hon. and learned Member for Southport was kind enough to confer on me at the outset.
  First, I draw to the attention of the House a matter on which my hon. and (earned Friend the Solicitor-General touched. It has been possible in recent negotiations on the directive to achieve a text which, generally speaking, avoids the use of technical legal terms, whether of English, Scottish or Northern Irish art, and to use language which is in that sense neutral and equally understandable in all the United Kingdom jurisdictions. Hon. Members may have noticed that that point arises on the memoranda that were helpfully submitted by various members of the legal profession.
  I am thinking in particular of the memoranda by the Law Society and the Law Society of Scotland. Hon. and learned Members will have noticed that there are at least two different meanings to "writ". For example, in Scotland there is a reference to "writs" in connection with hereditable and moveable property, and that has a totally different meaning from "writ" in the sense in which it is used by the Law Society in its submissions, "writ" there meaning an initiating legal document. In litigation it has that use in Scoland too.
  840
  Differences of that sort show how important it is to try to get non-technical words which convey the necessary meaning in the various jurisdictions of the United Kingdom and of the other member States of the Community. That is a point which the legal professions rightly stress in their submissions to the Government.
  The consultation with the Scottish legal professions as well as with those of other parts of the United Kingdom has been very full. On behalf of the Government, I am grateful that all the bodies concerned have expressed satisfaction at the way in which they have been brought into the consideration of the technical problems of drafting and the professional problems of providing proper safeguards for the public and maintaining the high standards of professional services in this country. Those are important aspects of the consumer side of the exercise about which hon. Members have been rightly concerned.
  Consultation with all the professions in the United Kingdom is still continuing. The fact that there remain some anomalies in the present draft and some matters on which the professions are dissatisfied does not mean that further consideration will not be given to achieving the best directive which is possible at the end of the day. The Government will be giving further active consideration to the representations which have been made to them by the professions and, of course, to the matters which have been raised by right hon. and hon. Members today.
  The debate has come at the best possible stage in the drafting of the directive when we have a draft which is the product of mature discussion and consideration between representatives of the member States but which is still open to further discussion and further representations on behalf of the United Kingdom.
  In reply to the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), I am informed that it is likely that the Commission will put forward amendments to the draft but that it is unlikely that it will put forward a new draft directive. That is, I hope, a specific answer to the question raised by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. John Davies: That is an answer, but the question which is left uncertain

  841
  in my mind is whether the amendments will constitute such a new instrument as would provide for its being further considered by the House. That is the crux of the problem and it is one which I hope, if not now, will be clarified later.
  The Lord Advocate: I should clearly be wise to accept the second alternative put to me by the right hon. Gentleman. If I can, I will write to him and give further clarification.
  The matter is open to further discussion and representations on behalf of those concerned in the United Kingdom and of the United Kingdom as such, but at the same time the directive has been under consideration in the Community for a substantial period, and it is gratifying that there is a reasonable prospect of realising a measure which is likely to be of benefit to those classes of the public who need the services of members of foreign legal professions.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That this House takes note of Commission Documents Nos. R/2133/75 and R/646/76 on Lawyers' Services.

  COUNCIL OF EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (VEHICLE TESTING)
  12.46 p.m.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): I beg to move,
  That this House takes note of the latest proposals of the Council of the European Communities for Road Worthiness Tests following draft Directives R/1795/72 and R/1614/74 and in the light of the United Kingdom's leading position in this field welcomes these proposals as an important step forward towards harmonising vehicle testing arrangements within the Community.
  The debate has its origin in proposals put forward in 1972 by the Commission of European Communities—draft Directive R/1795/72—for securing common basic requirements for testing roadworthiness of vehicles. These proposals were subsequently amended in 1974—draft Directive R/1614/74—to take account of the views of the Economic and Social Committee and the European Parliament. Hon. Members have had the opportunity to see both documents.
  The Select Committee on European Secondary Legislation expressed the view in more than one report that these proposals ought to be further considered by the House in the light of the costs involved in implementing the arrangements proposed. That further consideration has been deferred until the present time because the proposals have been undergoing radical reappraisal, and the outcome is the new draft directive described in the memorandum made available to Members and which is in the Vote Office. I apologise to the House for the short time that the supplementary memorandum has been available in the Vote Office. That is largely because the seal of approval was not put on the radical changes until last Thursday's meeting of the Council of Transport Ministers in Brussels. .
  The proposals in the original draft directives were discussed by the Scrutiny Committee, and in the subsequent negotiations its comments have been very much borne in mind. The present proposals differ in scope rather than substance from the original proposals, but

  843
  it is gratifying that, in the light of the Committee's concern over the costs involved in implementing what was first proposed, we have been able to get a draft scheme put forward which is much more acceptable from this standpoint. However, before going into detail I should like to say a few words about the general context.
  The purpose of the proposed directive is to ensure that certain categories of road vehicle are periodically inspected to determine whether they are in a fit condition for use on the public road. By this means, vehicle standards are improved and the danger of a vehicle defect causing a road accident is lessened. Everyone in the House will agree that we should do all we reasonably can to reduce the terrible toll of death and injury on our roads.
  Whilst it is notoriously difficult to determine the real cause of accidents, the best information we have indicates that about 2½ per cent. are the direct result of vehicle defects and in a further 6 per cent. they are a contributing factor. Eight and a half per cent. is a significant proportion, but one needs to ask oneself how much worse the situation might be without the arrangements which already exist in this country to maintain checks on the condition of vehicles. It is clearly essential to maintain effective testing arrangements and standards.
  Three schemes for the annual inspection of vehicles are currently operating in this country: the MOT test for cars, vans and motor cycles; the heavy goods vehicle test for heavy lorries and trailers; and the public service vehicle inspections for buses and coaches. Each scheme is tailored to the needs of the vehicles covered and becomes progressively more onerous as the weight and passenger-carrying capacity of the groups increase. Although these schemes are not, and cannot be, a guarantee of a vehicle's roadworthiness throughout the year—roadworthiness being the continual responsibility of the owner and driver—there is no doubt that periodic testing of roadworthiness makes an important contribution to vehicle standards and thereby reduces the number of accidents caused by vehicle defects.
  The proposed directive as it now stands is largely confined to requiring the periodic testing of commercial vehicles, and
  844
  the obligations imposed will be very similar to those already applying in the United Kingdom. It will entail only minor changes in existing arrangements in the United Kingdom and primary legislation will not be needed. We shall be free to maintain our more comprehensive testing arrangements for our domestic vehicles, and the directive will not affect our right to take action in the courts against any vehicle which is shown to be unroadworthy.
  The directive has been greatly reduced in scope, not only because of the need to find common ground with those member States which have no test schemes or only rudimentary ones but also to convince all concerned that any additional expenditure involved in implementing the directive will be an effective use of resources for road safety purposes.
  Although the vehicles covered represent only about 6 per cent. of all road vehicles, they are regarded as the most important for the safety of life on the roads, and they represent a useful starting point towards securing a wider harmonisation of the test requirements of member States. However, it is our intention to ensure that the directive as eventually approved leaves us a necessary element of flexibility in deploying the resources we already devote to controling the roadworthiness of our own buses and lorries.
  The new proposals will require member States to introduce schemes for the compulsory annual testing of buses, coaches, heavy lorries and trailers, taxis and ambulances within a period of one year from the adoption of the directive. These tests must be carried out under State supervision and will cover a comprehensive range of items affecting the roadworthiness of the vehicle. Member States will accept the tests carried out by other States as equal in status to their own, thus implementing a system of generally accepted minimum standards of testing for this important group of vehicles.
  Some significant items have been dropped from the original proposals. It has not proved possible to obtain agreement for the testing of cars, vans, and motor cycles. While ideally it would have been preferable to have, covered these items, I realise that some member States are embarking on roadworthiness testing for the first time and are

  845
  reluctant to adopt a really comprehensive scheme until they have had experience of what is involved.
  However, it is envisaged that further proposals will be put forward in due course, and it is a cause for satisfaction that some of the proposals originally contemplated are not included in the present draft. We will not be committed to the testing of public service vehicles at half-yearly intervals, which in our view would have entailed an over-lavish use of the testing procedure, nor will we be required to test vehicles other than periodically—that is, we will not be required to test on change of ownership, after accident repair, when a vehicle is imported into a member State or when a vehicle is found to be unroadworthy on a spot check. These are contentious matters on which no consensus could be achieved and they have been left to the decision of the individual member State. Similarly, the administrative rules necessary for the effective implementation of the test scheme have been left to the good sense of the member States.
  Finally the directive allows transitional provisions to enable member States to introduce the testing scheme in a gradual and controlled manner. Hon. Members will recall that our own testing schemes were introduced on a gradual basis, and it is only sensible that the new directive should allow for similar arrangements.
  At first sight, the proposed directive may not seem in itself to contain much of practical significance for the United Kingdom. It is, however, an important first step forward towards the wider establishment and harmonising of testing arrangements and standards in Europe We hope in due course to see more comprehensive arrangements developed, but we recognise that a balance has to be struck between the costs imposed and the contribution made to road safety. We think that the proposed directive is broadly satisfactory from this standpoint, and on that basis I commend the motion to the House.
  12.55 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: As the Minister has said, the original proposals were published in 1972. They were amended, and it was the 1974 proposals which were considered by the House of Lords Select Committee in June 1974.
  846
  The Select Committee summarised the proposals in three groups. First, the draft directive would require vehicles to be tested in circumstances not at present calling, under the United Kingdom law, for a test—that is, change of ownership or after an accident. Secondly, the draft directive would require more extensive tests than are called for under our present legislation. The third matter concerns the enforcement of test requirements, in particular the requirement that vehicles shall carry discs certifying that they have been tested for roadworthiness.
  Since then, the proposals have been radically altered. The scope of the directive is much more limited, and clearly that is reasonable. As the Minister mentioned, the prime consideration has been cost. It now affects mainly commercial vehicles, and the regulations which will apply already substantially apply in this country.
  However, essentially these proposals are rules governing roadworthiness tests of vehicles which travel within the Common Market. In other words, they require standards to be adopted on European journeys rather than on national journeys. Perhaps I could make the point in a different way. It should be made clear that, even though the EEC rules do not require such standards, they do not prevent them from being made a part of domestic law.
  A matter which gives cause for serious concern is the position about tests of vehicles after they have been involved in accidents. That was a term of the 1974 directive. In my view, the position in this country about the requirements is full of danger. If a car is involved in a serious accident, even if it is an insurance write-off, there is no requirement in our law for the car to be tested before it goes back on the road.
  Let us suppose that a 1976 car is involved in an accident and that it is written off by the insurance company, which means that, from the insurance company's point of view, it is cheaper to pay a cash sum to the insured motorist than to repair the car. However, what often happens is that the car is bought by a firm which perhaps specialises in the business of written-off cars and is repaired and sold. There is no requirement that the car, in spite of the damage to it or of anything else which

  847
  has happened, should be inspected before going back on the road.
  It is worse than that. If a 1976 car is involved, it would not be subject to the normal MOT tests until it was three years old. That is totally unacceptable. The traditional road safety slogan has always been "Keep death off the roads." This system does not seem to ensure that. It is unacceptable for the purchaser of the car and it is unacceptable on road safety grounds.
  I find it extraordinary that this situation has been allowed to continue unchecked for so long and has been ignored despite the changes that have been made in road safety laws and consumer protection measures. I am not alone in my concern about this. During the past few days I have discussed this subject with a number of respectable motor trade organisations. The Motor Agents' Association, the Institute of Automobile Assessors and the Vehicle Builders and Repairers Association find the position unsatisfactory and want it to be changed. The Motor Trader, which has a fine reputation as a campaigning magazine for road safety standards, also supports change.
  The position is totally unsatisfactory, and must be reformed as a matter of urgency in the public interest. Badly damaged vehicles should not be allowed back on the roads unchecked after repair. The danger to the driver of that car and to other road users is self-evident. Unfortunately, this practice has been allowed to continue for year after year. Apparently, the only thing which will make the Government move is a dossier of cases of this kind. I do not seek to make a party political point on this question.
  I am glad to say that the Institute of Automobile Assessors has agreed in principle to co-operate with such a survey. If members of the public who have had experience of cars badly damaged in accidents finding their way back on to the road in a dangerous or unsatisfactory condition would contact me at the House, their experiences will be added to the report that we intend to present to the Department.
  A vehicle which has been seriously damaged in an accident should be
  848
  subjected to inspection before being allowed back on the road. This would apply to insurance write-off cars as well as to other seriously damaged cars. While at the very least there should be an MOT inspection, there is a strong case for a more rigorous inspection of the chassis as well.
  The Government may claim that this point is covered by the law which requires that no car should go back on to the road in an unroadworthy condition. Theoretically that is correct. In practice this is an argument that does not stand up. For that condition to be enforced it must be detected, and that depends on the police. There is no question but that the police are already over worked and overstretched. I believe that there should be a regulation system which does not place responsibility on the police, for inspection after accidents. This would build up a better system.
  There are two other topics which I wish to raise and which are covered in the 1974 directive. The first concerns tests on change of ownership. This was a requirement of the original EEC rules, and was one of the points which the House of Lords Select Committee made. There are a number of people who would like to see this rule apply to domestic law. Even though it is not a requirement internationally that change of ownership cars should be subject to inspection, the law in this country should be changed. I have an open mind on this, but I should like to hear the Government's view. The case for such a rule rests on the fact that it would ensure more regular checks than at present. By choosing the point of sale, it also identifies a crucial moment.
  A company or a person selling a car which has passed an MOT test six months previously may realise that waiting for a full 12 months to elapse means that the condition of the car would require expensive repairs. They may be tempted to sell the car which is not up to MOT standards but is covered by a current MOT certificate midway in the test period.
  A great many cars fail their MOT test. The latest figures show that more than one-third of all cars tested each year fail their MOT test. That is almost 4 million cars a year.

  849
  I wonder whether I could have the attention of the Under-Secretary for a moment—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galperu): Order. I believe that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) is relaying to the Under-Secretary the answers to the points which the hon. Gentleman is raising.
  Mr. Fowler: I did not realise that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) had become the Under-Secretary's PPS. I am glad to hear of his promotion.
  In case the Under-Secretary missed what I said while he was being briefed, I repeat that about one-third of the cars tested each year fail their MOT test. That amounts to almost 4 million cars a year. That is an enormous total. The two most common grounds for failure are faulty steering and faulty brakes. Both conditions have undoubted road safety implications.
  I quote from the magazine Motor Trader which states
  "What we find of particular concern is that, if our figures are projected right across the board and about one-third of the vehicles which fail are driven away in what testers consider to be a dangerous condition, then around 1·3 million such vehicles are driven on the roads each year. Taking a figure of 300 test days a year as a base on which to work this gives a total of about 4,300 such cars a day."
  This makes clear the dangers in this system. We shall not change the whole system but what is suggested is that when a car changes ownership, at the point of the sale an MOT test should be required. It seems that newspapers like the Motor Trader have made a strong case for this. I should like to know what the Government's view is on this.
  My next point concerns second-hand imported cars. It was a requirement in the directive considered by the House of Lords Select Committee that such cars should be subject to a test. What information can the Minister give about the number of second-hand imported cars? Secondly, can he say a little more about how requirements in this country compare with those in other countries such as Italy and France? If there is a large trade in that respect and the requirements are not as strong as they are in
  850
  this country, there is a potential loophole in the regulations.
  We welcome what has been decided, but I wish to stress that simply because the EEC directive does not cover dangerous cars is no reason why domestic law should not cover a situation that gives many people grounds for concern.
  1.10 p.m.
  Mr. Clement Freud: Nobody in his right senses would oppose this first step, although he might wonder whether it is as important a step as the Government would have us believe.
  The point made by the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) about re-examining vehicles after accidents is valid and should be examined. It is right and proper that any member of the EEC should know when a vehicle is approaching him that at least some minimum standards of safety have been observed abroad.
  Can the Minister estimate the extra cost of these examinations? That is of enormous importance.
  Mr. Horam: To which examination is the hon. Gentleman referring?
  Mr. Freud: If the Minister had waited for me to finish what I was saying, he would have known the answer. I admire his keenness. Unless examinations can be held quickly, and unless there is an adequate number of inspectors, a great deal of harm will be done and hardship will be felt by operators who will have to join the inevitable queues waiting for vehicle inspection. They will not be able to operate because their certificates will not have been forthcoming. We have already before us the disastrous example of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre in Swansea which must cause the Minister to enter into a great deal of time-consuming correspondence. We can only hope that a shortage of examiners and inspectors will not prevent operators from transacting their business or licensing their cars.
  1.13 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: I wish to make a few brief comments in this debate.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has the Adjournment debate
  Mr. Dykes: Thank you for reminding me, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I welcome that news in the informal way in which you announce these matters in the Chamber.
  I wish to mention one or two points in connection with two of the draft documents. I endorse enthusiastically the important points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) and I hope that the Minister will give him a powerful reply. In view of the dual manner in which we as members of the European Parliament examine legislation passing, as it were, through both Houses, perhaps I could make one or two points in a European context from a legislative rather than from a procedural point of view, and also try to set the background to the progress of these draft directives.
  I should like to congratulate the Scrutiny Committee, under the chairmanship of my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), since it undertakes valuable work in highlighting the importance of proper debates on these subjects.
  The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud) said that this was a relatively unimportant matter. I do not disagree with him. Because of the nature of our tests in the United Kingdom, the effect of the draft directives is reduced, despite the growth of intra-Community traffic. Therefore, this can be regarded as only one small step forward for mankind. In that sense it is relatively unimportant. Nevertheless, the documents are useful and a step in the right direction.
  I think I am right in saying that the European Parliament deliberated on these matters as long ago as 1973. Therefore, at that time we, as new members of that institution and of the Community, were also new to the problems set out in the directives. However, the directives were given more than a fair wind and were speeded on their way with a degree of enthusiasm in respect of what was regarded as fairly technical matters. They will become part of the overall corpus of documentation in vehicle law. I shall attach great importance to any decisions that flow from the Commission in regard to vehicle safety, in which area the United States has led the world. No
  852
  doubt we shall be hearing more on that score in due course.
  I wish to draw attention to the dilemma in which the Executive finds itself, and indeed in which it puts the House, following the haphazard way in which technical documents of this kind, some of which have a political content, are dealt with. These draft directives are obviously suitable matters to be sent to a Standing Committee. I do not see why the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, who obviously has other pressures on him these days, should decide that this matter should be taken on the Floor. I remember that in the summer some documents were taken upstairs in Committee which were of much greater importance, weight, and circum stance, containing more political content and having greater economic repercussions than the matters now before the House. Perhaps the Minister will broaden his ministerial horizons in his reply and tell us why he thinks that these matters should be taken on the Floor.
  Although the Scrutiny Committee makes its recommendations, in the final analysis it is the Government who take the decisions. There have been instances where the Government have not followed the Scrutiny Committee's advice. However, it would be wrong of me to try to represent the Scrutiny Committee's view on these matters. Indeed, I cannot remember its specific recommendations, but if the Government have the good fortune to have another Session of Parliament—which is another matter—the Executive should sort itself out and try to observe some kind of consistency. It should lay down which of these documents should go upstairs to the relevant Committee. Weightier subjects should come to the Floor of the House.
  There will be consequential amendments to domestic legislation from the adoption of the directive, and one year after the adoption is the implementation date as a result of a European Parliament suggestion in 1973. The amendments will affect such legislation as the Road Traffic Acts. Can the Undersecretary of State say when they might be brought before the House? Will they stand on their own, or be part of the regular wider consolidation of road traffic legislation?
  1.21 p.m.
  Mr. John Davies: I wish to contribute a few remarks about the interesting point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes). It should be remembered in this connection that the recommendation of the Scrutiny Committee originally embodied two quite separate directives and included the perhaps rather more crucial directive relating to driving and vehicle licensing. Those were the points that were predominant in the view of the Committee at the time, although clearly it also had in mind questions which are not unimportant concerning the roadworthiness test.
  This highlights a point which I consider to be of great importance. Bearing in mind that the sole effect that the House can have on the legislative process of the Community is by influencing Ministers' minds, it would be infinitely more valuable if such influence took place within the framework of major debates on major subjects, so that if we were talking about this and allied subjects in a major debate on transport policy we would be doing a useful task. As it is, there are about six of us here discussing very narrow issues in a totally selective context, and that is valueless.
  I have consistently recommended that there should be debates of a substantial kind which would deal with a variety of different matters, all of which are being pursued within the framework of the Community. For example, we have a great series of different directives relating to the textile industry, which is of the greatest importance as a total matter for the House. If only the Government would put down these major issues for consideration, we could have proper debate of real value.
  I fully understand what the Minister has said about the difficulties of producing a supplementary explanatory memorandum, but that again highlights precisely my concern. It is useless for the House to be dragged in to say a few words on a subject between one moment when great amendments have culminated and the next moment when they are adopted. That frustrates the total purpose of the operation in which we are engaged. I make no direct charge against the hon. Gentleman. I am attacking the
  854
  purposes being pursued by the Government in this matter, because they are wrong and they are not what was intended within the framework of Community legislation and its being debated in this House.
  1.25 p.m.
  Mr. Horam: I assure the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) that I sympathise with the position in which all those interested in these matters from the European point of view have been put by the way we have handled this matter. Nevertheless, he will recall that there was planned to be a transport policy debate last Thursday, which was frustrated by a Standing Order No. 9 debate. I make no particular point about that—a matter of party politics was involved—but, there was the possibility of that opportunity for a transport debate, for which we have fought for some time, when these things could have been considered in a coherent form.
  Mr. John Davies: If that were the Government's intention, they should have put down this and other directives as being allied to that debate, but they did not. If we are seriously to consider these matters within the framework of transport policy, well and good, but they must be carefully cited in the matter of debate.
  Mr. Horam: I understand the point. It is something which may be possible in future. I know that consideration has been given to this aspect in relation to other debates, major and minor, through the linking together of these things in a coherent fashion. For example, following a major debate on transport, we could perhaps have debates on directives relating to transport afterwards on the same day, which would be a sensible way to proceed
  In reply to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes), I would point out that we are trying to carry out the wishes of the Scrutiny Committee in having a debate in the House on this subject, but I agree that, from a Back Bencher's point of view, it would seem more sensible to take such matters upstairs in Committee. The hon. Gentleman made the point that upstairs in Committee one could have a more sensible exchange of views rather than have merely half a dozen people gathered here on a Friday.

  855
  The hon. Gentleman asked when the Statutory Instruments to amend our regulations will be introduced. They will relate almost exclusively to the position of taxis and ambulances and they will be very minor. I imagine that they will come in as soon as the directive is passed—next year perhaps. I cannot be more specific than that.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler) referred to a test after an accident has taken place. I understand and sympathise with his view, but there are two principal objections to it. First, there is the technical matter of defining a serious accident. The hon. Member will agree that accidents to cars and lorries are of all kinds. If we are to have sensible law, we must have a distinction between those which do not matter from the road safety point of view and those which do matter. The drawing of that line is not easy.
  In our view, the major point is that to add that test to the ones which already take place would not be a cost-effective way of increasing road safety. The contribution to road safety arising from an extra test would not be great enough to justify the resources we would have to spend on it. That is the sort of reason that the Scrutiny Committee had in mind when it recommended that the comprehensive arrangements suggested by the EEC should be toned down to take account of cost factors. There would be a substantial addition to that cost if we did what the hon. Gentleman suggested.
  In addition, as I have said no less than twice already in my short period as a Minister, in the absence of a very good case I am reluctant to add to the regulations surrounding the motorist, and so far I am not convinced that such a case has been made in this matter.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: I realise that the hon. Gentleman has not had much notice of the points I made, but I do not regard what he has said so far as satisfactory. Successive Governments have had many years in which to work out some kind of definition, even if it applied only to the road tax, which is definable. How does he mean that it would not be cost effective? On what figures does he reach that judgment? Does he have figures on this
  856
  question, or is it simply a ministerial excuse?
  On the last question, the hon. Gentleman will understand that the Department—not under his regime, but certainly under the previous régime—has introduced regulations helter-skelter into motoring. To ignore a self-evident danger of this kind seems to me to be a most extraordinary omission on the part of the Department.
  Mr. Horam: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. What I meant by cost effectiveness was exactly what I said—that the addition to road safety in this area, which we estimate would be quite small, would not be justified in terms of the extra resources that would have to be spent on this kind of testing. I have not any exact figures, but the general nature of the argument is perfectly apparent and I cannot understand why the hon. Gentleman is confused by it.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. If, for the sake of argument, a simple MOT test were required for cars involved in write-off accidents—these being easily definable—before they went back on the road, what extra resources would be required?
  Mr. Horam: I should need notice of that question concerning an MOT test after a write-off accident. I do not have figures at hand on that precise point, as the hon. Gentleman will understand, but I think that the general position is clear.
  If the hon. Gentleman ever gets into my position, he will see that the work being done on road safety is of a very high standard. We are among the world leaders in this respect, as is evidenced by the fact that we are talking about an EEC directive in which other people are adopting measures that we already have. Indeed, they are rather less than we already have. The hon. Gentleman must understand that one does not have particular figures on hand on that sort of precise point.
  The hon. Gentleman, moreover, has shifted his ground from his original proposal. At first he was talking about the cost of accidents as a whole and he was suggesting that we must have MOT tests relating to accidents as a whole. He now says that we must have them when there has been a write-off accident.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: Clearly my original point holds. I would not accept that it is impossible to define when a car is involved in a write-off accident or a serious accident. This is a departmental excuse of the bleakest kind. I am not shifting my ground in saying that there is a minimum definable situation which so far the hon. Gentleman has totally failed to answer.
  Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman insists that we are making an excuse. On the contrary, we are telling him our view, which is that these additional measures would not be cost effective—
  Mr. Norman Fowler: Based on no figures.
  Mr. Horam:—based on the figures which we have discussed over many years. As to change of ownership, there is no evidence that vehicles offered for sale are any less roadworthy than other vehicles of similar type. On the basis of 4 million changes of ownership, the estimated cost of implementing this suggestion is £16 million in fees alone, apart from any other consideration. There is no evidence that there would be any substantial increase in road safety as a consequence of introducing an additional measure on a change of ownership, quite apart from the one that we have already discussed after an accident has taken place.
  It is a matter of fine judgment of cost benefit, and we are bound to say that we do not think it is justified at the moment. But the Department is always prepared to consider a case. I undertake that we shall consider the hon. Gentleman's statement and the evidence he has adduced during the course of the debate. If there is a need to change our mind, we shall look at it. Every aspect of this matter is constantly under consideration, however, and every effort is made to see that we adhere to the maximum standards of road safety consistent with reasonable common sense in regard to the costs involved.
  That aspect was brought out by the contribution of the hon. Member for Isle of Ely (Mr. Freud), who has had to depart. He made the very point that we should not introduce extra tests and then find that we have not the manpower resources to deal with them adequately, so that people have to wait before they can use their vehicles. We must bear in mind
  858
  that a large cost element is involved. We agree with the Scrutiny Committee that it must be taken into account. That is why we are satisfied with the directive as it is.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: The hon. Gentleman has given a number of undertakings that he will consider various things. Will he also undertake that the information he has in the Department, but which he has been unable to produce today, concerning accidents, write-offs and seriously damaged cars will be provided to me?
  Mr. Horam: I undertake that any figures which are available in the Department on these specific points will be made available to the hon. Gentleman.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Resolved.
  That this House takes note of the latest proposals of the Council of the European Communities for Road Worthiness Tests following draft Directives R/1795 /72 and R/1614/74 and in the light of the United Kingdom's leading position in this field welcomes these proposals as an important step forward towards harmonising vehicle testing arrangements within the Community.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): I understand that the motion standing in the name of the Lord President of the Council concerning Standing Order No. 73A is not to be moved.
  Mr. Ted Graham (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): Not moved.
  Mr. Douglas Jay: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although I understand that in the circumstances today, in the absence of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, it is not proposed to move this motion or that on European secondary legislation, nevertheless, as they involve some very important issues affecting the constitutional rights of the House, I hope that the Government spokesman can give an assurance that we shall have ample time to debate them and take decisions on them at a reasonably early date.
  Mr. John Davies: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As guardian of the interests of

  859
  the House, will you take consideration of the fact that the proposals contained in these motions were derived from a statement made to the House no less than three months ago and that this is the first occasion on which we have had the opportunity of discussing them? Simply not to move them in this abrupt way seems to me to be the most distressing mistreatment of the House. I call upon you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to protect our interests.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: This is not a matter for the Chair. It is entirely up to the member of the Government concerned to move the motions or not, as he wishes, or for any other member of the Government to do so in his place. It is not a matter which concerns the Chair.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that hon. Members who are present can imagine some of the circumstances in which the Government do not wish to move these motions and perhaps discuss the amendments. I hope, however, that it is proper for me, on a point of order, to mention the undertaking to which the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) has referred. It was given, I believe, on 3rd November 1975, so that the motion fulfils part of an undertaking that was given over a year ago.
  Mr. Jay: Further to the point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Can we not have an assurance from the Government spokesman that time will be given to debate these motions at a reasonably early date?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for the Government.
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): I have not been present during the course of the discussions this afternoon, but I have noted the representations made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) and by the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). I will ensure that they are drawn to the attention of my colleagues.

  STANDING COMMITTEE ON STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENT
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &c.)
    STATUTORY INSTRUMENT

      PREVENTION OF FRAUD
      That the Protection of Depositors (Accounts) Regulations 1976, a draft of which was laid before this House on 19th October, be approved.—[Mr. Graham.]
      Question agreed to.

  TRANSPORT (LONDON COMMUTERS)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Graham.]
  1.40 p.m.
  Mr. Hugh Dykes: The House is accustomed to dealing with matters on the Adjournment at a much later time either on a Friday afternoon or late at night on other weekdays. It may be regarded in retrospect as fortunate for a number of reasons that today it is possible for us to devote more time to this debate.
  I am grateful for the opportunity to initiate it. It is about the undeniable and well known fact, about which the newspapers have been writing in the past week particularly, that commuters in the Greater London area, whatever means of transport they use, are fed up. They are increasingly feeling at the end of their tether. I know very well that that phrase may have been used on previous occasions.
  There is a growing feeling among millions of citizens in the Greater London area—I include those citizens who live outside the fringes of Greater London itself—that reform is necessary, that a strong and firm hand will be needed to get a grip on things. An increasing number of commuters are feeling battered, bruised, bewildered, resentful, angry, and prone to violence on a number of occasions, as perhaps the Secretary of State for Transport has seen for himself, about the way in which the services continually let down the consumer.
  I am very grateful to the Secretary of State and to his colleague for finding the

  861
  time to attend and answer this debate. The debate will have been useful if the Government state that they are prepared to make some energetic responses to that which I and succeeding speakers, if there are any in this debate, will enunciate and express, not on behalf of ourselves directly, but on behalf of the millions of hapless consumers of deteriorating services on buses, tubes and trains. That would justify the debate; and that, therefore, is the solemn obligation that the Secretary of State for Transport must undertake.
  There has been a little publicity of late—overnight, perhaps—about the payment that the Government may be prepared to make to the transport management authorities—London Transport, in particular—to enable them to deal with the serious financial problems now afflicting them. We may hear more about that in due course.
  I am also grateful for this opportunity because it enables Members of Parliament together, crossing party lines and acting in concert, to seize their opportunity to try to reassure the public outside that we as their elected representatives are not ignoring their collective plight, are as worried as they are, and share the view of the media as expressed in the past week particularly, but all the time by definition, that there is a growing number of problems in this whole area which must be tackled.
  I must first inflict a number of statistics on the House. I apologise for that in advance and I hope that the House will be patient with me as I give them. I must set the background to this by stating the depressing facts and figures which bring home to us all as ratepayers, taxpayers and commuters in London just how serious the problem is and how intractable it will be unless firm action is taken by the central Government, by the Greater London Council and, indeed, although this is much more remote by definition, even by individual boroughs.
  Let us look at the background to the situation. London Transport has engaged on a policy of re-equipment over recent years. That would have been justified if only the immediate operational results had been there for the consumers to see. This is the hideous dilemma. Despite the large sums that have been spent—we are living in a highly inflationary era,
  862
  despite the Government's policy, when the pound will not be worth as much six months hence as it is today—results have worsened in practical terms.
  It is easy to criticise transport authorities. They have a very complicated and difficult task. It is an enormous headache for them to run a huge consumer transport network like London Transport's Tube and bus services. We accept that. I am reluctant to use this word, but the only word that can describe their policy of spending in recent years is "profligacy", because it has produced no results which would have been justified, for instance, if only travellers had been able to say "I remember how appalling these conditions were four or five years ago on the journey I make every morning and every evening. How much better they are now."
  One can make that comment in respect of only a small number of services, be they bus, Tube or train. The criticism applies to most of the services. I deliberately except the Victoria Line from that criticism.
  Mr. Ted Graham (Lord Commissioner to the Treasury): Hear, hear.
  Mr. Dykes: Most people regard the Victoria Line as an outstanding example the other way, and I am happy to pay tribute to London Transport in that respect. I note the Government Whip's enthusiastic "Hear, hear".
  However, that is the exception. It is the most recent line to be built. It carries a message for all of us and for the management of London Transport. The deterioration of the old rolling stock and the track on the London Transport network is one of the major headaches, and London Transport must tackle this problem with energy.
  There is, too, inevitably a political consideration. It is all very well for 64 Labour Members apparently to support a campaign by a London newspaper to get a better deal for the commuter in the London area, together with the relevant Greater London Council committee or its chairman. We are well aware that the GLC elections will be upon us in due course. The change of political management at County Hall has coincided with a striking deterioration in the management skills at London Transport itself.

  863
  That is a serious charge which I make with reluctance.
  I cannot explain exactly the labyrinthine methods by which the result will have been achieved within the internal arrangements of London Transport's own management, but the political nature of the ultimate financial control has a direct reciprocal effect on what the direct managers, with all their practical problems, do at the lower level.
  Let us consider the policy of the introduction of the enormous revenue subsidies on which the GLC embarked under the change of political management across the river. The GLC gets a substantial slice of this money from the Government, and that is why it is in the final analysis, as with all these financial matters, the ultimate responsibility of the Government to propose new solutions if that is what the public believe are increasingly necessary.
  I remind the House that in 1973 none of these revenue subsidies was applicable to these services. I include buses in that In 1974 fairly small amounts of money began to be paid. The sum of £8 million was spent on concessionary Tares. Admittedly that is a separate subject. By 1975–76, £15 million was spent on revenue subsidies on the Underground, £78 million on buses, and £11·9 million on concessionary fares. In the current period, £79 million—more or less the same sum—is to be spent by way of revenue subsidies.
  It would be different if the commuter were able to say that as a result of that major switch in financial policy the fares had been contained. That is the ultimate rationale of such a policy. After all, we are talking about revenue subsidies and not capital re-equipment.
  However, what has happened to the long suffering consumer? Fare rises in April 1975 amounted to 36 per cent. on average; in November 1975 they amounted to 26 per cent. on average, and in July 1976 to 25 per cent. on average. Now the sword of Damocles is hanging over us, in that London Transport is to make an average increase of 15 per cent. next summer, bringing the total average increase in two and a half years to 146 per cent. That is the measure of exas-
  864
  peration of the commuter—partly caused by the swingeing increase intself, and partly caused by the physical deterioration in many services, which is the final insult.
  The statistics of passengers vis-à-vis staff and the way in which these have moved over a period are depressingly alarming. Over a three-year period the number of miles travelled by passengers have decreased while staff numbers have increased. In 1973 passengers travelled 3,246 million miles on the underground, and 2,958 million miles on the buses, making a total of 6,204 million miles. That was an increase of 0·43 per cent. over the previous year. During the same period staff numbers were reduced to 54,897.
  In 1974 passengers travelled 3,210 million miles on the Underground, and 3,061 million miles on the buses, making a total of 6,271 million miles which is an increase of 1·08 per cent.—a very tiny increase, and less than was expected. In that year staff numbers increased by 2·99 per cent. to 56,541.
  In 1975 passengers travelled 2,969 million miles on the Underground, and 3,039 million miles on the buses, making a total of 6,008 million miles, which was a decrease of 4·23 per cent. In that year staff numbers increased to 60,230 an increase of 6·52 per cent. A breakdown of the staff figures shows that operational staff-drivers, conductors, and all those who have to bear the brunt of public criticism—totalled 31,467 in 1973, 32,346 in 1974 and 34,431 in 1975. The background to this is that in 1973 London Transport was suffering from a shortage of staff and from wage relativity problems, and staff numbers at the important end of the business went up. Acute shortages which existed on some lines declined in general terms.
  Engineering and mechanical staff, who regard themselves as important as operative staff, totalled 15,373 in 1973 and 16,688 in 1975. Therefore, their numbers were commensurate with the increase in operative staff.
  Administrative and other staff totalled 8,057 in 1973 and 9,111 in 1975. Therefore, the percentage of administrative and other staff compared with operatives and engineers rose over the period. In a public enterprise, when money becomes

  865
  scarce and administrative staff increases as a proportion of the total number of staff, other staff feel great resentment because it is they who must bear the brunt of criticism. Yet they know that inflated central staffs have increased without any real improvement in physical services.
  Although I acknowledge that London Transport has a very complicated and difficult task, and it is easy to be critical, the reluctant conclusion to which I must come is that the enterprise is relatively badly managed. It is a conclusion shared by fed-up commuters. I am very reluctant to come to this conclusion and I must pay tribute to the way in which London Transport has tried to deal with individual complaints.
  However, is London Transport going about things the right way? Is its inefficiency partly due to the fact that it has to rely on GLC and Government subsidies, coupled with the fact that the GLC does not have a proper say in the central strategic management of London Transport? Because the GLC has no say in the management, it cannot produce its own ideas about problems, such as the bunching of buses. Despite the fact that the GLC is landed with providing increasing amounts of money, which have not prevented fares from rocketing, the GLC has no control over the management of the services.
  The total revenue subsidy, excluding concesionary fares, was £90·43 million in 1975–76 and in the current period it looks like being about £81·5 million. The Minister may have an up-to-date announcement to make on that issue. What will be the effect on commuters, unless major changes are made, as fares soar to levels which are beyond their ability to pay? That is the central question which faces the Government and the GLC at present.
  The Government have said recently that they wish to reduce the GLC's capital and revenue spending. This is what the argument is about. The amount of the reduction is not clear yet. I ask the Secretary of State to go into this in some detail and to declare the Government's policy. There are rumours all over the place suggesting that the Government will soften their previously hard line on the amount of cash to be handed over, and the GLC is waiting with bated breath.
  866
  The problems could be greater if the subsidy, for which London Transport is now waiting were drastically and abruptly reduced. However, if the Minister decides to soften his line, what will happen afterwards, as continuing public expenditure restraints impinge themselves on the Government? The Government cannot think only of the short period immediately ahead; they must look to the long-term future.
  London Transport therefore is faced with the need to improve its efficiency as quickly as possible to cushion the effects of any cuts. In due course, even if there is a softening in the Government's attitude to the subsidy, has the management the ability to be sufficiently incentive-minded?
  Capital investment is the other headache facing all these services. There are the new Tube lines, including the new line to Heathrow, which is to be a year later than expected. There is also the rolling stock and the poor quality of some of the cars, particularly on some of the outer Tube lines. The age of the buses and the continuing headache of getting new equipment and spares is another aspect of the problem. All this needs new money poured into it if services are to be improved without any consideration of fare rises in the future.
  How will this problem be tackled? Do the Government have any views, and, if so, what are they? Or are they staring like the rabbit at the headlights of the oncoming vehicle of disaster not knowing what to do? The only unambiguous reaction I have noticed among the Labour majority at County Hall is bewilderment and panic coupled with the vague notion that it is necessary to get a public relations campaign into action as quickly as possible; hence the recent actions of Mr. Jim Daly.
  If I had to guess about the future I would say that the problem of the fare increases will come next year and that fares will go up by 15 per cent., which would raise about £10 million. Then London Transport would do what one newspaper has mentioned, and that is spend the London Transport reserve. The actions of the Minister are referred to in one newspaper today. Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm or deny those references?

  867
  The difference could be made up by increasing the rates by about 1p, which would raise about £15 million to £20 million. The immediate problem with this kind of solution is that it would not actually cut the £40 million policy now been superseded by the Government's new stance? What is the precise position? An awful lot of people would like a definitive answer to that question.
  This is not only a financial debate, but a debate about human beings and about their problems of getting to work, usually with an increasing tendency to arrive late through no fault of their own, either on British Rail or on London Transport. It is a human story because of the way in which older commuters particularly feel that they can no longer stand the pressures which afflict them every day on the average bus or Tube journey. Familiar stories of overcrowding, cattle truck conditions, and the bunching of buses—perhaps the worst problems of all afflicting the buses—provide individual examples of hardship and worse.
  The Government have the ultimate financial responsibility, but they do not have the operational responsibility. Yet they must have the means in their own internal departmental arrangements to make sure that their officials are constantly in touch with the officials at the operational end of the business in London Transport and British Rail, continually swopping ideas about how to introduce improvements.
  If commuters are at the end of their tether, time is certainly running out. There will be social trouble of an inevitably indefinable nature in railway and Tube stations and by bus stops unless these problems are sorted out. Time is needed for them to be sorted out. But letters are now reaching the newspapers, and the independent radio stations are hearing not merely from members of the public but from the operatives who are venting their feelings of resentment and anger as the public try to take it out on them. The notion that a 6 ft. 1 in bus driver is anxious that he may be physically ill-treated by his passengers, yet understands their feelings of anger and frustration, is absurd, but because it is an absurdity that does not mean that it does not exist.
  868
  I have interest to declare as a frustrated commuter. I have started using the Great Northern electric line in the mornings. It has replaced the old City Line into Moorgate. Fortunately, I do not have to use the service every day. It is brand new and it has been fully operational for one week. Until then there was a partial pilot service. The service has been a disaster and I felt obliged, not because of my personal suffering but because of the seething resentment on the platforms along this service from Hertfordshire into the City, to telephone the Chairman of British Rail. I did so on Tuesday when the average delay in the early morning services was half an hour.
  This service with the new luxurious electric trains is described on the posters—the promotional activity has been gigantic—as the smart way to travel to London. The trains are supposed to run every four minutes, but in some instances the delay was greater than 30 minutes.
  I was unable to get through to the Chairman of British Rail, but I spoke to one of his five or six assistants. I understand that Mr. Peter Park travels to work by Rolls-Royce. That is a pleasant way to travel, but most people to not have the chance. I suppose that even Socialist millionaires can be conscientious enough to realise that when they get complaints about a line like that—I understand that British Rail headquarters has been inundated with letters and telephone calls about the service—it is the chairman's job to take immediate action to try to sort it out.
  I wish to be fair and balanced about this. I understand that there have been the inevitable teething troubles which afflict new services. I remember when I was taking part in the German General Election travelling by electric train to Hamburg. It arrived five seconds late and the guard was ticked off by the platform supervisor for inefficiency. If only we could have those German standards in our country!
  I understand that on this Great Northern service there was some bad luck. A window was broken. There was also a rumour that one of the drivers, about to retire, reached Drayton Park where the train was held up while he was presented with his gold watch there and then. These sorts of stories tend to build

  869
  up among commuters who begin to impose the fantasies over the realities when they suffer so much.
  It is a new service and time will be needed to see how it works out. However, if the so-called seven-minute run from Islington to the City is to be plagued continually with half-hour delays, disillusionment will be enormous. The fares on that service are above average for the length of route. For the commuters who use the service from the beginning of the run the burden is even greater.
  I hope that the Minister will not think that I am pursuing any excessive self-interest when I dwell on the new service. However, it is important in psychological terms for British Rail and London Transport to bear in mind with a new service the overall decree of resentment and dissatisfaction among the average commuters. Is it excessively ambitious for the management deliberately to set out to make sure that the service is perfect? Would that be such a shameful objective?
  My other stance as Member of Parliament for Harrow, East is perhaps on some occasions not too effective. However, there is the question of my constituents' interests in using the Metropolitan Line from Harrow-on-the-Hill to all parts of London and of using perhaps the Baker-loo Line which ends at Stanmore. That was in a bad way a year or two back, but I acknowledge that it is better now. There have been improvements and the problem of crew shortages has abated.
  I pay tribute to the efforts of London Transport and British Rail to improve their services, but I also pay tribute to the newspapers of London, one of which is currently running a campaign for commuters. I have its latest dramatic headlines here. The Secretary of State will see that his name is mentioned on page one, which is an interesting coincidence on the day of this debate.
  I acknowledge the enormously energetic and successful work done by the Evening News. I do so with some enthusiasm because the paper was kind enough to refer yesterday to my efforts in this debate. It is crystallising the seething resentment of many of its readers who have sent in examples of unfortunate incidents which are not isolated, but part of a general, multi-faceted, everyday pattern affecting millions of people.
  870
  The Secretary of State has the misfortune to be presiding, at one stage removed, over what people regard as a disgustingly inefficient and disgraceful commuter service. When the people of London describe the service in this way, I do not believe that they are being pragmatically unfair.
  The Evening News has done a great service in bringing these facts to the attention of the authorities. It is rumoured that even Ministers sometimes read newspapers and might have seen reports of occasionally amusing but usually distressing examples of the catastrophic nature of some commuter services.
  It would be wrong not to pay tribute also to the Evening Standard, which, with some justification, has been concentrating recently more on the special problems affecting the bus services. It has done an equally notable and successful job in bringing problems to the attention of those responsible.
  A number of cases have been brought to my attention. The Secretary of State rightly is driven around in an official car in the performance of his onerous duties. I do not criticise him for that. But if we are to escape the charge of being remote from these problems, we must pay attention to them and realise just how citizens can be affected.
  Let us take, for instance, the case of Mr. Derek Guard, an architectural assistant from Ruislip. He goes to Tottenham Court Road every day and normally arrives later than expected and after the time he is due to start work. On 10th November he missed the 8.17 a.m. train from South Ruislip. The next train, the 8.29 was cancelled and no one bothered to tell more than 200 commuters waiting on the platform. They eventually got on a packed tube train at 8.50 a.m. The cost of this service is £1·20 per day.
  London Transport apologised later for not having informed the commuters. It said that the service should be running every 12 minutes and that the 8.29 was cancelled because a guard was sick, did not turn up for duty and did not tell London Transport. A spokesman for London Transport said:
  "We do not always announce a cancellation in case we can rustle up a spare crew at the last minute. However, we are trying to improve the information system."

  871
  "System" seems too grand a word for this kind of arrangement.
  I have with me details of the case of another commuter, Mr. Charles Bryce, whose journey from Stamford Hill to Tufnell Park—two 10p bus rides—takes one and a half hours. He blames the No. 106 bus which he takes from Stamford Hill to Finsbury Park where he changes to a No. 4 bus. He says that the No. 106 buses are supposed to run every eight to ten minutes and adds:
  "that is the biggest lie I ever saw. I wait half an hour, then three come at once."
  There is also the case of Mr. Martin Woolhouse from Oxhey, a dairy depot manager, who bitterly regrets his transfer to a new job at Eastcote because of the problems with the No. 282 bus route. He writes:
  "Today, I started queuing at 8.20 a.m. and was still there at 9 a.m. when four 282s came down the road in the opposite direction. It is the same most days—a terrible start to anybody's day."
  London Transport confirmed the daily delays and said that they were due to a combination of buses cancelled, because of spare part shortages and extensive road works causing serious traffic congestion in Western Avenue.
  A bus conductor from Cricklewood claimed in the Press that at least 10 drivers a day were working rest-day overtime when there were no buses for them to drive. He said that this was known in advance and that the total cost worked out at about £5,000 a week. Including other garages it must cost London Transport about £1 million a year. Perhaps the Secretary of State has never heard of this arrangement. I was shocked to hear of it and I would appreciate his comments.
  I know that you are always patient, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I do not wish to tax your patience, but these are matters which must be aired if improvements are to be made in future.
  I have here details of another service —the S2 six minute journey from Bromley by Bow to Clapton Pond—which has gone from bad to worse. A regular commuter who works in a maternity wear shop at Clapton waits at Cadogan Terrace. On one rainy morning she waited from 8.25 until 9.5 a.m. and was understandably angry. She
  872
  was late for work again, but luckily her employer is an understanding person.
  London Transport told the Press:
  "It is some old stock that is not very reliable and keeps breaking down. We are doing our best, but these off-the-peg buses do not stand up to working so long in London. With better tools, we could do a better job. We apologise, but it is a problem with the entire fleet."
  That last sentence sounds rather ominous.
  Mrs. Pat Tiley lives in Chingford and usually has dinner ready for her 18-yearold son when he returns from his job with a clearing bank in the City. However, the meal is often ruined and Mrs. Tiley blames the No. 102 bus that brings her son the 10 stops from Chingford station. On the day to which she refers, the bus was 45 minutes late and that was not an isolated incident. She says that it happens most evenings for scores of people exhausted and anxious to get home after a long day's work.
  The night before, said Mrs. Tiley, her son and other passengers got on a No. 102 at 6 p.m. and in the next 45 minutes two more No. 102s arrived and formed a three-bust queue. At 6.45 p.m., the first bus pulled out. Mrs. Tiley rightly asks:
  "What are we supposed to do with a bus service like this?"
  As a result of the publicity, I have been inundated with examples of problems. One can understand the depth of public feeling about this matter.
  Much to the Secretary of State's relief, no doubt, I shall not go on quoting incidents, but he should know that this is happening every day. The examples that I have quoted are not isolated incidents when there has been an aberration or bad weather affecting a service which is normally smooth, streamlined and efficient.
  Apart from the experiences of individual commuters, there is the general picture. I have enunciated some aspects of the overall financial picture, hoping for some clarification and explanation from the Government. But inevitably there are certain questions, with which I conclude my speech in the hope that there may be some encouragement for the public in the Greater London area.
  I have inevitably dwelt mainly on London Transport and its financial problems, but there is a huge problem affecting British Rail commuter services in financial terms now facing the management, particularly in the Greater London

  873
  and Southern Region areas. I hope that the Secretary of State will explain his specific policy in the light of the threatened fare rise coming in January on top of eight increases in fares in the last few years for commuters who now find season tickets more elaborate and luxurious than foreign holidays and other matters which families naturally want.
  Inevitably, because of pressure on public finances, we are approaching some kind of intellectual watershed about these matters. Undoubtedly we shall have to think of those things against which successive authorities have perhaps set their faces because they felt that they would open up new areas of means and methods of financing the hard-pressed commuter who is finding it increasingly difficult to pay the present level of fares.
  Another aspect of this problem concerns tourism in London. There is no magic and easy way in which to get the wealthy tourist to pay more for some services. However, I hope that the Government will consider that aspect with the management of London Transport. It seems wrong that ratepayers and residents of London boroughs, and indeed on the fringes of London, should have to bear the same kind of direct financial burden, and more, because they are paying for other things as well, as the wealthy overseas visitor who could pay a differential rate.
  I make that suggestion tentatively and with some hesitation because I know of the enormous problems surrounding the practical implementation of such a policy. It may be that something along the lines of the consolidation of a single fare in inner areas, just as they have in other foreign cities, might be the right way to go about it if we were confident about the statistics showing that short journeys in inner London were overwhelmingly undertaken in the summer months, above all, by foreign tourists. I know that is a problematical area.
  I now make a suggestion which I believe Parliament will have to embrace at some stage. I am conscious that this suggestion is more for the Secretary of State's colleagues than for himself, but I have to make it in the context of the debate.
  I have shared objections to this idea in the past and I am therefore more of a passionate convert. We are now at the point where we shall have to consider giving
  874
  tax relief for regular travel so that people can file with the Inland Revenue the amounts they spend on regular tickets or season tickets and claim relief in their annual tax returns.
  The Secretary of State, by definition, may say that is a matter for his right hon. Friend the Chancellor and that there is nothing for him to say. However, I should like him to succumb to the natural temptation, which I am sure he feels, to express even a tentative opinion about that matter.
  I appreciate that this suggestion has been made on other occasions. The cost of season tickets, particularly for British Rail commuters, is now a large part of their regular weekly expenditure in the domestic budget. These amounts are now so large that they represent major items of expenditure incurred wholly, essentially and unavoidably in the pursuance of jobs, professions, careers, or whatever.
  Tax relief would be another way of giving a subsidy, but it would take pressure off the direct amount of subsidy increases which will be necessary to contain future fares increases, whatever may happen to GLC rate increases, and so on. If it comes out of another drawer of the Exchequer as a whole, it does not detract from its potential respectability as one way of creating a new threshold of easement of the increasing financial burden which commuters have to bear.
  I have referred to the fact that managements have become increasingly top heavy as services have deteriorated in quality and efficiency. Surely there is a powerful attraction in saying that it would be better to expend any additional subsidy directly not to managements in the way that we have done automatically in the past for them to spend on things under their control and at their discretion, but to the commuter, leaving it to him to make the necessary decisions about the costs of travel, how to travel, and so on, and to use that tax relief to the best benefit of the community as a whole.
  Part and parcel of that idea, of which I am in favour and formally propose for the Government's consideration, would be that firms should be allowed to hand out travel vouchers to their employees on which the firms would receive some kind of appropriate tax offset. Luncheon vouchers are often considered, but they

  875
  are regarded as too low in these inflationary times.
  However, when we consider the burden and hard work involved in travelling and the importance of trying to reduce the extent to which employees arrive at their work exhausted and washed out as a result of difficult journeys, I should think that the idea of travel vouchers would have a great attraction to commercial enterprises and other bodies in London which draw their staff from the outer areas.
  Coming back to the management of London Transport and the commuter services of British Rail, I suggest that it is time that the worst examples of overmanning were tackled. We are all conscious of high levels of unemployment prevailing, even in the South-East and London. But I suggest that at the operational end of commuter services as a whole there are visible examples of overmanning. That usually means the non-mobile staff. However, I should like to pay tribute to a category of staff which I have not mentioned which comes in for a certain amount of criticism, often unfairly—namely, the supervisors. They, too, are fed up with what has been happening in recent years.
  It may be necessary to consider many aspects, but perhaps the most important is the Government subsidy to London Transport and British Rail. Of course, these other matters come into the general context. They are important, undeniable, and increasingly necessary for the success of an overall rational commuter policy in London.
  It may be necessary further to restrict private cars in some of the streets in inner London. I make that suggestion with obvious hesitation. However, where it has been tackled with courage in other big cities in the world, the results have been pleasing. Even the ardent motorists have said that they do not wish to see the return of the private car to particular streets. It is negative to reflect that all we have so far is a restriction in Oxford Street, but even that is not properly observed. That is all part and parcel of the whole picture.
  I am grateful to the House for being so patient in listening to me. I am conscious that I have taken a long time, but
  876
  I feel that it is worth while, bearing in mind the feelings of the average citizen about this matter.
  Again, I express my gratitude to the Secretary of State for coming here today. I hope that it will not vanish if he does not live up to his well-earned reputation for being a politician who is prepared to face things squarely. I hope that he will give an assurance that the Government are taking the whole issue to heart, are prepared to do the right things, are as worried and anxious about the situation as everybody else, are prepared to tackle these problems, and have a message of encouragement for Londoners.
  2.30 p.m.
  Mr. Nigel Spearing: I think that all those who have heard the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) will congratulate him on being able to quadruple the length of his speech at relatively short notice. I shall comment on some of the things he mentioned, but my speech has the consequent disadvantage of having been prepared virtually within the ambit of the hon. Gentleman's remarks because, as hon. Members will have gathered, we have an unexpected opportunity to debate this important and timely topic because of the unexpected withdrawal by the Government of the previous business about Standing Orders.
  The number of hon. Members in the Chamber is no reflection of the concern of London Members over this matter. They were assuming that it would be dealt with in two short speeches in half an hour from 4 o'clock. As that is not the case, although I do not know how long I shall be relative to the speech of the hon. Gentleman, we can all agree that we have an opportunity to do justice to this important debate.
  I was surprised at some of the things said by the hon. Gentleman, because if some of his friends at County Hall had had their way some time ago—indeed, if his party had had its way; I do not want to be controversial, but it is only fair to mention it—and won the GLC election, we should at this moment be throwing up massive ringways around London to take still more people by motor car and absorbing still greater amounts of public expenditure on roadways, when clearly

  877
  the situation since the oil crisis and in the environmental sense has changed. The hon. Gentleman ought to remember this when he and his hon. Friends complain about public transport.
  Secondly, any further increases that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my friends at the GLC intend to divert by way of subsidy mean further public expenditures which the hon. Gentleman and his party vociferiously and continuously require to be reduced. I hope that from now on party controversy can largely be stilled, but it would have been wrong not to have made those specific comments before looking at the main problems.
  I go along with the hon. Gentleman in some of the things he said about London Transport, although he skilfully paid tribute to all and sundry and then criticised them in particular. I am unhappy with London Transport, and it knows it. I was glad to introduce a Bill to enable it to manufacture and sell certain items of bus equipment in relation to bus suppliers, but the "No bus available "—the NBA—scandal has been going on for far too long. It started before the three-day working week. Therefore, that alibi of London Transport can be dispensed with.
  One has to say things fairly firmly in this place for them to get out. One of the basic problems of the NBA scandal is to be found in the assumptions of the Government. I shall not go into this in detail, but the bus design subsidy that the Government decided to reduce had side effects that were unexpected and have been extremely bad, coupled with certain technical inefficiencies in the organisation of British Leyland.
  I shall not go further into that, but it is right that somebody, somewhere—perhaps a Select Committee—should follow up what has been a most unhappy train of events. If this sort of thing goes wrong in one of the sectors of British technology which heretofore has been in the forefront—namely, vehicle design—it is an example to the whole country. I hope that a Select Committee will root out this problem, because it is an example of what is wrong with British industry and to some extent with relations between the Government and top management.
  878
  The London Transport organisation is in many ways admirable, but I find some of its local management decisions and lack of concern for the individual passenger intolerable. As a Member of Parliament for six years, I have consistently pointed out some of its administrative failings, with no response—or, at least, no response to my satisfaction. But that is a matter for the elected members of the GLC in detail and not for me, although I hope that the London Transport Passengers Committee of 26 Old Queen Street, SW1, will get some publicity out of the current controversy, because that is the consumer body for London, and if the hon. Member for Harrow, East would send some of the letters that he has received to that body they might get more attention than they will from my right hon. Friend, who has no direct responsibility for London Transport.
  I turn now to the underlying theme of this debate, because the transport and commuter problem and its finances in London are a reflection of the public transport problems over the country as a whole.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): Order. I remind the hon. Member that this is not a debate on transport policy as such.
  Mr. Spearing: I realise that, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but the fact that rail journeys in London and the South-East account for 43 per cent. of total British Railways passenger mileage tells its own story. That is equivalent to passenger miles by Inter-city. Therefore, while thoroughly understanding the point you have made, it is my contention that although, technically, this is a debate on the Adjournment, one cannot separate the problems of London Transport from those of the railways as a whole. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport would not be here but for that.
  My right hon. Friend's consultative paper overlooks one major point that is exemplified in London, and that is that public transport is vital for those areas that grew up before the private car became widely available. That is a fundamental political and financial problem that many Governments and, indeed, my

  879
  friends at the GLC have consistently failed to understand. Any urban area that was built and whose facilities and transport modes were established prior to the middle 1960s or late 1950s—the year is immaterial—have to be based on public transport, and this public transport association must be maintained. London is the prime example of that in the nation.
  Our problem is that private car economics—I am not anti-car, although I do not happen to be a car owner so I can understand the problems of public transport—consistently undermine the finances of public transport, and will continue to do so, however much the Government pay in subsidy and however much they require commuter fares to go up. Quite apart from those who get a direct subsidy from their jobs for the maintenance of motor cars, those who have motor cars and travel to work instead of using public transport are continually internally subsidising themselves, because the higher the level of fares, the greater the amount of money spent on basic car costs that would otherwise be spent elsewhere.
  As everybody knows, particularly with the reduction in congestion, travel by car on the whole reduces uncertainty and is of much greater convenience. If two or three friends get together for social or work purposes, in certain circumstances they can travel very much more cheaply by private car if parking is available at their place of work—terminal facilities are fundamental to using a private car—than they can by public transport, yet in terms of social cost and in terms of absolute cost to the economy the chances are that the cost of travel by public transport is much less. That is one dilemma that my right hon. Friend has to solve for London, and London's problem is pre-eminently the one that faces the nation.
  The situation is well explained in my constituency. I receive many letters of the kind referred to by the hon. Member for Harrow, East. One gentleman who has a wife and two children wrote to me. He says that if he wishes to travel from Plaistow to East Ham the journey costs 30p per mile. We know that the cost of running a car is about 11p to 15p a mile according to the official statistics,
  880
  certainly for Members of Parliament. Most of my constituents do not own motor cars. Therefore, if they wish to travel on the London Underground they have to pay nearly three times as much per mile as it costs to travel by private car. That is the inverted situation which we have already reached.
  People who pay for season tickets to come into London, as many of my constituents do, are paying vastly increased costs because of the diminishing revenue base. It is no wonder that greater inconvenience and increasing costs tighten the spiral. It is a dilemma that the Minister cannot easily get out of, particularly in respect of British Rail when there are reductions in freight revenue.
  This difficulty, which is now facing the country as a whole, was faced in London in the late 1950s. The response of County Hall in the late 1960s was the same as that of my right hon. Friend—to put up the fares. In the early 1970s the GLC put up the fares on the Inner Circle line and when things got more difficult it put up the fares on the Underground as a whole. One of the anomalies we now face in London is that Underground fares are substantially higher than bus fares, whereas in 1912 they were the same and have been until relatively recently.
  Before the war in London all fares from the private companies—the Southern Railway, the railway groups, the buses and the Underground—were pooled. But that came to a end when London Transport became officially nationalised in 1947. In many ways we are being forced backwards in terms of convenience by the inexorable advance in techniques which we cannot control, namely, the private car. At the same time, the public mechanism, despite public ownership—I say this advisedly—has also gone backwards even when compared to private competition before the war.
  The London Rail Study Report was published two years ago but it has taken Whitehall two years to set up the London Rail Committee. That committee was called for by the GLC and was agreed to by the Government, yet it has taken two years to set it up in order to look at the recommendations in the London Rail Study Report.
  I asked Questions about this of my right hon. Friend and his predecessor in

  881
  the Department of the Environment. I know that there are problems. There are always problems when setting up committees. One has to find a good chairman. I wish Mr. Herring, the new chairman, all the best. He has great experience of air transport and aeroplanes. I hope that he can fully grasp the subtle and different field of urban transport in London. But I wonder where we are going if it takes Whitehall two years to set up a committee to have a look at the recommendations of the Barran Report.
  My right hon. Friend told us only two days ago where he is going. He is going by electric train to Luton and St. Albans from St. Pancras. That is an improvement in its own right, just as the Great Northern electrification scheme is an improvement, although I understand the complaints of the hon. Member for Harrow, East regarding its teething troubles. I believe that the St. Albans scheme will cost many millions of pounds.
  We have been waiting two years for some of the modest schemes that the Barran Report advocated. It advocated Cross-Rail and suggested that trains could go from the Holborn Viaduct station through existing tunnels. It was a modest scheme. The track was there and was used by 20 goods trains a day until three years ago, when British Rail took the tracks up. But the route is there at very little cost. My right hon. Friend can announce vast sums for the electrification of St. Pancras at the drop of a hat. I would suggest that somewhere in his Department there is a good assessment with regard to how public moneys should be used for London railways. I asked his earlier predecessor, the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton), Questions relating to the Great Northern electrification but I did not receive satisfactory answers.
  My constituency has waited for an interchange station at West Ham. That would cost perhaps £10,000. The official estimate was one of £250,000 which is ridiculous for an interchange station on existing tracks. There is no means of knowing whether by investing marginally small sums we should gain great benefits.
  Another anomaly is in respect of the North Woolwich and Stratford line—an important line for the redevelopment of Dockland—which the Barran Report said should be upgraded and for which the
  882
  GLC is paying a subsidy. But British Railways are cancelling trains because they say that they do not have the equipment. Here we are paying a rail subsidy to keep open a line which would otherwise be closed because British Rail cannot even supply the stock for that particular line.
  The NUR members who operate that line say that they are overstaffed and that they have no confidence in the local management, I cannot judge whether they are correct, because the facts are not known. But certainly their morale is low because they do not like having to tell people sitting in the diesel multiple unit train at Stratford, "Sorry, this train is wanted elsewhere. You will have to get out". That is what is happening. I suggest that perhaps the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries might have a look at this problem.
  I do not want to be entirely negative in my remarks. The massive increase in revenue support to transport in London has not been sufficiently realised. We have got to give credit to the Government for this. In 1970 there was virtually no support but from 1970 to 1975 GLC support has increased, so that now it is of the order of £106 million a year. The speed of the cycle has come very fast indeed. Because of pressures that we all understand, the Government cannot now say for how much longer they can support that amount of revenue. That has been the result of discussions which the Minister has been having with the GLC and which have been reported in the Press today.
  Whatever happens, the situation cannot be solved by reducing subsidies and increasing fares. I am not even convinced, assuming that the country had plenty of money, that the situation would be properly solved by increasing subsidies and keeping the fares as they are. I do not think that that would be using the basic London Transport network in the right way.
  The House may not realise that inside the GLC area there are 500 stations of one kind or another. The running cost of a train is about one-third of the total cost. Two-thirds of the cost of the railway network, possibly more, is in the considerable capital overheads. Those who wish to use the network at weekends and in off-peak hours are deterred from doing

  883
  so because of penal fares. Therefore, for a considerable part of the time trains run half empty. I am not talking about the commuter services. Those who travel on commuter services in full trains must remember that for each full train there is an empty train going in the opposite direction, so that commuter trains are used only to 50 per cent, capacity in the rush hours.
  My right hon. Friend and the transport intellectuals of the country should be considering means of funding public transport other than by season tickets and journey fares proportional to the distance. That system suppresses traffic and in the long run we cannot sustain the system by it. My right hon. Friend should investigate some of the commercial and financial mechanisms which can stem the vicious circle and, if not convert it into a benign circle, hold the position steady.
  There are various ways by which that could be done, certainly locally. It could be done, for instance, between North Woolwich and Stratford, between Harrow and Wembley or between other places which are a short distance apart where there is a shopping movement, particularly urban centres. Urban centres can live only if they are given proper public transport. A ticket could be issued either for off-peak periods or for all time for. say, a month, which could be used for un limited travel. That is the origin of "commute". A single fare is commuted by a lump sum.
  If that were to be done, the people would know that every additional journey they took would, in effect, be free. No one—except for some public transport authorities elsewhere in the country—has considered that method. Three or four years ago I asked London Transport to consider using it in the outer areas, but no action was taken. It is a sensible proposal which might increase revenue without increasing expenditure.
  The second proposal, which I know will please the hon. Member for Faver sham (Mr. Moate), is that those who al. ready contribute considerable sums by way of season tickets should, for an additional lump sum—perhaps on a sliding scale related to what they are already paying—get an additional ticket which would allow them free additional travel over the whole network.
  884
  A season ticket only entitles a person to travel between two points. That is fair enough for peak-hour travel. But by this method during weekends and off-peak periods a person would be able to travel over a defined network for as many journeys as he liked at no extra cost.
  A relatively small proportion of the London public sustain railways in London. They are already paying considerable sums to help to keep the basic services going. Why not, on the payment of a relatively small additional amount, allow them to travel widely at no increased cost to the railways, because the trains are running anyway? There is the additional possibility of Sunday travel by this means to enable families with a relatively low income to see relatives. It is very expensive for people without cars to travel about London to visit their relatives or even to visit hospitals, even if a journey of only two or three miles is involved.
  I do not put forward my final suggestion in a definitive sense, but we may have to adopt it in time if not now. The car is a convenient form of transport. A driver who bought a gallon of petrol might get a token of lop which could be exchanged anywhere for the equivalent fare on public transport. I do not say that that suggestion would work, but it would bring into balance the financial difference between private and public transport. It has not engaged the attention of transport economists. The idea is not to prevent people travelling by car but to put into their pocket a token representing part of the money they pay for their petrol which they can exchange for public transport.
  I do not say that there would be no snags, but I think that the suggestion should be investigated. In that way the amount of revenue accruing to public transport would increase and people could hardly complain that the motorist was being robbed, because the tokens would be encashable—they would almost become a coinage—and would add to public transport income.
  I hope that the media in mentioning this debate will not say that that is a firm suggestion, but unless something of that nature is brought into the economic working of public transport I see no end to the dilemmas that will arise in terms of revenue support or increasing fares.

  885
  The chances are that we shall intensify the present unsatisfactory position by massive inputs of Government support. I pay tribute to the Government for giving a massive subsidy of £100 million a year to London Transport. But we have high fares as well, so we get the worst of both worlds.
  The consultative document does not go far enough into the fundamental problems of maintaining coherent centres of business and industry, which can only live, thrive and develop if they have a public transport system alongside and in competition with a private transport system which does not undermine the economics of public transport and the coherence of the society on which it depends in the older urban centres.
  2.58 p.m.
  Mr. Roger Moate: There Is a political version of Parkinson's law that speeches extend to fill the time available for their completion. It is clearly true of Adjournment debates on some occasions. The House will be relieved to know that I do not intend to follow that doctrine. I shall be brief.
  We should be grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for providing this opportunity for us to discuss the plight of commuters in the greater London area, and we are grateful to circumstance that several hon. Members have been able to contribute to the debate. That is particularly so because the transport debates which would have allowed us to make these comments have been postponed—not cancelled, I hope. I hope that their postponement or deferment does not mean that the Government are not giving the question of transport the attention that it deserves.
  There is a crisis of public transport. When my hon. Friend referred to the plight of commuters, he used the right word. It is a sad and sorry plight. Many of the commuters living in my area face the future with grim foreboding, not only because of the announced increase in rail fares but because of the increases which they foresee being made thereafter. The situation is gloomy. I emphasise to the Minister how bad it is for many of the thousands of people who travel fairly considerable distances to London each day. They have no choice but to do so.
  886
  Many of them are captive commuters. They live too far away to travel by car or bus and there is no local employment for them, so they have to come to London.
  Many people moved out to the areas in which they live because they saw the prospect of cheaper housing. They were encouraged to do so by advertisements and so on. They are suffering most in the present economic circumstances. They work in town for large employers. They have no opportunity to earn overtime. They are very much subject to the Pay Code. They see nearly all of an extra £4 a week, less tax, being swallowed by higher rail fares. They are paying higher mortgage interest rates and local government rates. They are faced with increased electricity and gas bills. Therefore, when British Railways announced that there would be a 16 per cent. increase in fares in January, their hearts sank, because they do not know where the money will come from.
  For commuters from Faversham, that 16 per cent. increase means that a monthly season ticket will cost more than £45. For those coming from Sitting-bourne, the cost will be about £43. That represents about a 100 per cent. increase in two and a half years. It is an enormous increase, far greater than increases made in incomes in that period and far greater even than the increase in the Retail Price Index. Is it any wonder that they say "What is all this business about a social contract and a Price Code? It does not seem to apply to any of the things which most affect our standard of living."
  In many cases the £45 season ticket will apply to young married couples buying homes for the first time. I calculate that such couples must earn about £1,700 a year extra in gross income to have sufficient net income to pay their joint rail fares. Therefore, with a forthcoming increase of 16 per cent. one can well understand their dismay about what is happening. They are further angered—I emphasise this point to the Minister—by the feeling that they are being discriminated against when fares on other lines—for example, Inter-city lines—are increased by only 10 per cent. They have long felt that they have been selected against to pay higher increases than other

  887
  rail travellers. They could never prove it but they felt it.
  I ask the House to understand the feelings of those people when the late Chairman—I should say former Chairman—of British Railways, Sir Richard Marsh. makes statements as soon as he has ceased to be chairman which confirm everything they have always believed. Only then does he say that commuters are travelling in cattle truck conditions. I have not his precise words, but I do not think I have misquoted them. He went on to say that, as an act of policy, commuters were being squeezed to the utmost because they were captive and could pay the most. Disregarding the question of profit and loss, they were being selected against. British Railways hotly deny what the former chairman has said, but as soon as he leaves office he confirms people's suspicions.
  Mr. Dykes: I imagine that my hon Friend will agree that it is not so much the chairman who is late as most of the trains. My hon. Friend has said that for a young married couple an increase of £1,700 in domestic earnings is necessary to pay for the increased cost of a season ticket. Does he agree that it would be tremendously welcome and helpful if those people were able to claim tax relief on a substantial proportion of the cost, as happens with mortgage interest?
  Mr. Moate: Obviously it would be a welcome relief to those individuals, but I have never been totally convinced of the case for tax relief. There is a strong argument against it on national grounds. We cannot give tax relief to commuters, no matter how hard-pressed they are, without doing the same for others. We might just as well reduce the rate of income tax, which would apply to almost everyone.
  I hope that the Minister will look favourably on the suggestion that employers should provide travel vouchers. We should never try to disguise the fact that the ultimate cost of travelling within London has to be borne by employers, whether by way of higher wages or in another form, such as travel vouchers. In any capital city the income levels have to be that much higher to compensate for the extra cost of travelling to and from work. I hope that the Secretary of State will
  888
  look at that suggestion and encourage the Chancellor of the Exchequer to look favourably on it. That would be a proper way of ensuring that travel costs are reflected in earnings and not necessarily regarded as a fully taxable benefit in kind. Any suggestion like this should be considered, because something must be done to relieve the financial burden and the worry of hundreds of thousands of families who are subject to the wretched £4 a week pay limit. They have no way of financing massive rail fares.
  The Secretary of State comes to office with a high reputation, and I hope that he will leave it with an equally high one. He has something of a bed of nails to to lie on. His first Question Time demonstrated the understanding for which he is renowned. He answered Questions with great understanding, sympathy and awareness of the problems. I asked him about public inquiries. I pointed out that if an increase in bus fares was proposed there had to be something akin to a public inquiry before traffic commissioners. The bus company has to prove its case. When there are rail increases, British Rail does not have to prove the case publicly. It may have to do so to the Secretary of State, but that is not satisfactory to the commuter who feels—and he has had his worst suspicions confimed—that he is being discriminated against.
  There is no statutory obligation to have a public inquiry when there are rail increases. The Secretary of State would win acclaim throughout the country if he were to tell British Rail that it must not introduce the proposed fare increases in January but must instead defer them until such time as a public inquiry is mounted. This would give an opportunity to commuter associations and others to cross-examine British Rail about the rail increases, to find out which lines were making a loss and which were making a profit and how overheads were apportioned and to question levels of productivity and efficiency. British Rail may feel that such a suggestion is hostile, but the more that British Rail demonstrates to the public the nature of its problems the greater is the likelihood of the public accepting inevitable increases—if they are inevitable. There would be a greater opportunity for people to make suggestions to British Rail about how it could improve efficiency.

  889
  I ask the Secretary of State to consider introducing a system of public inquiries. That would generate good will towards British Rail and would persuade commuters more readily to accept inevitable rail increases.
  At present, I do not believe that we are getting fair treatment on our railways. There is discrimination. We ought to know the facts and figures so that we can decide whether the charges are right and proper. Certain lines are subsidising other lines, which is not as the situation should be.
  Those are the main points I wish to make, and I hope that the Minister will fulfil the high expectations we have of him. I was hoping he would say that the fare increases will be deferred until he has had a better chance to get to grips with the transport system. He has not done so but perhaps that was asking too much.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has not yet given the Minister a chance to reply. In those circumstances, how does he expect that he can make that kind of statement?
  Mr. Moate: Hope springs eternal in the human breast. If the Minister were to anounce that fare increases were to be deferred, I would rejoice, as would everybody else. However, I bow to your judgment, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I live in hope that the Minister will please us all.
  3.12 p.m.
  Mr. Norman Fowler (Sutton Cold-field): I wish to intervene briefly and, at the outset, I wish to congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) on raising this important subject. This is clearly a matter which we shall seek to raise in a debate on general transport policy, but certainly the situation of commuters merits a separate debate. The last occasion when this matter was raised in the House was in March this year when half of a Supply Day was devoted to discussing the subject.
  Let me make clear that there is no doubt that commuters, particularly those in London and the South-East, have been cruelly affected by the worst series of fare rises we have ever seen. This is particularly true in the London area, where in the past two years fares have doubled.
  890
  British Rail fares in two years have risen by 88 per cent., with more to come in January next year. London Underground fares have risen in the last two years by 114 per cent., and London bus fares have increased by a total of 94 per cent. These are vast increases and we should be in no doubt about the catastrophic effect of such increases on family budgets.
  The major reason behind these increases is the inflation which affected us with particular force in the past two years. This has hit the labour-intensive industries such as transport, in which 73 per cent. of costs are represented by labour. Anybody who needs proof of this situation needs only to look at how the working expenses of organisations such as London Transport have increased in this period. Clearly, the Government must take the responsibility for failing to tackle inflation early enough.
  I do not pretend that there are easy answers to these problems, and the Minister will not find me seeking to say that the solutions are easy. Clearly, the first priority of policy of any Government must be to tackle inflation. That is crucial in seeking to contain fare increases.
  I wish first to refer to the situation on British Rail. Although fares have increased on British Rail, there is a serious shortage of financial information setting out on what criteria fares are based. My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) mentioned the situation of commuters, and what he said was substantially correct. The new fare increases average out at 12 per cent. Those using commuter services in London and the South-East will pay appreciably more than will Inter-city services. This is somewhat curious because hitherto British Rail has maintained that it does not apportion the costs of services. A few years ago it was its practice to do so. The 1973 annual report showed the costs apportioned for all the various services but today those costs are not published.
  This leads to two possible interpretations. The first is that apportionment does take place but the results are not published, and the second is that apportionment does not take place, in which case the question arises as to what basis the fare increases are made upon. The

  891
  point was made by a commuter in a letter to The Times a week or two ago. He said that he paid one-twelfth of his take-home pay on fares to go to and from work and that at the very least he had the right to know where that money went. I agree with him. It is the public's right to know.
  But the matter goes further than that. Unless we have a reliable system of apportionment of costs, it is also difficult to see how the managers within British Rail can judge the effectiveness of their policy—what services and what initiatives are making profits and what are making losses. Productivity within the transport organisations must be a crucial question. In an industry where over two-thirds of the costs are labour costs, it needs no emphasis that productivity is vital.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East talked of improvements in the administrative staff employed by London Transport, and I am sure that that is true. It is equally true within British Rail. But, as we have said for some time, improvements in productivity within British Rail are possible and necessary.
  Such statements have hitherto been scoffed at and rejected by the Government but are confirmed now in the Board's response to the Government's transport consultation document. The Board says that it is possible to have improvements in productivity, and that it is possible to think of reductions in staff by about 40,000 by 1981. That will be achieved not by massive sackings but by wastage and control of recruitment.
  I pay tribute to the improvements in productivity which have taken place during the last 15 to 20 years within British Rail. Staff has been reduced very substantially over that period, and it is right to recognise the fact and pay tribute to it. Nevertheless, it is clear that further improvements are not only possible but necessary, and we expect the opportunity to be taken.
  The Secretary of State, in talking about the fare increases which will come into operation in January, has said that basically he has a choice—fares can go up or public expenditure will have to be increased. That is substantially true, and I do not challenge it. But the element
  892
  he missed out was that productivity improvements in British Rail are also possible, and I hope that he will confirm that that is his understanding of the position and his aim of policy.
  Clearly, we accept—the Conservative Party above all—the limitations upon public expenditure. I must emphasise that point. But the situation has one clear implication—we must see where we are using our money at present. The position at the moment is that subsidy is going not only to passenger services but to freight services.
  A subsidy of £66 million a year is going to British rail freight operations. A subsidy of £31 million a year is going to the National Freight Corporation, although I understand that there is a prospect that that figure may reduce in the current financial year. Nevertheless, it is a formidable sum for subsidising the carriage of freight from one part of the country to another.
  Mr. Spearing: Will not the hon. Gentleman agree that it is extremely difficult to put an accurate figure to the apparent cross-subsidy between passenger and freight services? Is he not aware that under the accounting procedures imposed on this country by the EEC in respect of transport, the amount of money attributable to freight is very often an arbitrary figure and therefore not a true reflection of the actual ascertainable costs?
  Mr. Fowler: It is an interesting point. It does not happen to be a relevant point to make about the figures I am using. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go into the question of apportioning of costs, I suggest that he reads his own Govern ment's consultation document. In his consultation document his right hon. Friend the former Secretary of State for the Environment, now Foreign Secretary—not my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham or my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East or myself, but his own right hon. Friend—said quite clearly that the apportionment of costs used in British Rail freight operations was not unfair to British Rail freight operations but was favourable to them. That is the point. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to go further down that road he will only be emphasising the point that I am making.

  893
  My substantial point here is not one of detail but one of principle. It is whether there is any social, environmental or public need to subsidise freight operations. In my view there is not, and I hope that the Secretary of State will confirm that it is now the intention and aim of the Government to eliminate the freight subsidy in this country.
  Lastly, let me add this to what my hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, East and my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham both said so eloquently on the problems involved. There are very important and serious human problems involved in this question, and I do not think that anyone should seek to under estimate its importance.
  Commuters resent being regarded as a captive affluent middle-class travelling group. Many commuters moved out of the centre of London for one reason and one reason alone—so that they could buy a house or home which they could afford to buy and in which they could afford to live. That is the problem we have to face. It is a real problem and we must pay serious attention to it and give proper priority to it.
  3.23 p.m.
  The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): The debate has been a great deal longer than any of us anticipated, but I think it has been worth while. I ask hon. Gentlemen on both sides—and particularly the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler)—not to expect me to follow them in all the important matters raised.
  This is not to diminish their importance in any way or to suggest that they are irrelevant to our main transport problems. But, although there is still time available to me to make a long speech this afternoon, I am not sure that that would entirely accord with the wishes of those Members present. I have made already my views on freight clear, and I shall no doubt find an opportunity to do so again.
  As for passenger subsidy questions, I have expressed the view on a number of occasions that we should as far as possible seek to identify needs and then to meet them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said in his intervention, this is not as easy as it sounds. But certainly as long as there is a very substantial Exchequer sub
  894
  sidy to public transport, we should do out best to make sure that the public get value for money—in other words, that those most in need are getting their proper share of the resources which are made available.
  I am glad that we are having this debate this afternoon. I have lived in London for 25 years and for some months I travelled on the then notorious Dartford loop line. It was then served by the most extraordinary double decker train which could barely get under the bridges on its way to Waterloo and Charing Cross. Whether we were packed in like cattle, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) suggested, or like sardines, it was a pretty uncomfortable journey. I grumbled about it then, as I expect many commuters do today. I still live in London and I have a family who travel into town, so I am aware of the problems of commuters.
  It is a good thing that the Secretary of State should be always aware of the purposes of the system for which he is responsible. However, there have been times when it has been suggested that I am personally responsible for every train that is late, every bus that breaks down, and every guard who does not turn up. But the fact is that I do not have managerial responsibility for the day-to-day working of our transport system.
  It would be improper for any Minister from this Dispatch Box or from an office in Marsham Street to try to run the railways or the bus system. What I must do is try to lay down the framework within which others can make the proper managerial decisions. This fact was recognised by my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South. If my responsibilities are to be a bed of nails, which is how the hon. Member for Faversham described them, the bed should be reasonably limited in size, and I should not be held guilty for crimes which it is not within my capacity to commit.
  I am grateful to the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. Dykes) for raising this question. I am aware of the anxieties of many commuters. They have a very strong sense of resentment. especially when faced by rising fares and deteriorating services. However, I think that we have a great deal to be proud of.
  As Londoners keep telling us, London is unique in the world, and therefore its problems are unique as well. Despite

  895
  the present sense of grievance and the difficult travelling conditions, there is a great deal in London in which we can take pride. Let us not diminish the successes which have been achieved or the problems which have been handled. Let us give credit where this is due.
  Traditionally, the role of the House of Commons is to redress grievances. I do not cast doubt upon the campaign which is being conducted outside this House by saying that it is, nevertheless, what we decide here, by proper discussion, which determines the future shape of transport policy, and which solves the problems of commuters.
  We had hoped to have a wider debate on transport policy on the basis of the consultation document, but the Opposition were playing games, and as a result we lost the time available. I hope that time will be found for that debate which will be an occasion to pursue the matters which lie behind the speech today of the hon. Member for Harrow, East.
  Mr. Norman Fowler: We cannot allow the right hon. Gentleman to get away with that. The games that were being played were played by his own side who shipped half their Members to the two by-elections, and we on this side regard that as a substantial contribution to the famous victories that we won.
  Mr. Rodgers: All I remember is that a full day was allocated for a debate and that, on the initiative of an Opposition Member, a substantial part of that time was pre-empted and circumstances created in which it was not practical to go ahead with the discussion as planned. I do not want to argue the toss on this. I hope that I may be permitted an occasional divisive remark, since the hon. Member allowed himself to make one such remark.
  Mr. Moate: It was rumoured that there might have been a full day for such a debate next Tuesday, but the Government showed a preference for authors over commuters by giving the time to the miserable Public Lending Right Bill.
  Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman's ear must be closer to the usual channels than mine is. I had not been alerted to that possibility. I
  896
  think we have it in common on both sides of the House this afternoon that we should have a wider discussion of some of these problems as soon as time can be found.
  Perhaps I may say something which is not seriously in dispute, although a gloss may be put on it on both sides of the House. It has to be accepted that there is an inescapable equation. In any business revenue must cover costs, or other resources must be available to make up the difference. In the case of railways or public transport generally, and particularly the commuter services, if revenue from fares does not meet the costs of operation, there must be a subsidy. This must fall on taxes or rates or on both. There is no other way.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South made a number of interesting suggestions upon which I shall be reflecting. He suggested that there are other ways of funding based upon an imaginative commercial approach to the problem of fares. However, either the money comes in in fares or it comes from rates and taxes. If it comes from rates and taxes, it is a charge on public expenditure, with the full implication that that carries.
  Of course there is room for increased efficiency in the provision of public transport. I would not argue in any other way for London, but that is true of every business. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield referred to productivity, and I am sure that there is room for improvement there.
  But let us assume that any present impediments to efficiency were removed. It would mean that costs, especially at a time of inflation, would have to be met by increased fares or increased subsidy. I put it therefore to the London commuter, because he is capable of facing this problem, that the choice can be his. If he does not want increased fares, is he prepared to pay more in rates and taxes to meet the deficit?
  In an aside my hon. Friend used the phrase "assuming that the country had plenty of money". But I am sure that he used that phrase guardedly, because, like the rest of us, he is aware of the level of public expenditure and that the prospect is bleak. The question of priorities means that there must at any one

  897
  time be limited resources for public transport, and within those resources hard decisions must be made.
  Certainly I would not lead the House to believe that more funds were likely to become available for public transport, particularly when we are preoccupied with the complicated question of the public sector borrowing requirement. My question therefore is totally fair. How does the commuter prefer to meet costs incurred in providing the services he uses? Should it be by fares or by rates and taxes? Should those who travel pay the true cost, or should the cost be met at least in part by those who do not use the service from which commuters benefit? When, if at all, is subsidy justified and to what extent? We may all answer these questions in different ways, but there is no means of escaping their reality.
  Mr. Spearing: Does not my right hon. Friend agree that his carefully worded questions are too narrow? In urban areas many of those who do not use commuter services depend upon them to keep the urban social fabric alive. This was the major omission of his predecessor's consultative document which approached the matter from a financial motivation rather than a functional one—which would be there even if the country had plenty of money.
  Mr. Rodgers: I accept that we could add another question in relation to those who do not use the services and whether they would be willing to pay rates and taxes because of the benefits the services bring to them. The point I am making is that we cannot have it both ways. We must make a choice about how resources are to be found.
  We hear from time to time the argument that raising fares loses passengers and is destructive to London Transport. In logic it follows that if fares are reduced it might be possible to transform the position, bring back passengers and increase revenue. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South made some interesting suggestions about revenue-raising devices.
  This is an important issue and I should like my position to be clear. I have my responsibilities and the Chairman of British Rail has his. We have a mutual
  898
  understanding of this and it would be wrong for me to give him instructions on managerial matters. In so far as he believes that a reduction in fares might at any time increase revenue in relation to costs, I should greatly welcome such a reduction.
  The chairman has said before that experiments with fares are commonplace within the British Rail network as a whole. Indeed, some would argue that they produce curious anomalies and additional difficulties, but British Rail may wish to go further still—and risk taking is a function of any business, though in this case it would be within the ceiling of Government support set out in the White Paper.
  If the Board, after discussion with trade unions, decides to proceed with such an experiment, there would be no impediment on my part. But it is for the Board to decide within available resources what it can do best. I should welcome experiments in reducing fares to enable wider decisions to be made in the light of the evidence produced by such an experiment.
  British Rail has a great deal of expertise in the relationships between fares and traffic and revenue and costs. I am sure that the House will recognise that the Board is as concerned as any of us to provide the best possible service for the greatest number of passengers. It is for the Board to exercise its judgment and decide on this matter. It has my blessing if it feels able to proceed with an experiment.
  The hon. Member for Harrow, East referred to the transport supplementary grant and I have here a copy of today's Evening News with the headlines:
  "First victory for the commuter"
  and:
  "Minister climbs down over cuts in services".
  I wish to make clear that I have not climbed down over anything, nor, by implication, have I ever required any cuts in services in London or anywhere else. I have been concerned in my statutory capacity with the allocation of the transport supplementary grant. The position which adopted some weeks ago is the position which I have maintained and will continue to maintain.

  899
  During that time, I have been seeking to persuade the GLC and the metropolitan counties of the need, in the national interest, to reduce the expenditure programmes which they had put forward. All had planned to spend more on transport in 1977–78 than was consistent with their share of available resources. I am glad to be able to say that six out of the seven authorities, including the GLC, have now said that they will do what I have asked.
  These decisions have, I know, involved painful choices over priorities, but the authorities understand that, if we are to achieve the Government's strategy for the economy as a whole, they must keep within the severe constraints affecting all sectors of public expenditure which were set out in the public expenditure White Paper, Cmnd. 6393, revised by the Chancellor's statement in July.
  I welcome the help which I have received from the authorities. As a result, I am reasonably confident that the limits on transport expenditure will be held to. This is good news. I recognise the difficulties which the authorities have faced and their commitments to providing adequate public transport systems and dealing with other problems.
  London's problems are immense. I pay tribute to the professions and all those involved in the politics of London who have played their part in past years in seeking to solve these problems. I am very pleased that, as seems to be the case, they are now able to go ahead with their task within the public expenditure limits which I am obliged to impose—though with no difficulty on my part, because I think that they are necessary in the national interest—to govern the total of the transport supplementary grant in the coming year.
  I shall not seek to cover all the points which have been made today. I am sorry that the establishment of the new London Rail Advisory Committee took Whitehall two years. It took me less than two months. To be absolutely fair, I must tell my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South that when this proposal arrived on my desk I said "What? Another advisory body?" Therefore, while I am grateful for his applause for making my decision within two months, I think that it could have been one month earlier, had I not thought it right to satisfy
  900
  myself that such a new body was justified. I satisfied myself and I am glad that Mr. Cyril Herring has taken on these responsibilities. I believe that the first meeting of the London Rail Advisory Committee was held on Wednesday. I am sure that it will play a part in trying to solve these problems.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield fairly said that there were no easy answers to the problems and plight of the London commuter any more than of our public transport system as a whole. The hon. Gentleman said that it was crucial at this time and a first priority to curtail and to control inflation.
  I though that the hon. Member for Harrow, East had his tongue in his cheek when talking of tax relief and travel vouchers. I say that because I think that he has been honest in recognising that we cannot, on the one hand, seek to curtail public expenditure and, on the other hand, seek to find ways, in effect, of raising it.
  The hon. Gentleman said that the easiest answer would be for me to say that this was a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I do not believe that in Britain's present financial circumstances it would be right to give tax relief or, for that matter, to allow travel vouchers against tax, because that would be contrary to the Government's policies, for which I think there is widespread support, for dealing with inflation.
  These are matters to be reflected upon and to be discussed in this House and elsewhere. I promise no joy today or tomorrow. I ask all those who might seek to endorse these suggestions, with less hesitation than the hon. Member for Harrow East has done, to reflect on the consequences.
  I ask for responsible public debate in London and elsewhere, not in terms of headlines, not in terms of battles won or lost, and not in terms of anger with no acceptance of the problems as a whole. We are in this together, and we shall find solutions together by facing realities and recognising in full the part that we have to play.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at fifteen minutes to Four o'clock.

  LEGAL AID
  LEGAL AID
  EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES
  EXECUTORS AND TRUSTEES
DEFENCE
  Joint Warfare Establishment
  Joint Warfare Establishment
  Nancekuke
  Nancekuke
  Destroyers
  Destroyers
  HMS "Hermes"
  HMS "Hermes"
  TAVR
  TAVR
  Parachute Regiment
  Parachute Regiment
  Northern Ireland
  Northern Ireland
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  Victoria and Albert Museum
  British Students' Association
  British Students' Association
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Maghreb Countries
  Maghreb Countries
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cablegrams to United States of America
  Cablegrams to United States of America
  Anglo-Maldivian Agreement 1965
  Anglo-Maldivian Agreement 1965
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Law Enforcement
  Law Enforcement
  George Henry Ince
  George Henry Ince
  Departmental Correspondence
  Departmental Correspondence
  Firearm Certificates
  Firearm Certificates
  Rhodesians (United Kingdom Visas)
  Rhodesians (United Kingdom Visas)
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Refreshment Department (Bars)
  Refreshment Department (Bars)
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Bomb Explosion (Ballymena)
  Bomb Explosion (Ballymena)
  Rating (Recreational and Community Centres)
  Rating (Recreational and Community Centres)
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Taxation
  Taxation
  Coinage
  Coinage
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
  European Investment Bank Loans
  European Investment Bank Loans
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefits
  Unemployment and Sickness Benefits
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Tax Exemption Certificates
  Tax Exemption Certificates
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Self-employed Persons
  Self-employed Persons
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Capital Transfer Tax
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Minimum Lending Rate
  Beneficial Loans (Interest Rate)
  Beneficial Loans (Interest Rate)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Farms (Costs and Incomes)
  Farms (Costs and Incomes)
  Slaughterhouses (Employment)
  Slaughterhouses (Employment)
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  International Development Association
  International Development Association
CIVIL SERVICE
  Government Advertising
  Government Advertising
  Ministry of Defence (Wales)
  Ministry of Defence (Wales)
  Engineers and Scientists
  Engineers and Scientists
ENERGY
  Research
  Research
  Oil Production Rigs (Employment)
  Oil Production Rigs (Employment)
  Oil and Gas Market
  Oil and Gas Market
  Power Stations (Waste Heat)
  Power Stations (Waste Heat)
  Coal, Gas and Electricity (Supervisory Boards)
  Coal, Gas and Electricity (Supervisory Boards)
  Coal Stocks
  Coal Stocks
  Electricity and Gas (Consumers' Deposits)
  Electricity and Gas (Consumers' Deposits)
  Clorius Meter System
  Clorius Meter System
ENVIRONMENT
  Direct Labour
  Direct Labour
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Rent and Rate Rebates
  Departmental Property
  Departmental Property
  Water Authorities
  Water Authorities
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Fraudulent Claims
  Fraudulent Claims
  Cerebral Palsy
  Cerebral Palsy
  Payment of Benefits
  Payment of Benefits
  Neurologists
  Neurologists
  Neurosurgical Beds
  Neurosurgical Beds
  Leaflet "You and Your Pet"
  Leaflet "You and Your Pet"
  Free Milk and Vitamins
  Free Milk and Vitamins
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Industrial Injury Benefit
  Community Health Councils
  Community Health Councils
  Unemployment Benefit
  Unemployment Benefit
  Lower Income Groups
  Lower Income Groups
TRANSPORT
  Drivers' Certificates of Entitlement
  Drivers' Certificates of Entitlement
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Mole Tunnelling Machine
  Mole Tunnelling Machine
  Motoring Offences
  Motoring Offences
  Road Fatalities
  Road Fatalities
  A11 and A47
  A11 and A47
  Vehicle Registration Marks
  Vehicle Registration Marks
INDUSTRY
  Postal Service (Statutory Usage)
  Postal Service (Statutory Usage)
  Government Chemist (Cumbria Laboratory)
  Government Chemist (Cumbria Laboratory)
  Christmas Mail
  Christmas Mail
  National Enterprise Board
  National Enterprise Board
  Post Office Act 1953
  Post Office Act 1953
  Aircraft Industry
  Aircraft Industry
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Travel Contracts (Surcharges)
  Travel Contracts (Surcharges)

Preamble
The House met at eleven of the clock:
The LORD CHANCELLOR OH the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Ely.

OBSCENE LITERATURE PROSECUTIONS
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether in view of the recent conviction of a newsagent and bookseller for selling obscene literature forced on them by the publisher as part of their agency agreement the Government will consider amendment of the law so that publishers and not booksellers are responsible for the sale of such literature.
The MINISTER of STATE, HOME OFFICE (Lord Harris of Greenwich): My Lords, I am not aware of a case in which a conviction has followed in the circumstances described. The Government are prepared to look at any points of difficulty, but there are no present plans for legislation which would exempt retailers from liability under the law.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord to be kind enough to reconsider this matter? Recently a bookseller and a newsagent were fined over £ 700 each, and one of them had a suspended prison sentence. It is very difficult because different Benches take different ideas about these publications. Surely, as in Italy, it would be very much better if the law were changed so that the responsibility was on the publishers and not the sellers of the literature.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, although we are perfectly prepared to consider any particular cases, in the instance which the noble Baroness has cited the authorities responsible for the prosecution would not accept the description which the noble Baroness has
862
applied to the circumstances of these cases. I am aware of the point about the law in Italy, and I repeat that we will look at the matter if we receive any approach from the trade. As I am at the moment advised, we do not believe that movement in this direction is desirable.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, if I send the noble Lord information from the trade will he deal with this and give me a reply?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Yes, certainly, my Lords. We will look at everything the trade would like to put before us.

M.64: PROPOSED MOTORWAY CONSTRUCTION
11.8 a.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: 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 when work on the inter-urban motorway, the M.64 from Stoke-on-Trent to Derby, is to be continued and when it is likely to be completed.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, decisions have not yet been taken on the appropriate method of improving road communications between Stoke and Derby. A public consultation exercise is currently in progress. It is unlikely that construction on this route will commence before the mid-1980s.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that Answer. I regret the latter part of it; that is, that nothing can be expected before the 1980s. Am I not correct in assuming that in the case of difficulties with the Stock-on-Trent end of it, a part could already be constructed? May I ask my noble friend whether she is aware that I wish to congratulate the Department of Transport on the excellent brochure which they have produced for the public discussions now going on. Is my noble friend aware that Members of Parliament from all political Parties have during, the

863
past 30 years, pressed for the extension near the Stoke-on-Trent area in the Tean, Longton and Blythe Bridge areas, which may be strange to my noble friend but which are of vital importance to the local people.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, road schemes take about 10 years from inception to the start of construction to go through all their stages of route selection, design and all the statutory processes. Therefore, when a major scheme of this kind is first thought about it is obviously some years before it actually comes into being. So far as the by-passes of some of the villages arc concerned, we know that there are problems in the villages at the Stoke end. The Government will endeavour to find the best means of dealing with the whole problem. Major improvements of any kind on the route cannot be undertaken quickly. May I thank my noble friend—it is not often that we receive bouquets from the BackBenches—for his congratulations on what my Department have done? May I also ask whether he has filled in and returned the questionnaire which went with the brochure so that we can have his views on record as well?
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether or not she was responsible for the questionnaire coming into my hands? I have the questionnaire and I should like to ask my noble friend whether or not she has read the sections from (a) to (f)? There are references to noise, the effect on agriculture, the attractive countryside and recreational areas, the demolition of dwellings and the visual effect on property of the building of a good road. These are of vital importance. At the present moment, in walking through some of the villages on this route, one is in terror for life and limb. Consequently, I hope that the matter will be reconsidered when the public have been able to discuss it in order to safeguard their rights and properties.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, may I ask my noble friend whether the procedure of this House is being altered so that questions are put from the Front Bench to the Back-Bench instead of vice-versa?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, has the noble Baroness a slight twinge of conscience this Friday morning —when she has just been speaking in defence of what the Government are doing, and saying that it takes 10 years to obtain certain things—when, the other night, on an equally sensible matter regarding the Health Services Bill, she was saying that six months is ample time?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, road programmes take very much longer to devise, to get the right route and construct the road.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, could my noble friend assure us that consideration will be given to putting much of the heavy traffic on rail rather than road?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that the Minister of Transport is fully aware of the views of my noble friend, which I share.

SERVICE CHARGES IN HOTELS
11.12 a.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what action they plan to deal with the fraudulent practice which was recently revealed by the Automobile Association, whereby certain hotels and restaurants retain for their own benefit the "service charges" extracted from their customers, instead of passing on the proceeds to their employees.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, a tip is normally the property of the worker who receives it, but a service charge imposed as an addition to customers' bills is the employer's property unless a worker's contract provides otherwise. The Government are not contemplating any action at present.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply. Does he not agree that this practice defrauds both the customer, who effectively finds himself

865
paying a higher tariff than the one he had originally bargained for, albeit in disguised form, and also the staff, who are cheated of what is their due? Is he aware that there is at least one establishment in London which specifically requests its customers not to tip, on the grounds that the service charge goes to the employees, but where, in fact, the employees receive no more than a flat hourly wage, and a very modest one at that, irrespective of the number of customers?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, if an employer gives the impression that a service charge paid by the customers is going to the staff but it is not, in fact, going to the staff, that, in my view, is sharp practice.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, but is it not sharp practice anyhow, because although I have no reason to doubt the legal opinion which the Minister has given us, does not the ordinary customer believe when he pays the extra 10 per cent. that it is going to the staff? So if it is not going to the staff is it not sharp practice, unless the hotelier makes it perfectly clear that he is going to put it into his own pocket?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I wholly agree with the noble and learned Lord.

TREATY: UN VOTING
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 how the British delegation at the United Nations General Assembly acted on the resolution of 29th October 1976 proposing a treaty banning the use of force in international relations; and what was the voting on the resolution.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, the United Kingdom, in the company of all NATO countries except Greece, abstained on this resolution. The voting was 94 in favour and two against, with 35 abstentions. A further 14 States did not vote at all.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, may I ask the reason for the abstention? Is it not the case that the proposal was that there should be comments until next June, so that the matter might be considered by the next General Assembly? Was that really a reason for Her Majesty's Government to abstain on this issue, when it went much further than previous proposals by an actual treaty which was to be considered?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, we abstained because, although we are wholly committed to the principle of the non-use of force, we are not convinced that the draft treaty proposed by the Soviet Union will add anything to existing legal instruments, in particular the United Nations Charter. In fact, the treaty seems to us in its present form to be less effective and demanding than the United Nations Charter.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord agree that, though one may accept the kind of sentiments that are implied in this Question, some kind of sanctions are necessary if the treaty is to have any meaning? Can the noble Lord tell me whether those who have promoted this treaty envisage that it will he necessary to resort to force to enforce the condition against force?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, it is, in fact, a derogation of this treaty in its present form that, unlike the provisions of Article 2 of the United Nations Charter, it does not provide for enforcement, and in that sense I suggest it is less than adequate for the purpose it proposes.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord can tell us how the five nations committed to war over Rhodesia voted on that issue?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I could if I wished to detain the House unnecessarily. I would prefer to hand to the noble and learned Lord a full list of those who voted for and against, and the 51 nations which either abstained or did not trouble to vote at all.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, if an organisation is given observer status in the

867
United Nations and brings a gun into that forum and threatens that unless it complies with the demands the gun will be used—I am talking about the PLO—what can be done about that, and why cannot something be done to prevent such abuse of the Charter of the United Nations?
Lord GORON WY-ROBERTS: My Lords, there is no doubt that in supplementary questions a whole range of matters relating to the Charter can be raised. That does not mean that a mere Minister can cope with them.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, could not all these objections have been submitted by June, as was proposed? In particular, arising from the question of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, is it not the case that Article 4 of the proposed treaty made the great concession, which we have been demanding, that in disarmament there should be strict and effective international control? Is not that a great advance?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the noble Lord is dealing with disarmament and arms control. It is, of course, a major objective of this and, I imagine, every other country to have effective verification in the field of arms control and disarmament. It is a slightly different question when it comes to the non-use of force and, as we see it at the moment, to the provisions of the United Nations Charter, to which all the countries which took part, or did not take part, in this vote are signatories.

SOUTHERN RHODESIA ACT 1965 (CONTINUATION) ORDER 1976
11.19 a.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS rose to move. That the draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 14th October, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Order extends for a further 12 months Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965, which gives Her Majesty in Council power to take whatever measures are necessary to deal with the situation in Southern Rhodesia resulting from the unilateral declaration of independence in 1965. With your Lordships'
868
permission I will make a general statement of Her Majesty's Government's attitude to the developing situation in Rhodesia. I shall naturally not be able to cover the whole ground in this opening statement, but I propose to reply at the end of the debate and will hope to clarify any points that are raised.
This marks the 11th occasion on which successive Governments have asked the House to renew Section 2, but at last there is hope that the goal of a settlement may be in sight. Last year, when I introduced the same Motion, I was able to describe 1975 as an eventful year for Rhodesia, even if a disappointingly inconclusive one. This year we have seen the acknowledgement by Mr. Smith of the inevitability of an early transfer to majority rule and the consequent convening of the Conference now taking place in Geneva. This represents a development which few of us here, even in our most optimistic moments, could have imagined to be possible even three months ago, let alone at the time of this debate last year.
This House will know of the difficulties and frustrations which successive Governments have experienced in dealing with the Rhodesian authorities since 1965. On 22nd March, therefore, my right honourable friend the Prime Minister set out specific pre-conditions for a negotiated settlement and the terms on which the British Government would be prepared to take part in any further negotiations. He said:
"… there must be prior agreement by all the principal parties to a number of preconditions. These are as follows: first, acceptance of the principle of majority rule; secondly, elections for majority rule to take place in IS months to 2 years; thirdly, agreement that there will be no independence before majority rule; fourthly, the negotiations must not be long drawn out. There would also need to be assurances that the transition to majority rule and to an independent Rhodesia would not he thwarted and would be orderly."
These principles, which remain the basis of British policy on Rhodesia, were welcomed by all Parties represented in this House and in another place and also by the Presidents of Botswana, Mozambique, Tanzania and Zambia.
On 24th September, following Dr. Kissinger's valuable work during his visit to Southern Africa, Mr. Smith announced that his Government accepted that majority rule should come within

869
two years. Mr. Smith's speech met the pre-conditions laid down by the Prime Minister on 22nd March and therefore once more opened the way for a renewed effort by Her Majesty's Government to achieve a negotiated settlement.
After Mr. Smith's announcement we felt it was essential to move quickly before new rifts or obstacles could appear. Concern covet this was shared by the African Presidents most closely involved. Her Majesty's Government therefore decided to convene a Conference in Geneva under the chairmanship of Mr. Ivor Richard to discuss the formation of an interim Government in Rhodesia. The composition of the Conference is as representative as possible of the various strands of effective political power in Rhodesia. Its purpose is to secure agreement on the necessary transitional arrangements for achieving the agreed objective of independence under majority rule. We hope the Conference will lead to the establishment of an interim Government under which a permanent constitution can be worked out for an independent Rhodesia.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt, but there is one point of clarification which I should like to raise. The Prime Minister's statement in March, by which the Government are bound, indicated that there could be no independence before majority rule. Does that mean that sanctions must continue, even if the Geneva Conference is a success, until the 18-month or two-year procedures have been gone through, or that if the Conference reaches agreement sanctions can be lifted?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, I will deal with the position of sanctions in relation to the success or otherwise of the Conference in a later part of my speech.
The Conference was formally opened on 28th October and is now veil under way. Some very useful groundwork has been done, and while the positions of the parties remain far apart, there is a genuine anxiety on all sides to make the Conference a success. Reconciling the widely differing approaches of the two sides must inevitably be a slow business. Mutual suspicions and basic mistrust are
870
not easily overcome. However, the mere fact that the Conference is taking place at all is symptomatic of the extent to which things have changed. Mr. Richard summed it up well in his opening address to the Conference on 28th October when he said, and I quote:
"Mr. Smith's acceptance of majority rule, and the response of the other delegations has meant that the impossible is now a matter for negotiation, and the unattainable is a matter for immediate discussion. We are not now concerned about whether there will be majority rule in Rhodesia; we arc concerned with when and how. We are not now discussing whether power will be transferred to the majority; we arc deciding the modalities of that transfer."
We are trying to promote an agreed solution: it could not be otherwise. The House will know that the only alternative to this is an intensification of the fighting in Southern Africa, something which all of us deeply wish to avoid. Now I do urge that we should not this afternoon do the work of the Conference: I know that many noble Lords will have ideas on the points upon which the Conference should agree. But we must leave this to the Conference to work out. I am not saying that noble Lords should be inhibited from talking about it: but I know that they will understand if I, as a Government Minister, do not endorse this or that suggestion this afternoon. I have no doubt that those involved in the Conference, from all delegations, will take note of what is said in this debate.
Her Majesty's Government will, of course, continue to play a fundamental role in this Conference, and if, as we hope, the Conference succeeds in agreeing the form of an interim Government then in due course Parliament will have the responsibility to pass the necessary legislation to put our relations with Rhodesia back on a normal footing. We shall not and could not abdicate our responsibility towards Rhodesia: nor do we rule out the possibility of helping in other ways, but we must not anticipate what our role should be in the interim period. It is essential to see how the Conference goes first.
There are two aspects of any settlement which I know will particularly concern many Members of this House. The first concerns the position of the White minority—the white Africans—once majority rule is achieved. We, and it seems clear the nationalists, too, believe that it would not be in the interest of

871
Rhodesia that there should be a wholesale exodus of the White population. We hope that a large number of the Europeans in Rhodesia will be prepared to help build a strong and independent country and that the future Government of the country will encourage them to do so.
Secondly, there is the guerrilla war. I know that many noble Lords feel strongly, as I do, about this. I must say frankly that 1 think the continuation of guerrilla fighting after the opening of this Conference is a tragedy. If it could be stopped it would certainly immensely help progress in Geneva, just as I am bound to say, on the other side, that an end to political detention in Rhodesia would also help. But the best prospect for a cessation of the violence is a successful outcome to the Conference. The principle of early majority rule has now been conceded; once it is clear that majority rule can and will be achieved by peaceful means, it would make no sense whatever to continue the fighting. If the Conference succeeds and an interim Government is set up, there could be no justification for the war to continue and we would expect to see a cessation of guerrilla activity.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, when might we expect to see a cessation of sanctions?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I have said that I am coming on to the question of sanctions later in my speech, and I would hope that my noble friend, like my other noble friend, would bear with me for a few minutes. We should have liked to see that already, but we can be more certain that it will in fact be achieved when the interim Government is established. Our views on this are well known to the African Presidents and to the nationalist leaders. If, as we hope, a successful outcome to the Conference is achieved, related questions of assistance towards the development of an independent Rhodesia will be important and, as the House knows, Tier Majesty's Government are studying these questions.
I now come to the Motion formally before this House: the renewal of Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. There are two compelling reasons why, this year above all years, we ask the House to approve this Motion. The first is that the continued validity of the
872
Act may be of vital importance to the arrangements to be made for the legalisation of the interim Administration. As the House will be aware, the powers conferred by Section 2 of the Act are not confined to the institution of sanctions but also make it possible to make constitutional or other provisions in relation to Southern Rhodesia.
The second is the need, even though success and a settlement may be in sight, to maintain sanctions against Rhodesia until success is finally achieved. I know that there are those in this House who sincerely believe that sanctions are counterproductive and that if they had been removed earlier or were removed now, Mr. Smith's Government would be more inclined to work hard for a peaceful solution. As I have said, I respect that view, but I cannot share it: nor do Her Majesty's Government and nor, I believe, does the international community as a whole. However, I would ask those who believe this to consider very carefully what effect of removing sanctions unilaterally at this stage would be. The negotiations at Geneva are now at a delicate stage. I do not want to put it too highly, but there is a slight upturn in hope as of yesterday and today. Nevertheless, these negotiations are immensely difficult and very delicate. I will not try to give the exact state of play since the position is changing all the time. But, as I have said, we are hopeful. If we were now to abandon sanctions, it would appear to the Africans that we had also abandoned our efforts to bring the Rhodesian Government to a peaceful settlement. There would be an outcry throughout Africa, which would make it difficult, to say the least, for us to continue to chair the Conference in Geneva. Furthermore, we should be in clear breach of our international undertakings and could expect no help or support from any other Western country. We should be totally isolated. A move of this sort, leading as it would, probably, to serious complications for the Conference in Geneva, would tilt the balance in Southern Africa away from reason and progress and back towards racial confrontation. Therefore, I would earnestly ask those who oppose the renewal of this Order to weigh very carefully what I have said. I would ask them to be patient.
I shall be the first to say that, in renewing this order, in so far as it relates to

873
sanctions, I hope that we will he able to reconsider the position in the shortest possible period of time, since I naturally hope that an acceptable interim Government can be established very soon. But I do not think that anyone would urge the House to take a step now which might, directly or indirectly, bring closer a total armed confrontation in Southern Africa, and I hope that the noble Marquess who has tabled an Amendment, while making his views, as always, very clear to the House, will not, on this day and at this critical juncture for the future of Rhodesia, force a Division on this issue. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1976, laid before the House on 14th October, be approved.—(Lord GoromsyRoberts.)
11.39 a.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY The Marquess of SALISBURY rose to move as an Amendment to the above Motion to leave out all the words after ("That") and insert ("this House declines to approve the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 (Continuation) Order 1976 because guerrilla warfare, with declarations of intensification, continues while negotiations for independence are in progress at Geneva; and because Rhodesians of all races continue to be murdered by terrorist forces harboured and assisted by countries who are in receipt of economic aid provided by United Kingdom taxpayers.")
The noble Marquess said: My Lords, I rise to move the Amendment to the Motion, standing in my name on the Order Paper. Before going any further, I should, as usual, declare an interest in Rhodesia. I listened with great care to the very explicit statement made by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. I appreciate many of his fears, but I should like to give reasons, in the course of what I have to say, for disagreeing with some of the conclusions he derived from them. I should like to begin by reminding your Lordships of the reasons for which sanctions were originally imposed. The reason was set out in a statement by the then Lord Privy Seal, the noble Earl, Lord Longford, on 11th November, 1965. He said:
874
"… whatever measures in our opinion are needed to restore Rhodesia to the rule of law and to allegiance to the Crown, these measures will be taken, with the support of Parliament."—[0fficial Report; col. 128.]
In other words, to bring Rhodesia back to legality, a sentence seemed to have been used for a very much more extended purpose for the last 11 years than the original reasons for which your Lordships were asked to impose it.
When sanctions were passed in the United Nations, they were passed under Chapter VII of the Charter, which deals with threats to peace. It was pointed out at the time that Rhodesia was no threat to peace in any sense of the word, and indeed it has not been a threat ever since sanctions were imposed. If this precedent were accepted, it would be perfectly possible to accuse any country of being a threat to peace, because an aggressive neighbour disapproved of her internal affairs. It seems to me grossly improper that an international body should seek to interfere in the government of countries, whether or not they are members. Indeed, we could find ourselves in an awkward position in this country with regard to Northern Ireland, where we know that Eire takes rather similar views to those of the Government of Mozambique in relation to Rhodesia. However, this point was clearly made at the time by Mr. Dean Acheson. Yet the Foreign Secretary again used this argument in another place on 20th October when he said, referring to the setting-up of an interim Government:
"The situation in Rhodesia will then no longer constitute a threat to international peace and security which warrants the continuation of measures against the requirements under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter."
May I now say a word about the return to legality which the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has already mentioned. As I understand it, the return has to take place before any enabling legislation can be put into operation. I presume that the statement made by the then Lord Chancellor, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, on 15th November, still holds good, that there would be no interregnum, that law and order would continue and that then the enabling Act for bringing the agreement into operation would take place. Once that Act had come into operation, the authority of Her Majesty's Government for the affairs

875
of Rhodesia would cease. I take it that that is the position, but perhaps when he replies, the noble Lord could answer that.
It has always been agreed that any settlement should be based on the Five Principles, later the Six Principles. understand that that is still so, because Mr. Rowlands said so in another place the other day. I must ask your Lordships to consider whether, at the present time, Her Majesty's Government's requirements do not now go further. If I may give an example, in the Principles, the words "unimpeded progress to majority rule" were used. This has now become, as a basis for discussion, two years or, in the Africans' view, one year. I doubt whether one year would be practicable. There would not be time to put all of the necessary machinery into operation. Nor do I think that this is what many of the Africans in Rhodesia want. I have seen a number of people in the last few days who have returned from there, and they tell me that a number of Africans are very worried about the two-year period. If I may give one example of a farmer I know—a well-known anti-Rhodesian Front figure—he wrote that his Africans came to him and said, "Is it true that majority rule is to be given in two years?" He said that that was so. They said, "Two years, no; 12 or, even, perhaps 10 years is possible".
Therefore, I hope that Her Majesty's Government will accept that there are views among the Africans other than those being expressed by the leaders in Geneva. May I now say a word about majority rule. I shall not say much, because I raised this matter earlier this year. I did not think that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, who replied on that occasion, threw very much light on the Government's view. I think we should ask Her Majesty's Government what form of Government they would regard as acceptable within the phrase, "majority rule". At the moment, it almost looks as if it is just that they would hand over power in Rhodesia to any African leader who appears strong enough to gain power. If it were Mr. Mugabe or Mr. Sithole, they would appear to want a Marxist State. Do Her Majesty's Government consider this a form of majority rule? Or is Mozambique to be the pattern with
876
the smaller number of representative groups to control Rhodesia by means of intimidation and murder? Also, I should like to ask what steps will be taken if an agreement is reached to ensure the implementation of the Six Principles. Last year, the noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts, in reply to a Question as to whether her Majesty's Government still stood by the Five Principles, said "Yes, and the Sixth". May I remind your Lordships that this says:
"Regardless of race, no repression of the majority by the minority, or of the minority by the majority."
It may be that the trust fund which noble Lords have mentioned will cater for the problems of the white minority, as he referred to them, but it certainly will not help the blacks. They cannot leave; they have nowhere to go. I think this is important, because the guerrilla leaders are reported to be drawing up lists of all Africans who have served either in the army or the police, with a view to liquidating them if they come to power. Therefore, I ask that before the granting of independence, Her Majesty's Government will insist in any agreement on safeguards in line with Principle Six to be incorporated.
May I now say a word about the guerrilla war. Surely this is to be deplored. I was very pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, once again deplore the guerrilla activity. But I should like to draw his attention to a remark made in another place on 20th October by the Foreign Secretary, in which he said,
"Without the sanctions, the guerrilla war would not have imposed such a grave strain on the economy."—[Official Report; col. 1482.]
Surely that means that Her Majesty's Government not only condones the guerrilla activities but is actively encouraging them. Yet from 1965 onwards, successive British Governments have declined to use force. Why, then, do we now encourage others to do what we decline to do ourselves? Surely, by not taking active steps to deal with the guerrillas, we are giving support to Mozambique in harbouring and encouraging the guerrillas to attack Rhodesia, of which we ourselves claim to be in control. Quite apart from that, surely it is wrong that we should not take steps rather than condone the murder, torture and mutilation which are carried out

877
by guerrillas on innocent people, most of whom are Africans. I am bound to say that it seems to me that it can be only because of one of two reasons that something has not yet been done. First, it may be that Her Majesty's Government wish to bolster up the guerrilla leaders and to strengthen their hand so that they can secure the type of government for which they are asking. Alternatively, it may be that they wish to bring further pressure on the Rhodesian Government to accept more extreme terms than were agreed in what Mr. Smith referred to as the "package deal".
What is the truth about this package deal? Mr. Smith said that it was offered to him by Dr. Kissinger and that he accepted it. This morning the noble Lord said that it was a basis for discussion. I wonder, however, whether this has always been the view of Her Majesty's Government. I should like to quote from a Press release by Her Majesty's Government which starts:
"Following Mr. Ian Smith's announcement in Salisbury earlier tonight, FCO spokesman is issuing the following statement approved by Prime Minister and Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary. 'Her Majesty's Government have noted with satisfaction Mr. Ian Smith's announcement in Salisbury tonight accepting the proposals put to him by Dr. Kissinger for a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia and majority rule within two years. These proposals represented an elaboration of the plan originally advanced by the Prime Minister in March of this year. They reflected the thoughts of the Presidents of the African Nations most directly concerned, who were consulted throughout by Dr. Kissinger and in the course of five special US/UK Missions to Africa in recent months'."
May I also quote what Mr. Vorster has recently said. In the Daily Telegraph of 8th November it was reported that in the course of an interview Mr. Vorster said:
"On September 24 Mr. Smith put forward five points. These points are not Mr. Smith's points and people don't really appreciate that".
Then Mr. Vorster recalled that on 28th September Dr. Kissinger said:
"It is not correct that Smith made these proposals. They are the result of a discussion between the United States, Great Britain and the African Presidents."
Then he made an important point:
"If discussions at Geneva are within the framework of these proposals then they are going to succeed. But if you deviate unilaterally then it is going to be difficult."
878
It appears that there has been deviation and that the going is very difficult, but it seems clear from the quotations to which I have drawn your Lordships' attention that Mr. Smith's interpretation of the package deal is the correct one. It would therefore appear that when the deal was announced it was acceptable to the parties concerned. Now we have to ask ourselves why Her Majesty's Government say that the package deal is to be only the basis for discussion. Could it be that the African Presidents went back on the agreement and that Her Majesty's Government were willing to support them in this action so as to bring more pressure on the Rhodesian Government to reach a settlement, at whatever price?
As regards the package deal, it seems to me at least that of the Six Principles, the first four Principles have been met in the proposals that the sixth Principle is covered for at least two years and, if adequate steps arc taken, will be covered for a longer period than that. However, there is the problem of the fifth Principle which refers to the acceptability of the proposals to the majority. This is not the first time that the fifth Principle has proved to be a stumbling block and it appears that one of the objectives of calling the Geneva Conference was to hammer out this problem. Despite what the noble Lord has said about progress at Geneva, it seems that the fifth Principle once again is going to prove to be an exceptionally difficult point to get over. Therefore, may I suggest to your Lordships that the original—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, I apologise to the noble Marquess for intervening, but I do so in order to try to understand his point. In view of the fact that the noble Lord has read out exactly and accurately the fifth Principle and has said how difficult it is, may I point out that the Government and the Commonwealth asked Lord Pearce to look into this problem. The noble Marquess knows better than I do that an extensive opinion poll was taken throughout the black territory and that the majority of black people turned down completely any other approach than that of majority rule and the representation of the blacks. Am I not accurate in that statement, or would the noble Marquess like to correct me?
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord is absolutely correct. The problem is that the African leaders seem to take the view that if they turn down these proposals and ask for more they are likely to get it. This seems to be precisely what is happening at the moment. Therefore they use what influence they have, which includes methods which we would not approve of in this country, to ensure that they obtain adequate support to get the settlement turned down. This is why I think that it is difficult and will continue to be difficult to obtain any agreement on the fifth Principle.
If, as the noble Lord has said, the Geneva talks succeed in achieving a settlement, the Government have given an undertaking that sanctions will come off'. I am sure that all noble Lords would approve of that sentiment. But if the talks fail, and I quote from what Mr. Rowlands said on 20th October in another place:
"I have said clearly there can be no question of our seeking to lift sanctions until a satisfactory interim government is installed in Rhodesia and is irrevocably on the path of majority rule".
This is where my main difference lies with the noble Lord.
If the Africans, for reasons which I have partly dealt with in my reply to the interpolation of the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, insist on terms which suit them and their demands better, they will be going outside the basis of the agreement approved in principle, at least—I think we are together on that—by Her Majesty's Government, and this seems to be utterly unreasonable. If the Conference breaks down through the making of these types of demands by the African leaders, the basis for the removal of sanctions is still there, because presumably it is inherent in the package deal that there will be a return to legality. I was going to say, although I believe I have already dealt with it in my reply to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, that the retention of sanctions must surely encourage the Africans to step up their demands or, if they are so inclined, to break up the Conference.
Since it is not possible to amend the details of the order, if no agreement is reached at Geneva sanctions are likely to continue for another year. That is what Mr. Rowlands statement implies. This
880
is intolerable in view of the terms accepted by the Rhodesian Government, because they have met the basic demands set out by Her Majesty's Government. However, since the Rhodesian Government have accepted that they will not expect sanctions to be withdrawn until an interim Government has been established, I do not press for their withdrawal now.
I appreciate the points made by the noble Lord about the difficulties at Geneva and his anxiety not to do anything which could cause disruption of the Conference and I also appreciate the points he made about our obligations to the international community. But even so, I am concerned at what I am afraid I must refer to as the intransigent attitude of Her Majesty's Government. If it were possible even now for Her Majesty's Government to give some form of undertaking this evening in regard to three points I should feel very much happier.
The three points are these. First—and I am afraid I am repeating what I said before—that if the talks fail because the African demands fall outside the framework of the package deal, then sanctions will be lifted; secondly, that Her Majesty's Government will take steps to halt guerrilla activities, if necessary by withholding aid to Mozambique; thirdly, that Her Majesty's Government will ensure that guarantees are provided in any agreement in line with the Six Principles, to protect the rights of the Africans and Asians and to guarantee their safety. But if Her Majesty's Government are unable to give a form of undertaking on these points I feel it would be morally wrong, for the reasons I have already given, not to press my Amendment to a vote. I beg to move the Amendment.
12.3 p.m.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, my noble friends would wish me to thank the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, for the usual clear and courteous way in which he has introduced the Motion before your Lordships this morning. Debate on this Motion over the last II years has given an opportunity of expression of the very divided feelings on the wisdom of the initial imposition of sanctions and the continuing of sanctions on Rhodesia, and I am sure all noble Lords in this House will agree that my noble friend

881
Lord Salisbury has moved his Amendment in a most moderate and helpful way in order to get a peaceful solution of this problem and to hear the views of the Government on their future policies. At this stage I should also like to comment very briefly on the success of the attempts of all British Governments to reach a peaceful solution for Rhodesia. I am sure noble Lords would wish me to pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Home of the Hirsel, because nobody has done more than he has to pave the way for the position which Rhodesia has now reached.
For the first time in these 11 years it appears to be at least a possibility that the extension for a full year of the provisions of Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965 may not in fact be used, and I think this is the most welcome news we have had over these last 11 years. We on this side of the House all hope that the Conference in Geneva will have a successful outcome and that the objective of reaching a peaceful transfer to majority rule will be achieved within the coming months. It is for this reason that in the middle of what must undoubtedly be a difficult and delicate operation 1 know that noble Lords on this side of the House will not be pressing the Government too hard on certain aspects, in order riot in any way to be accused of jeopardising the successful outcome of the conference.
On this side of the House we welcome the statement of the noble Lord the Minister on the willingness on all sides to reach success. This is to be warmly welcomed. Also to be welcomed is the statement of the noble Lord the Minister referring to what he calls—and what we believe is—a tragedy: that the continuation of guerrilla warfare is before us. On this aspect, we hope that the Government will consider in these negotiations some kind of deal between these African nations and the Rhodesian Government as to not only the cessation of guerrilla warefare but, at the same time, the release from detention of political prisoners and the cessation of any forms of cruelty, be they in the form of torture camps or be they in the form of guerrilla activities on the border. Both are to be deplored and we hope these will be aspects of the Conference which will come to a successful termination.
882
However, I should like to turn to the package deals which were based on Mr. Callaghan's proposals in March and endorsed by the Foreign Office in a statement which was read to your Lordships by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, following the broadcast made by Mr. Smith on 24th September. I think that that broadcast of Mr. Smith has perhaps not been looked at as closely as it should be and there are three points which I think we should bear in mind when considering the advisability of my noble friend's Amendment to the Motion.
Mr. Smith himself made very clear in his broadcast that he accepts the proposal No. 5, that on the establishment of an interim Government sanctions will be lifted and all acts of war, including guerrilla warfare, will cease. As I read article No. 5 of the proposals it seems to me that Mr. Smith has accepted the fact that sanctions will continue until an interim Government is set up, and also that it is on that basis that the Government will exert every pressure that acts of guerrilla warfare shall cease. Another point raised by my noble friend Lord Salisbury is the question of the trust fund. According to the statement made by Mr. Smith, and as I understand it, the trust fund is to be set up outside Rhodesia but for the benefit of all Rhodesians, both black and white, and is to be used for the economic development and educational programmes and necessary training and facilities to provide for the growth of the economy in Rhodesia itself. Perhaps the noble Lord the Minister would care to comment on that when he replies to the debate.
It would appear that if Mr. Smith accepts these proposals it would not be advisable for us in this House to take any action for the time being, but to accept, as he does, that we should wait for the formation of an interim Government before sanctions are lifted. Also, as members of the United Nations we are bound to uphold the Charter and observe the resolutions of the Security Council. Having fulfilled our obligations under international law for the last 11 years in imposing these sanctions, it would surely not be advisable at this stage, when we seem to be at the end of the road, hoping to reach a solution, that we should change our policy and fail at the very last minute to fulfil our obligations, and be condemned

883
by all the nations of the world community. For these reasons I would earnestly ask my noble friend Lord Salisbury not to press his Amendment. I appreciate his feeling and of course his very wide knowledge. I admit that I do not share his wide knowledge of Rhodesia, but for the very cogent reasons I have outlined I would urge him not to press his Amendment.
However, by upholding the international law ourselves I feel that we must be able to look for support to other nations when we, at the proper stage, ask for sanctions to be raised in the Security Council. I think this must be made a condition of the way in which Britain is now behaving. I should like the Minister to comment on his statement (because I made a note of his words):
"until success is finally achieved".
Are the Government saying in effect that if an interim Government is formed sanctions will immediately be lifted? And will the Government give an undertaking that if and when this interim Government is formed they will take all the necessary measures, both in Parliament and at the United Nations, for sanctions to be raised? Also, we should like an assurance from the Government that if there is failure to reach an agreement, not due to any action that Mr. Smith or his Government takes, the Government will again seriously consider the raising of sanctions and not condemn Rhodesia for having failed to reach a settlement which was not within their possibility, when failure to reach a settlement has been caused by other outside interests and possibly the interference of other nations.
My Lords, we realise that sanctions may not have had the economic effect expected. Indeed, as we know, Rhodesia has one of the highest GNP per capita figures of any Southern African State. We also believe that a satisfactory conclusion of the Conference will not be reached by aggression. Satisfactory agreements are not based on aggression. We very much hope that it will depend ultimately on the willingness of the peoples of Rhodesia, both black and white, to reach a peaceful settlement. We hope that all the communities can live together in a multi-racial society, and that they will be able to develop their economy, and remain in the Free World.
12.11 p.m.
Lord WADE: My Lords, in view of the number of speakers in this debate today, I hope I shall be forgiven if I cut out all the preliminary courtesies. This is the 11th time we have been called upon to renew this order. I hope it will be the last. But it seems abundantly clear to me that it would be unwise and irresponsible for the British Government to withdraw sanctions at the present moment. Therefore, I believe that this order should continue in force. I recognise that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in speaking for the Government, has to do so very carefully and circumspectly, but if there is to be a debate in this House at all I think we must be frank. The noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has been frank in the points he has made.
My Lords, first I would say that from my own point of view and that of my Liberal colleagues (although I am speaking for myself) that when I first heard the outcome of the Kissinger talks and the broadcast of Mr. Smith, my feeling was, "Alas! this has come 10 years too late". But I sincerely hope I shall be proved wrong and that the talks will succeed. It would not be profitable to go over all the old ground, but I would make a comment about the past. When UDI was declared three choices were before the Government. The first was to attempt to take over control immediately. That was not done. I would be very willing to debate the pros and cons, but that is past history. Secondly, there was the choice of imposing sanctions as evidence of our strong disapproval of the action of Mr. Smith, an act of treason. But, in doing so, many of us realised that sanctions could not be entirely effective. The third possible course was for Britain to wash her hands of the whole affair. I would regard that as a kind of Pontius Pilate policy. As we know now, the British Government chose the second course, and today the situation is different in that the principle of majority rule has been accepted. But in some respects those three choices still remain to be faced. They are at the back of my mind in the few remarks I wish to make.
As to the conference at Geneva, I certainly hope it will succeed, but the news changes from day to day. We do not know what is being said privately,

885
and I do not complain about that. But it would be unfortunate if all the time in these talks at Geneva was taken up by a discussion of dates, of legal points about a new Constitution, how the new Government should be elected, and what the new structure of the Government should be—although I realise that these matters are all very important and very necessary. However, what really matters to the people living in that part of Africa and elsewhere is that there should be peaceful transition, and that it should be as speedy as possible.
I should like to dwell for a few moments on that second point. There are a number of reasons for the need for plain speaking, and one reason in particular. I do not think it is fully appreciated what harm has been done to the future of the Southern part of the Continent of Africa by the existence of the Rhodesian Front Government. Over the years I have listened to many different points of view. I have tried to get a broad view. For example, a number of years ago I spent one afternoon in the Salisbury Club in Salisbury and the following morning I spent in a much less salubrious part of Salisbury talking to an ex-detainee who had just come out of five years detention. I am not suggesting that that is a fair cross-section of life in Rhodesia, but I have heard different points of view, I have met African leaders and I have had a long talk this summer with a white Rhodesian over here on holiday. I am aware of the point of view of the noble Marquess, and I am also aware of the point of view of those Africans, many of them young who genuinely hoped for a peaceful change, but in the end lost hope and went over to join the freedom fighters.
Again, among those who might be regarded or who regard themselves as supporters of Mr. Smith, one view emerges, a belief, sincerely held, that they are saving Christian civilisation from the spread of Russian Communism. My conclusion is that the precise opposite is the truth. From my own observations, 12 years ago the Russian influence was minimal in that part of the world. It has grown greatly, and I regret it. It has grown for three reasons: the first is the hatred of apartheid in South Africa; secondly, the fact that Portugal continued her colonial rule for far too long, and
886
thirdly, the effect of the actions and attitudes of the Smith regime in Rhodesia. I think it has done incalculable harm in that respect. That is why I say the sooner the change takes place, the better.
On the other hand, there is one problem which indicates that the change cannot take place overnight. I recognise that in trying to achieve a peaceful change, there must be some considerable change in personnel. There are some who just cannot adjust to new ideas, some who feel no real sense of loyalty to the new Zimbabwe. I think it is better that they should leave, and he assisted so to do, so far as that is practical. I do not know yet the full details of the concept of the trust fund, but I welcome the idea. On the other hand, it must be fair, and it must be seen to he fair. Therefore, I hope there will be some compensation for those who have suffered under the Smith regimé as well as those who may suffer from change. I hope that the United States of America will be able to help in that respect.
Lastly, as to the extent to which the British Government can help—and here I choose my words carefully, and I know it is very controversial—if some British presence during the interim period is agreed upon by the delegates to be desirable, Britain should not shirk that responsibility. I know there are risks, but there are risks in whatever we do. But if there is to be some presence, Britain on her part is entitled to point out the need for new personnel, not only at the top. I hope some thought will be given to this at Geneva; that some thought will be given to those, white and black, who have left Rhodesia because they could see no hopeful future under the Smith regimé. There is a very real need for recruitment, and I hope that an appeal will be made to those who have gone to find jobs elsewhere to come back and help. Subject to that, I believe that potentially there is a great future for Zimbabwe. We must not spoil it; we must not spoil that chance. Therefore, I return to my original point. To reject the Order would be widely misunderstood. It would be regarded as a pat on the back for Mr. Smith, which he does not deserve. It would shatter the efforts of Mr. Ivor Richard, and I think it would destroy the chance of peace for many years to come.
12.22 p.m.
Lord BRIMELOW: My Lords, since this is my maiden speech I ask, in accordance with custom, for the indulgence of the House, and, also in accordance with custom, I shall be brief and shall try to avoid controversy. My remarks are addressed to only one point, made on 20th October in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and repeated this morning at the beginning of this debate by my noble friend Lord Goronwy-Roberts. That point is the potential usefulness in the coming year of the comprehensive powers to act by Order in Council which are conferred by Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. That section provides that Her Majesty may, by Order in Council, make such provision in relation to Rhodesia—and here I quote the words of the Act—
"…as appears to her to be necessary or expedient in consequence of any unconstitutional action taken therein."
It follows, I think, from the generality of that wording that sanctions are only one form of the action envisaged in Section 2 of the Act. That point was explicitly made earlier by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts.
Since sanctions have been and remain a subject of controversy, and since it is traditional in maiden speeches to avoid controversy, I shall make no further reference to them, though on that subject, as on many others, I can unreservedly join in the tribute paid by the noble Baroness Lady Elles, to the noble Lord, Lord Home of the Hirsel, a man for whom I have feelings of deep respect and most cordial friendship.
The point which concerns me, and to which singularly little attention was paid in the debate in another place on 20th October, and from which this debate, too, has drifted away, is that in the coming year there may be a need for action other than sanction:, whatever the outcome of the present Geneva Conference may be. If Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act of 1965 does not continue in force, such action might require special legislation, with all the delay and possible difficulty that that might entail. In the recent debate in another place my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said that:
888
"the continued validity of the Act may be of vital importance to arrangements to be made for the legalisation of the interim administration."
That point was made this morning by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. Mr. Crosland went on to say:
"Any honourable member who votes against this motion will be voting to deny us this facility." —[Official Report, Commons, 20/10/76; col. 1482.]
That, I submit, is the central issue today before this House, though the debate has ranged, and will continue to range, much more widely.
I find it hard to believe that a favourable impression would be made on those throughout the world who are concerned with the future of Southern Rhodesia and Southern Africa if, during the course of the Geneva Conference, which was convened on our initiative and which is chaired by a representative of Her Majesty's Government, your Lordships were to deprive Her Majesty in Council of the power to give effect to any measures that may require action by Her Majesty's Government in the coming year. It seems to me that consistency in the execution of the policy which successive Governments have followed since 1965 and concern for the international standing of this country alike argue in favour of the continuation in force for a further year of Section 2 of the Southern Rhodesia Act 1965. I hope that the House will not divide, but, if it does, it is in that sense that I shall vote.
12.28 p.m.
Lord GREENHILL of HARROW: My Lords, it gives me the greatest pleasure to congratulate Lord Brimelow on his maiden speech. He and I have been colleagues for 30 years and during those 30 years I have known him as a master of lucidity, and I think he has demonstrated that gift to the House this morning. I hope that he will intervene on future occasions, and particularly when matters concerning the Soviet Union are discussed, because there is no greater authority in the House than he, and indeed I think no greater authority in this country. I therefore congratulate him again and invite him to join often in our debates.
I am going to intervene, very briefly I hope, and my reasons for doing so are that with the exception of the "Tiger" talks and the present Conference I have been involved in a modest capacity in all the negotiations since UDI. In February

889
of this year the then Secretary of State invited me to go to Salisbury to talk to Mr. Smith. It is not for me to speak of the substance of those discussions, except to express the opinion that if Her Majesty's Government had at that time taken a vigorous initiative in conjunction with our allies we should have got Mr. Smith's welcome acceptance of majority rule that much earlier. But there is no point in going over the past, and I accept that the Government may have had their own reasons for holding back. We have now to consider the present situation.
Ministers have not been very communicative about what is going on in Geneva, and quite rightly so; this is not the time for open diplomacy, although I feel that we might have been given a somewhat clearer glimpse of the agreed Kissinger package, a knowledge of which might have reduced controversy and some misunderstanding. In the circumstances of the Conference there is bound to be a good deal of public posturing. I dare say that the public statements of the delegations that we have heard do not accurately reflect their confidential positions, and we should be happy to leave Mr. Ivor Richard at work. He has shown great energy and zeal to keep the Conference going and, as the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has hinted this morning, the news seems to be slightly better.
But, as I see it, sooner or later there is a risk that we shall have the alternative of washing our hands of the whole affair or continuing to make a determined effort to solve it. In my view we should have no hesitation whatever in maintaining the latter course, and this is indeed what the Government seem to be doing. But I hope that the noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts, will not misunderstand me if I express some slight scepticism about the Government's new-found enthusiasm for tackling this problem. I have had many conversations with members of the Government Party which suggest that they feel that it would be wiser for the Government to hold back, and I hope that this afternoon the noble Lord will give us an assurance that the determination of the Government to work at this problem and go on working at it is, indeed, a settled policy and that we shall not go back to a previous, if I may say so, slightly hesitant approach to the problem.
890
There are two principal reasons for keeping working hard at it. The first reason is that it is in the interests of the black population of Rhodesia for us to do so. As your Lordships know only too well, there has been a tremendous population explosion in Rhodesia and employment for Africans is very hard to get. In my opinion this employment can only be secured by substantial investment in the country and by the proper development of its land resources. Such development can only be secured if a settlement is reached which enables black majority rule to be reconciled with the continuance of white participation, less in future on a settler basis and more on the basis of expatriate activity.
The existing settlers are entitled to some measure of protection, and I hope that the Trust Fund which has been spoken of is designed to give this protection. I have made some suggestions in the past how I think this protection can best be given. But I do not believe that an African State on the Marxist model of Angola or Mozambique, established after a long guerrilla campaign, can be as beneficial to the long-term interests of African employment and wellbeing as continued investment and co-operation from the West.
The second reason for continuing to work at this problem is that failure to reach a peaceful settlement in Rhodesia in the early future will bring sharply forward the possible confrontation of black and white populations in the Republic of South Africa, with unforeseeable political and economic consequences, not just for this country but for all the industrial democracies, to say nothing of the independent African countries themselves. I think that the white population in South Africa are increasingly aware of the necessity for change, and the moral of recent events is clear to many of them. But progress in South Africa needs as much time as it can get to work itself out, and emotional calls for dramatic changes overnight are merely provocative and unrealistic.
Earlier this week there was talk of a possible breakdown in Geneva. This, indeed, seems less likely now, but should this breakdown come it is essential that we should not throw in the sponge. There is no need for us to tackle this problem

891
alone. Our allies in the EEC and Japan have a strong interest in a peaceful solution, and their help, and more active help, can, I believe, be secured. As for the future Administration of the United States, I found recently in the United States that some members of the Democratic Party seemed less ready to admit an American interest in the solution of these problems. I should not expect this attitude to continue, and more mature consideration will convince the future Administration that the United States has an essential role to play.
Nor do I believe that the African delegations would consider an early breakdown in the Geneva talks as final. I hope that the Rhodesian African leaders noted the very perceptive leading article in the Guardian on 2nd November. This made two very relevant points: first, that whatever the long-term prospects for the African guerrilla forces, their short-term fate is going to be hard; secondly, that those African leaders who are sparring with each other at Geneva will assuredly be swept from the scene if a settlement is long delayed. Those truths I think should also be noted by the so-called "Front Line Presidents" who, I often think, might perhaps more properly be called the "Touch-line Presidents".
I believe that the decision which we have to make on the Order today depends directly on what we believe the effect of our actions to be on the chance of the success of the Conference. I realise that many regard the observance of sanctions as of symbolic importance, a badge of honour so to speak, and maybe it can be so represented, but surely only to a dwindling band. Very few countries who have any possibility of trading relations with Southern Africa have a clean bill of health on sanction breaking. The black countries themselves have for years been buying grain and meat from Rhodesia—understandably so, and in some cases they would have starved without it.
We in this country have often made ourselves look ridiculous over sanctions, although i have little objection to that if it is in a good and effective cause. For example, we have reached the melancholy situation—and here I declare an interest—where the Leyland plant in Rhodesia assembles Japanese and French vehicles to usurp a market which has
892
been traditionally ours. I do not believe that sanctions are particularly relevant to the present Conference; I believe they are not likely to influence the outcome one way or another. My own view is that they are not a significant factor at the present. They do not strongly influence Mr. Smith at this stage, they depress African standards, and their continued observance is not really an encouragement to the African negotiators. I should have liked to see them lifted, initially on a selective basis. They should be lifted on goods and on activities which will be in the long-term interests of the development of Rhodesia, not on consumer goods and things like that.
But there is, I agree, as was clearly stated by Lord Brimelow, one overriding reason for the Order to be continued. It is that Section 2 of the Act is essential for the rapid constitutional arrangements which would have to follow a settlement, and failure to renew it would create practical difficulties which could be overcome, I understand, only by new legislation. Now is obviously not the time for that. I hope, however, that when the Order is renewed, the Government will see whether it is possible to relax some of the sanctions, and especially those whose relaxation would contribute to the long-term health of Rhodesia.
12.41 p.m.
Lord PLUNKET: My Lords, I must declare an interest, as will shortly become apparent. I am sure the House will appreciate that it is not easy to say anything worth while about Rhodesia without referring to some aspect that is contentious, but I will do my best to avoid the obvious pitfalls and emulate the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow. However, having lived there for the last 20 years, I wanted to avail myself of the privilege of being able to address your Lordships from the point of view of a progressive and, I hope you will agree, a moderate, before returning to Rhodesia next week.
I wish to convey the feelings of people like myself who have consistently taken the view that there was no future for us under a white minority Government. The Eastern Highlands of Rhodesia. where I live, is the area in which the large softwood forests of the country are concentrated. and my own house is within

893
a few miles of the Mozambique border. The hazards of accidental fires and arson are very real in the dry season, which stretches from July and is at its height in November. They are anxious and worrying moments at the best of times, and it does not require much imagination to gauge what the tension has been like during this last dry season.
I am referring not only to the nerves of the Europeans; there are in fact comparatively few European foresters. The safety and protection of the plantations lies mainly in the hands of Africans. Every day and night in an emergency call out they are likely to face a hail of bullets or the risk of being in a vehicle running over a land mine. On lonely isolated hilltops fire look-outs are situated and these are manned probably by just a couple of African teenagers armed with nothing more lethal than a hurricane lamp. Just before I left a few weeks ago to come here my African forest ranger asked me for the details of our planting programme. He was enquiring not about what we were going to do in the forthcoming season: he was thinking about the next five years. Understandably, Europeans are tending to live from clay to day, but their staff are thinking in terms of conditions returning to normal.
To assume that the loyalty of African staff such as I have described implies that they are hostile or unsympathetic towards the guerrillas or terrorists, call them what you will, would be wholly misleading. Rightly or wrongly, they can see no way of establishing themselves as free citizens in their own country through peaceable means, and that is the sad truth. Despite the horrors, violence, bloodshed and brutality, the vast majority of Africans, and indeed some Europeans, are faced with a constant dilemma: but for the security forces there would be no protection of life or limb. On the other hand, joining the security forces, particularly as a volunteer, is helping to keep the Rhodesia Front in power. That is the dilemma, and it would fall away were it not for a rooted distrust of the Rhodesia Front, which has not been dispelled by the dignified and I believe genuine way in which Mr. Smith stated publicly that he had conceded the principle of majority rule.
894
I went to Geneva for the first few days of the Conference. I went, as did other Europeans and Africans, because we felt that even if the views of moderate men could not be heard in the conference hall, they could be expressed in private discussions I was not alone in gaining the impression that interest such as mine was welcome, particularly among Africans. I had the friendliest of talks with members of the African delegations. Most of those Africans were old friends and have remained so. Zimbabwians, which is what they call themselves, are mostly courteous and very patient people. Were it not so, I do not believe there would be even a glimmer of chance, II years after UDI, of achieving a settlement.
Since the principle of majority rule has been accepted by Mr. Smith and his Cabinet, it might seem that the time factor for its implementation should not have assumed the proportion that it has. But there is a fear and mistrust among the African delegations and I cannot say that the Independence Board in Salisbury or indeed the absence of Mr. Smith from the Conference has helped matters. Any change in the present circumstances governing sanctions would be introducing a new factor. I feel that it would be an unnecessary risk to take in the short-term and, in the long-term, would be unlikely to make any difference to Britain's ability to recover the markets she has lost to other countries which have perhaps not observed the sanctions rules so seriously, as was referred to by the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow.
My Lords, one of the African delegation heads assured me that Zimbabwe would wish to remain within the Commonwealth. The British team at Geneva has in my opinion been both energetic and patient. However, I detect a lack of faith here in Britain in her ability to solve the Rhodesian issue. If the countries most concerned in Africa and the delegations in Geneva themselves have this faith in her, as I believe they have, then Britain must seize this opportunity more boldly if all races now in Rhodesia are to have a future in Zimbabwe.
12.50 p.m.
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, if this debate had had no other value, it would have been more than worth while for having

895
given the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, an opportunity of speaking here in this House and your Lordships the opportunity of hearing him. I would repeat the normal formula that we hope to hear him many times, but, on this occasion at least, I shall change it slightly. We certainly hope to hear him many times in your Lordships' House but not yet, because the sort of outlook, advice and counsel that he can give in the Rhodesia of the present and in the Zimbabwe of the future would be of more value there than it would be here. I hope that when he returns to Rhodesia he will do so realising that we have derived great value from what he has said. Personally, and for many of your Lordships, his speech has recalled the very lovely part of Rhodesia where he lives and which we have known well in the past.
I should like also to congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, because he brings another of the line of very distinguished ex-members of the Foreign Service to your Lordships' House, all of whom make their contribution, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has just done, to the deliberations of this House on the subject on which they have spent a lifetime in public service. We hope that in this case we shall hear him again soon, and on many occasions.
If your Lordships will forgive me, I should like to range a little more widely than have other speakers so far. I believe that the greatest service that we can do in this debate to people of all races in Rhodesia is to try to disentangle in our own minds the realities of the present from the illusions which some of us have had in the past. Let me say this: I believe that Rhodesia ceased to be a colonial problem in 1923; it ceased to be a British problem in 1965; it ceased to be an African probem when the collapse of the Portuguese in Angola and Mozambique enabled Communist imperialism to supersede the old European hegemony in Southern Africa, with the help of Cuban mercenaries and Russian and Chinese arms. Rhodesia is now an international problem. It provides, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has said, the contemporary theatre of confrontation between the Marxist East and the Free West. It replaces the divided Europe of the Berlin airlift and the divided Asia of the Vietnam war.
896
In those circumstances, I submit that it is unrealistic for President Nyerere or Dr. Kissinger to imagine that Britain alone, employing the methods that have been successful in the past in bringing dependencies to nationhood, can stabilise and control the situation in Rhodesia so as to transform it peacefully into a Zimbabwe under majority rule—and, by that, I mean African rule. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, said in his speech that during his visit to Geneva he found great faith in the ability of Britain to do this, but I believe that it is to some extent unrealistic. It is based on the nostalgic belief that the position in which this country is today is the same as it was 10, 15, 20, 50 or 100 years ago. That is not true. We here know this. Others overseas do not realise it as clearly as we do. We have gained a great deal from the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Plunket this morning. Perhaps he, in his turn, may be able to take back to Rhodesia an assessment of the point of view that we have here with regard to our ability to deal alone with a situation such as exists in Rhodesia.
Your Lordships will realise that my general analysis fits very well with the thesis that Mr. Smith has propounded over a good many years. The difference is this: whereas Mr. Smith claims that a quarter of a million whites in Rhodesia are a bastion against the spread of Communist imperialism in Southern Africa, my view is that the continued existence in power of the Rhodesian Front provides a climate in which Communist influence will thrive and is certain eventually to succeed. Let me put it this way: if the Portuguese had surrendered colonial power to a democratically or an indigenously based regime in Angola and Mozambique 10 or 15 years ago, there might, like the one time British, French and even Belgium colonies, have been westward orientated regimes in power in those territories. They might not have been constitutional democracies on the Westminster model; that is perfectly true. Sometimes, regrettably and tragically, they might have had characteristics like the regimes of Uganda and Burundi, which derive from the sometimes brutal hinterland of African tribal history; but fundamentally they would not have been satellites of Soviet or Chinese Marxist imperialism.

897
By hanging on too long to their imperial power, the Portuguese made the build up of Marxist military and ideological influence sufficient to ensure that when the Portuguese were eventually forced out, the inheritors would not be Western orientated but would be Governments in Angola and Mozambique that owed their success to the Marxist Cuban mercenaries and to the Maoist Chinese-trained forces of Frelimo. Of course, this all presents a threat to Rhodesia and South Africa, as the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill, has said, but let us be very clear that it is also a threat to the whole of the Western orientated States south of the Sahara. It is a threat to Zambia, to Malawi, to Tanzania, to Kenya, to Botswana, to Swaziland, and in due course it will be a threat to the peripheral States like Zaire and, eventually, to the Republic of South Africa.
I believe that it is generally agreed that indigenous Africa is not a fertile breeding ground for the harsh disciplines and the materialist philosophy of Marxism. Africans are only inclined to accept its support if no other way can be found of giving to black men and women who aspire to enjoy their normal rights, opportunities and equal citizenship in the country in which their forefathers have dwelt from time immemorial. This is the point that the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, made so graphically. There is not, in the case of the three "Front Line Presidents, any desire to fight. I am quite sure that that is the case. However bellicose some of their statements may be, none of them is a military man by nature or training. I do not believe for a moment that Bishop Muzorewa or Mr. Mugabe, in spite of his Che Guevara image, or Joshua Nkomo, in spite of his Matabele inheritance, is a warrior in the old African sense or in the modern militarist one. They are being forced into roles from which none of them will draw advantage, and only because the policies of the Rhodesia Front in general and Mr. Smith in particular offer them no practical alternative to seeking to win their struggle at the muzzle of the gun. In that event, the beneficiaries will not be the men who are gathered in Geneva or the vast majority of Africans in Rhodesia, but the military junta that leads the guerrillas in Mozambique and elsewhere and the
898
Marxist Governments which have supplied them with arms and an ideology.
The longer the transition of Rhodesia into Zimbabwe is put off, the more certain is it that the whole of Southern Africa will be lost to the West. It is no good Mr. Smith arguing that the Africans are not ready for majority rule. There are today—mostly in exile—far greater resources of trained black Rhodesian manpower than were available to Zambia, Malawi or even Kenya when they became independent. The fact that very few of them are in responsible ranks in the civil service, industrial and business management or the professions in Rhodesia is simply because it has been the policy of white Rhodesia to keep them out. However, UM, paradoxically enough, has, by forcing abroad so many, helped to provide the trained cadres for the Zimbabwe of the future. One of our problems is, or will be, how we can bring them back to give them the opportunities in Rhodesia which they have, up to now, been denied, and, with them, to help to build the future for an independent, Western-orientated multiracial State.
My Lords, let us not forget that the exiles are important, it is true; but that there are in Rhodesia internal security forces consisting of black African Rhodesians whose numbers are not far short of the strength of the guerrilla forces outside it. Two battalions of the Rhodesian African Rifles, the present black component of the British South African Police, and the African Police Reserve, must number today something like 10,000 trained disciplined men. The time that is needed to organise the development of Rhodesian into Zimbabwe is the time it takes to get the exiles back home, to reorganise the Civil Service and the police, to integrate part of the guerrillas into the present Rhodesian army and to resolve the problem of a Constitution capable of preserving the rights of all those of different races and tribes who are to live in the newest of all African independent states. Twelve months—15 months—23 months? The time scale is not fundamentally important. The longer the transition takes, the greater the chance that the military junta of Zipa will gain control of the situation and supercede political leaders at present gathered round the Conference table in Geneva. It is simply not realistic to be

899
arguing at this present moment between 12 and 15 months. What can be done in 15 months can he done just as easily in 12 months.
One lesson I have learned in my political life is that if you want to manage men—and I have never been very good at it—you must assess accurately their motives. I believe that the motives which dominate all or most of the African leaders at Geneva is to achieve political power by peaceful negotiation. I believe that this is the motive of the three Front Line Presidents. I believe that the objective of the Presidents of Angola and Mozambique and of the Zipa high command is to achieve power by war. The motives of Mr. Smith I believe are these: he believes his own thesis that if he can convince the United States and Britain of his reasonableness and that he is the bastion against Communism in Southern Africa, he will get the relaxation of sanctions and he will get the Powers—Britain, America and others—to condone a form of majority rule which will enable the Rhodesian Front to retain control over the country or, at any rate, salvage something in terms of white control from the effort of the past years of independence.
I cannot believe that the term "majority rule" means in his mind what it does in ours, or in those of the Front Line Presidents, or the minds of the black leaders at Geneva. If it were the same as we believe it to be, he would never have taken Mr. Van der Byl to Geneva as his deputy. He would never have left him in charge of negotiations there in his absence. I regard Mr. Van der Byl, as I am sure the Africans do, as living evidence of Mr. Smith's insincerity in the negotiations in which his Government are at present engaged. The future, during the interim period and beyond, cannot rest in the hands of men who are committed by tradition, inheritance, outlook and psychology to something which is different to anything which is possible under an independent Zimbabwe.
If the present Conference breaks down, the solution will come as a result of a long process of attrition from guerrilla war, and it will be brought about more quickly by the progressive demoralisation of European security forces in the future. It will end, as we all know, in circumstances which will cause untold suffering
900
to black and white in Rhodesia. It will lay the whole of Africa North of the Limpopo open to takeover by Marxist forces. It will present a regime unnatural to the character and traditions of black and white in Rhodesia alike. The important point which I leave with your Lordships, and I know is already with you, is that it will place in jeopardy the security interests of the whole of the Western world, the whole of South Africa and the vital maritime routes around the Cape of Good Hope.
I said earlier that this is not a colonial or British responsibility any more. I do not share with noble Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, the belief that the appointment of a British Governor General or a single representative supported by a small staff to act as a Governor General is a practical proposition at the present time. The old Colonial Office formulas are no longer relevant. If a division of British troops were air-lifted to Salisbury tomorrow, followed by 100 experienced civil servants who took over the administration, with a couple of dozen senior police inspectors and a team of financial experts, bankers and development advisers, that might do the trick. But that is something which could never happen, and certainly would not be acceptable out there. I can only say that, having some experience of responsibility without power in Rhodesia, I fully support the reluctance which Her Majesty's Government have shown in becoming involved in the Rhodesian situation on a purely unilateral basis.
Let me add that I believe that the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has been absolutely right to resist the temptation of becoming personally involved in Geneva at this stage of the negotiations. Too many of his predecessors have fallen for the temptation of trying to bring off a great political coup by undertaking personal diplomacy before the ground has been properly prepared. The job of the Secretary of State in those circumstances is to reserve himself either to salvaging failure, if that is possible at the end, or, more happily, to put a seal upon success.
I am not one of those who believe that success in Geneva is impossible. But to achieve it certain things are essential. I

901
believe that the Kissinger shuttle diplomacy was a brilliant example of political opportunism. It was the catalyst which made the Geneva Conference possible. There are black men sitting round a table with white men, the latter of whom have used their power to consign their black colleagues across the table for 10 or more years of the limited span of human life to the indignities of prison, detention and physical and intellectual immobility. I should find it very hard in those circumstances to forgive. That the Africans, Joshua Nkomo, Sitole and Mugabe, and many others, can do so sufficiently to go to Geneva, is something greatly to their credit. I can understand that they are not prepared to accept the Kissinger formula to which they were never parties; but I am encouraged by the fact that they are, even now, prepared to accept it as a basis for negotiation.
I believe that we have to accept changes in it; and I should like to put very briefly one idea which seems to fit in, anyhow with my own thesis, with the circumstances in Southern Africa at the present time. In a recent leading article, the New York Times said:
"But it was on American initiative that the reluctant British agreed to call the Geneva Conference. It may need a further American effort merely to salvage it".
The answer is, "Yes, it will". The Americans succeeded in the 'sixties in undermining British colonial policy which could—and here again I am speaking from personal experience—have prevented the tragic events which have created the present situation. It is in their interests and perhaps as some repayment for activities in the past, and it is certainly in the interests of the vast majority of Africans, that a great Power as well as Britain should be associated with the attempt to find a solution to this problem which affects us all. They should be prepared to become involved in it—to become involved in finding a solution and in all the consequences which attend that.
I suggest that instead of Dr. Kissinger's formula for a Council of State we should consider the possibility of a High Commission—not a High Commissioner—comprising a British representative who shall be chairman, a U.S. representative and one, possibly two, representatives of the Front Line Presidents, who would
902
take the role within the interim period of acting, so to speak, as a Governor Generalship in commission. There are many Africans—there are Africans in Geneva at the present time acting as observers for the Tanzanian and Zambian Governments like Mr. Choua of Zambia and Mr. Salim of Tanzania—who would be well qualified for such a role.
This High Commission would be supported by an internal security mission drawn from the four countries concerned. The High Commission would have the duty of appointing an interim Government, of negotiating a constitutional settlement for the future of Zimbabwe; for controlling security forces and integrating such guerrillas who are prepared to join them in it; for the defence of Rhodesia against incursions from Mozambique and elsewhere; and for preparing during that interim period, be it 12 or 15 months, shorter or longer, for the emergence of an independent Rhodesia. I doubt whether the present Government in Rhodesia—Mr. Smith and his colleagues—can play much part in that interim period. I think that they will be doing a service to their countrymen, black and white, if they find it possible to withdraw from the scene as quickly as possible. I believe that if it were a practical proposition, based not upon the resources of this country, but as an international operation from the West and from Africa, we could provide the security and stability during that interim period which would enable Zimbabwe to start off on a successful basis of peace in the interests of all the races who are going to live there in the future.
1.13 p.m.
Lord PITT of HAMPSTEAD: My Lords, I am rather pleased that I undertook to take part in this debate today. In a sense, I am probably sorry that I am speaking so early because I find it difficult to believe that all the speeches that follow mine will be like the speeches that have preceded it. I must apologise to the Minister for having missed his speech and so the noble Marquess for being late for his. I am sorry about that, but I am very pleased, for example, at the tone in which the noble Marquess moved his Amendment and I am grateful to him for that. I am pleased at the way in which, from the two Front Benches opposite, the noble

903
Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade, spoke on behalf of their colleagues. I am glad to join in the congratulations to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, on his maiden speech and also to thank him for elucidating the point about Clause 2 which I had intended to do in my speech.
I want to underline that point that if this clause is not passed, then in effect the only way the Government can give effect to any decision at Geneva is by a Bill through both Houses of Parliament. Therefore, I hope that every noble Lord making his or her decision as to what attitude should be adopted today will remember that fact. I am also grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, for his speech. I want to congratulate him on his maiden speech and to say, "Yes, maybe some time before the end of the year". But I hope that he will come here often to tell us about the situation in his part of the world. I understand and sympathise with him and his plight and the plight of the other people living in his area. But, let us face it, what happened is that there was a rebellion by certain people in Rhodesia, a rebellion against the Crown. It is as a consequence of that rebellion that people like the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, now have to suffer.
As the noble Lord, Lord Wade, rightly put it, there were three courses open to the Government of the day. The Government chose to use the gentle pressure of sanctions. I do not know whether sanctions made the rebels change their position. I believe they played a part, but I believe the more important part, of course, has been the collapse of the Portuguese rule and the consequences to them of the sort of governments that have come into power in their Border areas. It is important for all those who care about the Rhodesians, be they white or black, to recognise this point—and I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for making it—that had the Portuguese situation been different and had a different type of government come to power in Mozambique and Angola, the threat to Southern Africa that is now posed would not have been so great.
The same holds good for Rhodesia. If, in fact, as a consequence, the only government that comes into power in Rhodesia, is a government that has been
904
imposed by force, a government that has followed the Frelimo way of conquering bits of the country and, then, establishing a government—because that is what they did—then there is only one type of government that can come to power there. The only people who provide them with arms are people from the Eastern bloc. Therefore, if it is only the Eastern bloc that supports them, when they come to power they will be tied to the Eastern bloc. It is rather sad that we have been taking so long to recognise that, in fact, the threat to Southern Africa comes from this deliberate attempt to impose minority rule on people in that area. You can only impose that minority rule by force and if you are imposing minority rule by force, then sooner or later the majority will take force against you. You have invited it. There is no way out. This is the situation in southern Africa and in Rhodesia.
I am very glad that at long last there is some sign of movement, some sign of recognition that one cannot go on with the minority using the force at its disposal to impose its will on the majority; but I think it worth recognising—and I was grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Alport, for this—that the majority have suffered a great deal from that minority. It is worth remembering that the leaders now sitting round the table are the same people who have been detained without trial by the people who now arc trying to negotiate with them and who are claiming to be the government of the country. Therefore, it is understandable that they are suspicious, it is understandable that they are demanding evidence of good faith and it is understandable that they take up positions aimed at exploring whether or not that good faith is there. Much of that is what is going on at the present time.
I was sorry to see the terms of the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess. When all is said and done, the British Government cannot stop the guerrilla war. There is no question of that. The guerrilla war will be stopped when the people on that side feel that they can afford to stop it. In other words, at this moment the five Front-Line Presidents, and in particular the Presidents of Mozambique and Tanzania, are in the best position to stop the guerrilla war. Therefore, their views on any settlement

905
are of paramount importance and negotiations have to be not only between the whites and the blacks in Rhodesia but between Governments like those of Britain and the United States, together with the five Front-Line Presidents. Referring to the United States, I feel that I should point out that the result of the recent Presidential election means that the black caucus will have more influence than they had before. It also means that the five Front-Line Presidents have an entrée to the influencing of the United States Government and its attitudes.
I hope that the British Government, despite being sensible about the extent of their power and influence, will not be too cautious and will endeavour to bring the other countries of the EEC, plus the United States, with them in endeavouring to produce a peaceful solution which will allow Rhodesia to become like Botswana. In fact, it is not necessary for countries in the area to be ruled either by white minorities only in their interests, or to have black majorities oppressing whatever white interests are there. It is still possible—although admittedly it is late because of what has happened in the last few years—to build a non-racial society in Zimbabwe. I think it is the duty not only of the British Government but of all people of influence and authority within this State to give their every endeavour and to use all the influence they possess to see that that is the outcome—because, my Lords, the alternative does not bear contemplation.
1.23 p.m.
The Earl of LINDSEY and ABINGDON: My Lords, the only reason for my intervening in this debate was purely selfish, in that it is almost 11 years since I made my maiden speech in your Lordships' House. That occasion was the first debate we had following the Unilateral Declaration of Independence. Having said that, I should like to follow other noble Lords in congratulating the noble Lords, Lord Brimelow and Lord Plunket, on their excellent maiden speeches. I can assure your Lordships that I shall be very brief, in view of the number of speakers who are to follow, and especially after the long hours that have been worked by your Lordships recently.
906
I also had the opportunity of taking part in a debate in 1966, when Her Majesty's Government were seeking the introduction of mandatory sanctions, as laid down by the United Nations. The Resolution was rejected by your Lordships by 100 to 84 votes. I was one of the 100 who voted against the introduction of mandatory sanctions at that time, because I did not believe sanctions would work and also I thought that we were, at the same time, relinquishing our sole responsibility towards Rhodesia. Since then I have kept quiet on this subject; but here we are again, 10 years later, being asked to renew this annual ritual.
On the occasion of the 1965 debate, I supported one suggestion that was put forward by Her Majesty's Government and which was later echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Royle, by which it was proposed to set up a high frequency radio station in Bechuanaland—which is now Botswana—to inform both black and white Rhodesians of the facts as seen from the outside world. The idea, if it had been used in a more forceful way, could have broken the censorship which was imposed by the Smith regime and which has left many white people no wiser as to the real facts facing them at this time.
The only effect sanctions have had up to now has been to harden white Rhodesian resolve to see them through not only for weeks and months, as was suggested at the time, but for years, to the benefit of our main trading competitors. In my opinion, a final settlement will not reverse this situation: there will be yet another lost market in the name of political expediency.
How far have we come from that original document: Proposals for Settlement, 1966? There are two recent political facts that have changed the course of events; namely, an independent Mozambique and the attitude of South Africa. Until these two changes emerged, we did not hold the trump card. In addition, one other point has helped to harden moderate views against the Smith regime, and that was the introduction of the 1970 Land Tenure Act. By means of that Act, the country was virtually cut in half with one half of the land distributed among 5 per cent. of the population.
Having said all that, I regret that I cannot support the Amendment proposed

907
by my noble friend Lord Salisbury, because at last, from the information I have been given by white moderates in Rhodesia, it seems that sanctions are beginning to hurt. That is because of what is happening in South Africa and Mozambique. However, the latter country must not be taken as an ally of this country. On the contrary the attitude of that country's Government is extremely hostile to any form of negotiated settlement for Rhodesia. Therefore I certainly agree with my noble friend that all further aid to Mozambique should be withdrawn forthwith so that they, together with others, are not in a position of being able to dictate to Her Majesty's Government the date for independence for a country which they and their supporters will tear apart. They will make the Matabele wars of the past look like a tea-party.
Having said that, my Lords, I support the renewal of this order for the first time, because it is essential that Her Majesty's Government should have the opportunity to keep the upper hand in the current negotiations at Geneva.
1.29 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I should like to associate myself with previous speakers in extending congratulations to the two Members of your Lordships' House who have just delivered maiden speeches. I found both speakers not merely confident and assured, but in addition they gave to this House ideas and proposals which are very important in this debate. I hope that both of them will be contributing to future debates in this House. I was very interested in the decision of the noble Earl, Lord Lindsey and Abingdon, who preceded me, that he would be voting for the maintenance of this order, despite his earlier opposition. If I- may say so, I think that that indicates in him an extraordinary tolerance and openness of mind, which I feel all of us must have when we are approaching this subject.
I am desperately anxious that the Geneva Conference shall succeed. Perhaps one of the greatest dangers in the world today is a racial war all over Southern Africa, which will net only include Rhodesia but extend to Namibia and the South. The success of the Geneva
908
Conference may end that fear in Rhodesia, but it will also give some promise of removing that fear from the rest of Southern Africa. I want today, if I can, to be helpful in bringing about the success of the Geneva Conference. I do not think any appeal that I made to Mr. Smith would have any effect, but I should like to make suggestions to Her Majesty's Government and also the African nationalist leaders, many of whom are my friends over long years, to try to overcome the difficulties that have arisen at Geneva.
Whatever views we may take of the sincerity of Mr. Ian Smith—and I am not going to repeat the doubts which have been expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Alport—we have to recognise that the main decision in the present discussions is that of Mr. Smith to accept majority rule within two years. It is an absolutely revolutionary decision by him. Only a few months ago, he was saying "No majority rule for the period of my life". It is that declaration, whatever the sincerity behind it, which has changed the whole situation in regard to Rhodesia.
I want, first, to make this appeal both to the Government and to my nationalist friends who are in Geneva. I hope that the Conference will not break down on the issue as to whether there is to be majority rule in 12 months, or 15 months or even 23 months as proposed by Mr. Smith. For 11 years, the illegal Government of Rhodesia has existed. From the beginning of this century Europeans have occupied Rhodesia, and in the background of that history what do three months matter for the achievement of majority rule? But I can understand the impatience of the Africans. I suggest to the Government that a solution of that problem might be found by saying that the target aimed at should be within 12 months, but with recognition of the fact that, in practice, as negotiations go on for majority rule in Rhodesia, some extra time may be necessary. I hope that both the Government and the nationalist leaders at Geneva will accept a compromise of that kind.
The second suggestion which I should like to make—and it is more to our Government than to the nationalist leaders—is that they realise how deep has been the disappointment that our Government

909
have not sent a Minister to Geneva. I am not critical of Mr. Richard. I have great faith in his ability and his attitude. But I think we have now to appreciate that the Conference at Geneva is as important for the future of the world, as a conference which might be held about any area. Its failure or success will determine whether there is to be civil racial war in Southern Africa. May I suggest this to the Government to consider? If there is any danger of a failure at Geneva, the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister should go there and should make a personal appeal for a settlement of the problem; and, certainly, if there is success then the Foreign Secretary or the Prime Minister should go there to sign the ultimate agreement which is reached. This psychological point is more important than many of us recognise.
I want to turn, thirdly, to the point which the noble Lord, Lord Alport, made, in that very remarkable speech which has so lifted this debate, of British responsibility. Eleven years ago, British responsibility in Rhodesia was absolute. I always took the view that if we had intervened actively at that point UDI would never have been maintained. But we are now in a new situation. Rhodesia is not only a British responsibility. There has been American intervention, there have been the decisions of the United Nations and, above all, there is the concern of the surrounding African countries. Zambia has probably suffered more from the conflict with the illegal regime in Rhodesia than any other territory. It is intimately concerned.
The five Front-Line African representatives are now deeply involved. Three of them are my very close personal friends. For 30 years, I have been associated with them in their struggle—Nyerere of Tanzania, Kenneth Kaunda of Zambia and Seretse Khania from the day he was wrongly exiled in this country. I make this appeal to them to co-operate in the fullest possible way by every kind of influence and pressure they can exert upon the nationalist leaders of the Geneva Conference to secure a settlement which will not mean the bloody war in Southern Africa which failure might bring. I know these three men. They are not men who want war. I believe that if they can exert their influence upon the nationalist leaders they will contribute greatly towards success.
910
I am not going to enter into other details of the difficulties at Geneva, except to say this. The noble Lord, Lord Alport, suggested that there might be a high commission rather than the state council which is proposed. That might be a good idea, except that the United Nations itself should be directly represented on it, rather than a particular Government. Whether it is a high commission or a council of state, the membership must give confidence to the African people. The present proposal of Mr. Kissinger, of a white chairman, a white Minister for defence and a white Minister for law and order, will never be accepted by the African representatives.
My Lords, I am going to make this suggestion. I can think of two members of this House, one on this side of the House and one on the other side of the House, who might quite easily be acceptable to the African nationalists as chairman of a high commission or of the proposed council. I can think of a distinguished figure who is not now either in another place or in this House who might serve in that way. When considering Ministers for defence and for law and order, I can think of a European in Rhodesia who would be acceptable to Africans for that post. Therefore, I hope that as we approach that problem we may be able to find a solution upon those lines.
I want to conclude by saying something which is fundamental and I believe to be behind the whole of our discussion. What is our priority? Is it racial equality in Southern Africa, or is our policy to be determined by the fear of communism? If we do not stand with the utmost firmness and resolution for racial equality in Southern Africa, for the right of the African people to govern themselves, we shall play straight into the hands of the communist countries. By our fear of communism, if it means any modification of our effort for racial equality, we shall be handing over Southern Africa to the communists. The other thing that should be said is that we have to face the fact, in the present development of the world, that the newly independent States of Southern Africa will not be capitalist States. They will reject capitalism and the control over their economy of the great multinational companies. They will establish their own form of socialism but it will be an African socialism. It

911
will not be a Soviet socialism: it may approximate more to Chinese communism.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, will the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, allow me to intervene? While accepting his prognosis of what might happen in Africa, would he not admit that these countries will need European capital to enable them to remain socialist?
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I am even a little doubtful about that.
The Earl of ONSLOW: Why, my Lords?
Lord BROCKWAY: I will tell your Lordships why. I regard Tanzania as the most hopeful development in the whole of Africa, and Tanzania is building a socialism from itself, in the villages, on its own wealth, rather than by depending on capitalist investment from abroad. I think that Tanzania may prove easily to be the guide for the future of independent African countries, rather than those which are dependent upon western finance.
My Lords, we must realise that if these African countries gain their independence, they will reject capitalism, but it will be a form of socialism which will be African. They are terribly sensitive to being unaligned, and not being dependent upon countries outside. When we are tempted to modify our advocacy of racial equality in South Africa because of the fear of communism, we should appreciate that our fear of communism may actually mean that communist countries have greater influence. My Lords, I hope very much that the Amendment proposed will be defeated.
1.48 p.m.
Lord GRIDLEY: My Lords, it gives me pleasure to rise and follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway. I was extremely impressed by his reference to the influence that he might have with the black nationalist leaders who are taking part in the Conference at Geneva at the moment. If the noble Lord is able to persuade them to deal in a statesmanlike way with the problems which face Rhodesia at the moment, it will be an effort which will be well worth while.
On the question of whether there should be a handover to an independent Govern-
912
ment within two years, all of my experience leads me to think that this is the minimum period in which it would be acceptable for a handover to take place, in which some form of sure peace would be established for the peoples of Rhodesia. On that, I can only base the experience of my life, which has been involved in the handover of the British administration to independent governments. This is always a crucial issue in any settlement which one may hope to get. I hope sincerely that the black nationalist leaders will realise that and perhaps President Kenneth Kaunda, who is a statesman in these problems, will use his influence to bear, because I think that the period for that handover is very short indeed.
The noble Lord made one further point. He felt that the Africans would never accept anybody but one of their own nationality to be responsible for law and order. Would the noble Lord, when he takes it up, use what influence he possesses with the nationalists at Geneva in impressing upon them that one of the great difficulties at this time in coming to some form of satisfactory solution of this problem is the fact that we have guerrilla war taking place on the borders of Rhodesia. Surely, therefore, as night follows day, when peace comes and an interim Government is established it will be vitally important to maintain law and order. If law and order are not maintained, old scores will be played off against both the blacks who have helped Mr. Smith's security forces and the whites. It distresses me that the negotiations should be taking place against the background of guerrilla activity which extends along the borders of Rhodesia. If the noble Lord can bring his influence to bear on the nationalist leaders and be helpful to the Conference in that way, I am sure he will do a great service to us all.
I hope sincerely that the noble Marquess will not divide the House on his Motion. While I sympathise with many of the points which he has raised, there are many others with which I disagree. 1 am reassured (if I quote him correctly) that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has said that should the opportunity present itself, Her Majesty's Government will use their best endeavours during these negotiations to try to persuade the black leaders to secure the cessation of guerrilla activity. It reinforces the point which I

913
made earlier in my speech. I should be grateful to the noble Lord if that could be done because we are faced with an extremely serious situation. All the speeches so far in this debate to which I have listened have been made in a very statesmanlike and constructive manner, and I hope that they will continue in that manner to the end.
The noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts, referred to the fact that the black Nationalist leaders had expressed the wish that many of the white Europeans would stay on when majority rule was established and help to secure a peaceful transition to a successful and peaceful form of Government. This wish reinforces my argument about the cessation of guerrilla activity because if anything at this moment disturbs the people of Rhodesia, whites and blacks alike, it is the prospect of what they may face when peace comes to Rhodesia. They wonder whether they will be wiped out or whether they will be penalised for what they have done. They wonder what kind of a condition Rhodesia would be in if law and order were to break down while this guerrilla activity continues. All these aspects of the problem face us in our deliberations.
It is quite inevitable as lands and countries are brought ever nearer to each other by speedy transport and by every other conceivable manner in which we associate ourselves with one another, that there have to be independent Governments. People have to be responsible for the wellbeing of the countries in which they live. As the noble Lord, Lord Pitt of Hampstead, said—and I echo his words—it is impossible to keep down minorities. A minority imposing its will on a majority is impossible in the present circumstances. The world is becoming better educated and people must clearly be made responsible for their own affairs. I hope and pray that the transitional period will be peaceful and that the whites of Rhodesia will play their part, in association with the blacks, in establishing a peaceful form of Government. Therefore, I am sure that none of us will say anything today that will prejudice the Geneva negotiations.
1.55 p.m.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord,
914
Lord Gridley, because I know the sincerity of his interest in the problem. However, I find that a first-class lesson on the value of a bicameral system of government and a first-class lesson to people who write uninformed articles in the Press is that, after strenuous weeks in this House, with all the differences of opinion, some of them legitimately political, it has been magnificent to listen to the constructive speeches that have been made today. There could not have been better information than that which we have had the privilege of listening to in this debate.
I will try not to take too long. I have changed my approach to the speeches. May I, with respect, say to the noble Marquess that, having looked at the semantics of his Amendment I feel I must pay a tribute to the constructive way in which the Amendment, although it is politically and diametrically opposed to my views, has been introduced. However, may I quote the speech of Mr. Ian Smith himself on the night of 24th/25th September from which the noble Baroness opposite has also quoted. I have at different times met Mr. Smith and spoken to him for a number of hours. The colloquial phrase that he used, which was shot through with reality, was that you cannot stop terrorism at the drop of a hat. He used that phrase in his broadcast speech in September. Mr. Smith knows that while these negotiations are going on neither we nor the United Nations have the power to prevent the guerrilla activity. Contrary to military opinion, if we want to stop the guerrilla activity it can be stopped only by demonstrating the 100 per cent. sincerity of our efforts to make a success of the Geneva Conference.
May I also thank my noble friend Lord Brimelow for the delightful, lucid speech which he devoted to Section 2 and pay tribute to the constructive and helpful manner in which it was made. I hope sincerely that we in this House will have the pleasure many times of listening to the noble Lord. I have to confess that before today "Plunket" was, to me, a set of letters on a sheet of paper; but having listened to somebody who made a special journey from this area of the world to make his speech I feel that I must say to him that it was one of the greatest contributions to all the debates that I have ever heard on the Rhodesian problem. I notice that the noble Lord,

915
Lord Plunket, is not in his place, but I am very grateful to him, and his speech will help me to make better analyses and assessments of the Rhodesian problem in the weeks which lie ahead. The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Alport, and of many others have also been of inestimable value.
With that introduction, may I speak of the unique position since 1889 when this area of land belonged to the South African Company. The position since then, with which the noble Lord's family throughout that period has had close contact, is that the British Government never at any period had power inside Rhodesia in the sense that we had power in other colonies. Looking at the time that has passed, I see that there are two principles now which stand out. First, no minority, whatever part of the world it is living in, is entitled to dictate to the majority. Do we accept that? Therefore I think Britain—or better still I should say the United Nations and Ivor Richard, to whom t should like to pay a tribute for getting the discussion off the ground—must endeavour all the time to maintain the debate upon these principles: first, that no minority is entitled to dictate to a majority and, secondly, the real challenge to Mr. Smith in black Africa is neither Cuba nor Russia nor China. The real immediate challenge is on the doorstep and it is the issue of the principle of race and the position of 4,080,000 black people to 240,000 white people. Probably 80 per cent.—it may be more—of the Rhodesian white people see this and want to find a modus operandi for working together in the transition period.
The Six Principles cannot be dropped because if we drop them the logic and the philosophy of them will be there. The first principle of majority rule is enshrined in the 1961 Constitution that we established and it must be maintained. We have to maintain, too, despite the speeches that have been made, any regressive amendments to the Constitution or to any Geneva agreements which are now established. If there is any regressive amendment of guarantees to the black people then there is no hope of the Geneva Conference succeeding. The immediate third principle that we established years ago was for the improvement immediately of the political status of the black Africans.
916
One cannot immediately improve black African economic status but one can improve the political status, as we have seen in this country in the struggle which has been going on for hundreds of years from pre-Chartist and Chartist days. You can improve the political status by—never mind pouring scorn on it—the magic of the vote and giving the opportunity to more people to have a say in their Government. That is the only way in which we can make progress towards ending racial discrimination.
Whatever we say we cannot hide the fact that sections of the Rhodesian Front have entirely different ideas from Dr. Kissinger and from the British Government. The Rhodesians see the expression"one man, one vote"as a qualified franchise, qualified by property, qualified by education, qualified by status and qualified by chieftainhood. I do not want to get into deep water over that. It may be that when we have found a formula the vote may need certain qualifications in its use. We must bear in mind that in this precious treasure of the vote it is very difficult to operate right away a formula in which we can give the sovereignty of Parliament to the people, because in the last analysis the sovereignty of Parliament means the sovereignty of the people.
When Mr. Smith was talking to Dr. Kissinger—and I quote his exact words—Smith said
"Majority rule for us is well shod and one man, one vote".
No matter how we talk we have to remember that that was at the back of Mr. Smith's mind on the day of the agreement on accepting the Kissinger formula. How do we get over that? Worse still was the Foreign Minister, who has already been quoted. Mr. P. K. van der Byl, who echoed Mr. Smith but more deeply when he said,
"I categorically appeal, one man, one vote".
They said that but I think it may have been said in the heat of the moment, because we all say these things when we see that the facts of history and the logic of our existence changes some of our in-bred ideas. Consequently I must make allowances for those things because of the regime, because of the pressures of the world in which we live. The regime of the National Front is obviously coming to its end.

917
What kind of atmosphere do we hope to create at the Geneva Conference? I hope that the report of this debate will be read in Geneva and it will show the sincerity of the efforts of this House to give an honest and fair chance for the Geneva Conference to be a success. Consequently, while of course I have no power in this sense, I sincerely hope that the noble Marquess who moved this Amendment in such a constructive way—and I will use that phrase—will not press this House to yet another Division this week and will allow the Geneva Conference a chance for something to come out of it. It may be that we can have an emergency debate later, when the noble Marquess may look at the position from a different point of view.
I do not want to go into this in too great depth in case I create a prejudice. 1 had the privilege of being on the"Fearless"and I. know the work of the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, who has taken part in all these discussions and who went on a special mission. I will not quote that mission, although I have quite a lot of material about it. At that time I found that, despite our talks and despite the fact that we reached agreement at, say, 8 o'clock at night on the"Fearless"and then talked for a few hours, later in the morning there was a change of opinion. I put that change of opinion down to the fact that in the meantime there had been contact with the National Front back home in Rhodesia and Mr. Smith may not have been completely his own master in those negotiations. I believe him to be his own master now, because I believe he is stronger than he was before, despite sanctions, stronger, perhaps not in the material sense but stronger in the leadership that he gives to the National Front. Consequently, he has more power to help the Geneva Conference to be a success if he thinks we can get a transition that will come somewhere near a constructive approach to the Six Principles.
We must not forget the points of view put forward by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, Mr. Callaghan. Why did the Rhodesia National Front accept these proposals? Because already there are £60 million worth of exports in the pipeline and there is only—and I still maintain this —19 to 20 days supply of oil in Rhodesia at present, or at least when the talks began.
918
Contrary to what a good many people say, in the real things—not merely simple consumer goods—sanctions are having effect. We must remember that under Dr. Kissinger's agreement it appears that the Rhodesian Parliament would not be dissolved but would go into recess. I do not know whether that position can be held but it is certainly being discussed at Geneva.
I want to ask a question. There may be intensive recruitment for a National Front army, while this is going on. Of course I hope I am wrong, but if I am right then I think it will be a blot on the escutcheon of the Geneva Conference. Consequently I hope there will not be that intensification. I was interested to hear the noble Lord, Lord Alport, refer to the Portuguese Revolution.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord permit me to interrupt him? Will he bear in mind what Mr. Mugabe said? He said,"I see no future in the Geneva Conference. The war will go on and, as it goes on, it assumes a definite basis of intensification. The enemy must be completely surrounded".
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, will have time to make his own particular speech with his own idiosyncrasy and colouring. I have already said—and it is no information to anyone—that the war will go on and we have no military power to stop it.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords—
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, will the noble Lord just contain himself? I will quote Peter Jenkins in the Guardian on 5th March, 1976. This is the answer. Mr. Jenkins recalled the agony of powerlessness in the face of tragic slaughter that is now facing Britain. Would the noble Lord withdraw 55,000 troops from Germany? Would he line up a military tactic? We are getting into deep water that we do not want to touch. We do not want to get ourselves involved in that kind of antediluvian troglodyte approach to international affairs in the days of nuclear bombs.

919
Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Greenhill of Harrow, made a point about sanctions. After his visit, the noble Lord brought back from Rhodesia basic information. The noble Lord was informed; he has been responsible for giving information, valuable directions and help to my Government when we were dealing with this problem. The noble Lord's report pointed out that while not suggesting that Mr. Smith was prepared to accept everything put forward at the time, he was on the verge of looking into the possibilities of some system of majority rule. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the noble Lord agreed that Mr. Smith is no longer gripped by the fantasy—and I think these were the exact words—that Rhodesia could go it alone and stand out alone. In other words, on all sides now there is a new approach. I hope that today we shall not destroy the possibilities of that approach. My Lords, I have taken far too long, and I know that 99 per cent. of most of what can he said on this matter has been said in the debate. I just want to say that I consider this debate as being of inestimable value and one which will contribute to the spirit of the Geneva Conference. Therefore I hope we can give more power to Mr. Ivor Richard and that, for this day at least, we shall have no Division. I hope we shall let time, chance and discussion have an opportunity at Geneva.
2.14 p.m.
Lord BARNBY: My Lords, in following the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, and in the pursuit of brevity which is urged upon us, I hope the noble Lord will he indulgent with me if I fail to follow some of his views. There are two main problems under discussion—sanctions and continuing warfare. In the interests of consistency, personally I have opposed sanctions from the first. Therefore, there is regret that in this turgid promenade of annual recurrence in the urging of a sordid and immoral order, we should be called upon now to repeat it. I opposed it in the first instance because of Government service in commercial warfare in part of both the First and Second World Wars. I never believed in sanctions. I never believed they would succeed.
The Foreign Office advised Mr. Wilson in the first place that sanctions would be successful in a few weeks. We are still
920
here today, urging their repetition. Therefore, I find myself in some difficulty, and in a conflict of conscience, whatever may be the fate of the Motion that we are discussing. On the first I have expressed myself about sanctions. On the second, on the grounds of reading history and of personal observation, I cannot but think that the attempt at negotiation of the settlement of a dispute should not carry with it an armistice in warfare, military and economic. I am puzzled.
My Lords, I think there is great perplexity and variance of opinion on the question of haste or delay in the aim of completion of that fundamental point which has been agreed to; that is, that there shall be majority rule in Rhodesia within two years. After all, what is majority rule but black rule? Regard all the other countries in Africa which have majority rule after independence. What is black rule?— a minority clique who have control of the whole organisation. It is for that reason that I have doubts about what haste would bring about. I am convinced that if there was a Marxist State in Rhodesia—Mr. Mugabe has said that he is in favour of it, and he is a negotiator — there would inevitably be violence between the Matabele and the Mashona. If it is for a long period, Rhodesia is a highly developed industrial State with a strong army, which differs from every other State in Southern Africa to which independence has been given. How long would it take to substitute industrial management from an untrained black source?
There is another feature, as many other-noble Lords who know Rhodesia well, like myself, will know. What is one of the dominant factors in life? It is intimidation. There is no getting away from it. What would be the face of the Army, the police, the Civil Service—Africans who have been loyal to the present Administration? We know what has happened. We can take Angola, Mozambique, Somalia and other places in Africa well known to your Lordships. This is not a situation of black versus white. This is Communism against non-Communism, and quite candidly I am among those who fear. The great anxiety is of Russian influence and effect. Look at the power of Russia, and the development of it. Throughout the world her presence is getting more continuous. Only the other

921
day in the Palace of Westminster we had an address from the head of NATO. What did he tell us?—devasting fear about the superiority of Russia's position, both in armaments and in general influence. So I feel that above all there is the danger of a Marxist State, and too hasty an attempt at change of Government.
I am among those who, going about in Africa, believe that Rhodesia has as good treatment for the African as elsewhere in Africa, particularly in agricultural development, as I have said before. Who has been paying for all this swanning about the world of African leaders? They certainly have not got an organised arrangement on a constitutional basis for raising money. The probability is that it is the Russians, paying both for travel and for armaments and warfare. When the piper calls the tune, who pays the cost? So it is that I have great fear about the danger now.
Much has been made of the danger, if we should fail to continue sanctions, of a rupture of international obligations. Look through our history. Have we never gone against what has been believed an international obligation? Why not go boldly with the conviction of the rightness of our line, say to the United Nations: "We have done our part; most others have not done theirs. We are going to call it off ". The Government admit that they have responsibility for Rhodesia as a colonial territory. Are they going to forget that? Surely that gives us authority. Having asked for sanctions in the first place, we can show our intention of bringing this about. The thought is that this may make for great danger in the Conference at Geneva. We all sit here today fully conscious of the delicacy of the situation, the responsibility to avoid doing anything that may imperil it. But I believe it is merely a question of emotion at Geneva. What is the haste? What is 18 months in the life of a nation, for goodness sake? That is not negotiation when the negotiators refuse to proceed with an agenda, insisting on decision about the first point on it. That is not commendable negotiation.
My Lords, there is great concern throughout Africa on the question of blacks versus whites. I conclude, with the indulgence of the House, by reading an extract from the address of Prime Minister
922
Mantazima of the Transkei at the October celebrations. Your Lordships may not have heard it, and with your indulgence I read it:
"Revolution is a concept relatively easy to sell to those who have nothing to lose. Because of this it has proved appealing to an alarming extent in the Third World. The vast disparity between the material welfare of the whites and the blacks all through Africa has afforded Marxists all the evidence they wanted to convince backward people that they have but to take up arms and kill the white man or drive him away to take over his prosperous farms, industries and established way of life. Then their troubles would be over".
I interrupt to say that he referred to his own position:
"We Transkeians are not an ignorant people and have never fallen for this nonsense."
2.25 p.m.
Lord HUNT: My Lords, it is impossible not to follow with deep attention the interventions of Lord Barnby in your Lordships' House, who is greatly loved by very many Members of this House on whatever side, and I hope he will forgive me if I take his excuse on grounds of brevity, even though I might have other reasons, for not following him closely in what he has just said to your Lordships.
My Lords, as Lord Gridley has suggested to us, we are today debating a very serious matter. The seriousness of this matter is evidenced by the long list of speakers and by the very high quality of the speeches to which we have been listening, and among them, like other speakers in your Lordships debate, I should like to pay great tribute to the two maiden speakers, to Lord Brimelow, with the strict, disciplined relevance of everything he had to say to your Lordships, and to Lord Plunket, with the great authority and the great sincerity of his speech, coming straight from the heart, possessing, as he does, a range and a depth of knowledge of his own country which I cannot claim to possess.
I think I share with the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, a sense of some relief, despite the seriousness of the occasion, at being able today to be in a debate, even to the extent of making a speech, which enables us to depart, albeit briefly, from our deep domestic divisions, even if it is to consider our duty and our policy in another very

923
troubled part of the world. I recall speaking in your Lordships' House in that great two-day debate in mid-June 1968, when I had the honour to follow and the difficult task of following the father of the noble Marquess who has put down his Amendment to the principal Motion. That was the time when this Order first came before your Lordships' House. It was one of those historic occasions when, whatever the shortcomings of this House, the House of Lords was at its best. The voting was 193 Not-Contents and 184 Contents; that is to say, nine votes divided a very crowded House and showed how very narrowly we were divided and how deeply we were then concerned, with, I think I remember, quite a number of Conservatives, who were at that time also the Opposition, the Liberal Peers and a great many Cross-Benchers voting with the Government. The result on that occasion the Not-Contents had it—was that that Order was sent back to this House by the Commons and was only approved on that second occasion.
All that, of course, is history, and I mention it to your Lordships at this moment only to make the point that since that memorable occasion, on numerous subsequent occasions—is it seven, eight or nine?—this Order has been laid before your Lordships' House again and reaffirmed without a Division. The essential question today is whether on this occasion, as on that first occasion, we are again going to divide. I make no secret of my feeling, which many speakers have expressed before, that I hope we shall not divide today.
My Lords, we could say a great deal about sanctions. Reference has been made to the generality of sanctions. We could argue, as the noble Lord, Lord Barnby, has, about the morality of sanctions. We can point out the inconsistency and some would call it humbug of imposing sanctions on one State on the grounds of the social injustices in that State while not imposing them on other States whose social injustices are at least as great. We can argue about the effectiveness of sanctions. We can rightly point out, in respect of Rhodesia, that they have not prevented Rhodesia from becoming a threat to world peace, as we see at this moment. We can point to other countries
924
which voted for sanctions in the Security Council and other members of the United Nations which have failed to comply with the sanctions ordered by the United Nations. I agree with a good deal of what has been said in the contrary sense about the value and the propriety of sanctions, but all that, in my submission, is beside the point in this debate.
What we can do is to argue, and we should so argue, about the psychology of maintaining, or lifting, our own British sanctions against Rhodesia at this particular time. The psychology on the participating leaders in Geneva; the psychology on the leaders of Rhodesia's African neighbours; the psychology on opinion in Africa generally, and indeed on world opinion. This is a question that is relevant. It is not a question of what is morally or legally right, but on that plane it is highly relevant, and to lift them—and I agree with everyone else who has spoken in this sense—at this point of time would be disastrous. It would bring the Geneva Conference to an immediate halt. It would step up the intensity of the guerrilla war, and there would be wider repercussions in Africa.
The fundamental point remains today what it was in 1968: whether, on this, what 1 believe to be the ninth occasion, that this order has come before your Lordships' House, the British Parliament should deviate and depart from the consistency which it has maintained all through these years in abiding by a resolution made by the United Nations, by breaking faith and abandoning an international obligation now. Now, my Lords; not in a few weeks' or a few months' time when, hopefully, agreement may have been reached from the Geneva talks and an interim Government set up, but immediately now.
We are living in a world and living in a time when I, for one, am very uncertain about a number of things. Some of them which pose questions of what is prudent; others of what is relevant and what is expedient; and others again of what is morally right. I have never felt more sure about what is right on both counts than on this occasion about this issue. Unlike a number of domestic issues during the past few weeks when I have agreed to disagree with the Government, I totally agree with the principal Motion before your Lordships' House today.
2.33 p.m.
Baroness VICKERS: My Lords, I think it is an honour to be able to take part in this debate, although I am rather nervous in view of there being so many experts speaking today. I was pleased to hear the noble Lord, Lord GoronwyRoberts, confirm what I heard on the radio this morning, that this Conference is making some progress. We wish Mr. Ivor Richard every success. He has an extremely difficult task. But I should like to suggest to the noble Lord that perhaps he might be able to go out there to have some informal talks, as we heard the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, suggest. The noble Lord is not here, but I should like to place on record my appreciation of his speech. There are many important and distinguished people out there, and, as Africans appreciate, being presidents themselves, meeting chiefs, to send a chief from this House, if I may put it that way, will show our interest and sympathy in what is going on and might be helpful.
My reason for taking part in this debate is that I was for many years chairman of the East and Central Africa Committee of the Conservative Party in the other House, and also as early as 1951 I went out to East and Central Africa to start work on behalf of the blind. Therefore, I have kept in contact with the States. I went to Rhodesia at that time, mostly to learn about it and not to start it because it was already started; but I had an opportunity to see people of all races when they were in England, to help with their training and also to have them stay with me many times.
May I pay tribute to Mr. Macmillan. I think that he was the first person to realise what was happening when he made his "wind of change" speech. If we had all paid slightly more attention to that speech things might not have been so difficult today. I should also like to pay tribute to Mr. Garfield Todd, to Lord Malvern, who, as Sir Godfrey Huggins, I suppose, when he was a doctor, brought more black and white babies into the world than any other Prime Minister, and also to Sir Roy Welensky, and finally I should like to mention Mr. Ian Smith. Whatever you may think of his political views, he has lived up to his traditions and kept his country peaceful over all these years.
926
I hope that the very many distinguished Africans at the Conference will consider —and this is very important—that Mr. Ian Smith was truthful and sincere in his contribution to the six points in his declaration of 24th September. This was approved, as I understand it, by Mr. Vorster and Dr. Kissinger, who both assured him, 1 understand, (and perhaps the noble Lord will tell me if I am wrong) that they were acceptable to the five Front-Line Presidents. I also believe that the present Government gave—and I think Mr. Smith believes this—Dr. Kissinger carte blanche and real authority to negotiate. As we all know, we have had the Presidential elections, and I do not know—and should like to be informed —whether Dr. Kissinger is going to be allowed to carry on, or who may be appointed in his place. I agree with the previous speaker that we still need outside influence and outside powers to help us, and of course America has been very helpful in the past.
I also recognise, as has been recognised by other noble Lords today, that since 1923 Rhodesia has been independent, and we have had no real jurisdiction over her since 1965. One of the unfortunate mistakes in the past has been that the black upper middle class—the group which could have been a force for progressive moderation—have in the past 11 years suffered from frustration, and have therefore become apathetic, suspicious and resentful. I should like to refer to a letter which was written by Lord Home when he was Foreign Secretary, and appears in his book. He said:
"Anyone can give a country independence without worrying about the result; but if the aim is to launch a nation in which there is law and order, tolerance and justice, a nation which is capable of surviving economically and conducting its foreign relations according to the code of the good neighbour, it all becomes much more complicated. I confess I am not satisfied that freedom is everything and the rest nothing. If, therefore, we are to fulfil our trust to these people, we must try to give them independence where they have a chance, at any rate, of making it work to their profit and credit."
That is a very wise letter. I think that if the people I have mentioned just now, the Africans of the middle class and particularly the upper middle class—and some of them are quite wealthy in their own right—had supported Lord Home, the Pearce Commission might have been successful. But regrettably the

927
opportunity for giving a truly multiracial society was lost at that moment.
This is perhaps a final chance for Rhodesia, because I think it is also a marvellous opportunity for the future of Zimbabwe to lead the whole of Africa in regard to managing their own country, and to running in future a multiracial country which can flourish and provide a friendly atmosphere. I am saying this because, as some noble Lords may know, I was in Malaysia for many years, and in Malaysia they waited a number of years. They had a multiracial society and they also had guerrilla warfare. They were very patient and they waited a number of years until they found it was safe enough to be granted independence. They did it in a gradual way, making the 11 States independent within themselves first, before they had federation. I am suggesting that this might he a good subject to be studied by the Africans now.
I hope that all concerned will realise that this is likely to be the last chance of getting a peaceful settlement without interference. I do not believe that the people there want to exchange their present way of life for a different way of life and, in this connection, I quote from Karl Marx in the New York Tribune in 1853:
"Russia may seem deeply and obstinately attached to certain fixed ideas; but, as soon as the other powers resist in a determined and united way, they find that Russia accepts a modest retreat."
I do not know whether that is quite so true in this day and age as it was in 1853, but I think there is substance in that remark which might be considered at the Conference; in other words, they should all get together and resist what I am sure none of them wants, and that is a different type of regime, or a Marxist type of regime, in their country.
We must remember that on the Borders are 7,000 to 10,000 Soviet-trained guerrillas and that of the 47 other Members of the OAU, very few have a real democracy. Since 1965 there have been 98 coup d'etat or attempts at coup d'etat in the various African countries and I suggest that the Rhodesians want to avoid that. Regrettably, there is a top expert in Lusaka of the Soviets, an ambassador whose name is Vasile Solodovni Kov, and one realises that he is not there just as an onlooker.
928
Although one does not want to make too much of this, it is essential that those at the Conference realise that this may be their last chance to have a united Rhodesia or Zimbabwe and that they have an opportunity to take part in achieving that.
I conclude, my Lords, with a little poem or saying that is to be found over the porch at the entrance to the Cathedral of St. Mary and All Saints in Salisbury:
"When I was a child I laughed and wept,
Time crept;
When I was a youth I dreamed and talked,
Time walked;
When I became a full grown man,
Time ran;
And later when I older grew,
Time flew;
Soon I shall find when travelling on,
Time gone".
Below it are the words:
"May Christ have saved my soul by then, Amen".
There is today a chance for everybody in Rhodesia to save themselves if they get together and work for the future of their country. I hope that this debate will be of help to them by showing that we take a real interest in their welfare and that we are looking forward, perhaps in the New Year, to finding in Africa something really worth while that other States will wish to copy.
2.44 p.m.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, this debate has been decorated by two notable maiden speeches and although, for reasons I shall give, I did not agree with them, I am sure that I speak for all noble Lords when I say that we admired not only the speeches but that we admired and liked the men.
I speak as an unrepentant Imperialist. I believe that the British Empire served mankind well and that its premature demise has been a human tragedy. I remember telling myself when this terrible rift with Rhodesia happened that Rhodesians had come across the world, with a unanimity which was as gallant as it was unselfish, to help us in times of trouble, and I wish to see that rift breached. When UDI was declared there seemed difficulty of communication and Sir Godfrey Nicolson and I went to Salisbury with the hope of being able to open communications and find some policy that could bring us together.

929
Certainly at that time nobody on any side was thinking of majority rule in terms of one man one vote, which, in Africa, means one man votes once and then there is a Fascist State. No African Government has ever lost an election. In Africa, we find as a result of this one man one vote system, racial States, one Party States or military dictatorships with opposition unlawful. That was certainly not the kind of fate which any of us wished to impose on Rhodesia. The idea was far more the original Rhodes idea—equality for all civilised men—and the question was how to get the education which would build up the African majority until it also became the majority of civilised man.
I put forward a proposal to Mr. Smith; it was that since the Rhodesians were devoting the second largest item of their budget to African education, we should devote a similar amount to secondary education to bring forward the Africans and that there should he an agreed qualification which would have the effect of leaving us with a majority of African voters within 10 or 12 years. That suggestion was approved by Mr. Smith and I brought it back and discussed it with Sir Harold, but at that time he took the view that UDI must be cancelled first—it was a matter of amour-propre—and the proposal came to nothing.
I was opposed to UDI at that time but, in retrospect, I think it has justified itself for a number of reasons. It has provided 12 years of what one might call Roman civilisation at a time when we in our decadence have not been of much help to anybody and I doubt whether we could have been of much help to them. It has lifted Rhodesia out of a one-crop economy into an economy of great diversity and success. It has created a sense of nationhood which certainly did not exist prior to it and, above everything, although the African advance has not been anything like as much as if we had been contributing instead of obstructing, it has nevertheless been very remarkable indeed.
When the noble Lord, Lord Alport, who I regret is not in his place, said that the majority of educated Rhodesian Africans had emigrated, 1 thought that he was talking terrible nonsense. The majority of educated Rhodesian Africans
930
are forming the majority of the Army, which is successfully defeating the guerrillas when they meet. The majority of the Civil Service, the men such as those to whom the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, referred, are running the estates; and as for men of business, it is probably an exaggeration to say that 1 per cent. of them have emigrated, and probably they are not the 1 per cent. who would contribute most to a healing Government.
That was the situation until the Portuguese collapsed and the Russians moved into Mozambique and Angola. That very much changed the situation because the Africans were no longer those whom the Rhodesian system, the education and the development of a civilised country, were bringing forward. They were the new Africans, the Africans whom the Communists had brought forward, armed and trained as guerrillas. These are the Africans or those who try to speak to them, who are now appearing at Geneva. I cannot myself share the optimism that has been expressed. The Geneva Conference very much reminds me of a description by Gibbon, which I give imprecisely. He was describing a session of the Senate at the end of the 4th century. He said:
"The opinions of the Senators were not weighed in accordance with their knowledge, their experience or their fame, but in accordance with their supposed claimed or pretended influence amongst the barbarian soldiers in the Praetorian camp."
Surely, that is just what is happening at Geneva. The claims of these gentlemen there are directed to saying, "We do not speak for reason, we speak for the guerrillas who are going to settle this matter". Look what Mr. Mugabe has been saying almost day by day. On 13th October he said,
"I can see no future in the Geneva Conference at all. The war will go on and as it goes on it assumes definite phases of intensification. The enemy must surrender completely. When we control Rhodesia we will nationalise the land and mobilise the masses to control the economy."
He went on to say that if the Kissinger proposals gained 100 per cent. black membership of Parliament, he would not accept them unless there was total destruction of the Rhodesian Army and replacement by ZAN U forces. On 20th October, he went on:
"In Zimbabwe none of the white exploiters will be allowed to keep an acre of land."

931
Again, on 21st October, he said that he would stage a series of war crime trials and that those who had served the Smith regime would be brought before his courts.
Is this the kind of thing that we wish to support? Yet these are the things which have been said and are being said in Geneva by the African leaders in order to appeal to the power that comes out of the Russian guns across the Border. I must say that I can find very little hope in this. I cannot see that Geneva will be able to deliver the primary condition laid down by the Prime Minister, the condition that there shall be peace and security during a transition period. There just is not anybody there who can deliver the goods.
Surely this is the fatal error which we have met so often. It is the error of trying for a political solution before one has a military solution. We were able to provide the foundations for a successful and peaceful society in Kenya. We owed that above anything to General Urquhart and the troops who crushed the Mau Mau. If that had not happened there would have been nothing but tribal anarchy. Exactly the same is true of Malaysia. Malaysia is a pretty successful State but again it is founded on Templer's success, on the military solution, the destruction of the guerrillas. The opposite we have seen in Cyprus and Ulster, where we tried for political solutions without first gaining that military foundation. Today, nobody can give the Prime Minister's assurance that there will be reasonable peace and security during a transition period. Nobody can disarm the guerrillas for they hold the Russian guns. Rex Nhongo and ZIPA are not in Geneva and have no intention of going there.
It the guerrillas win, the civilised Africans will die. Do not let us deceive ourselves on this. African Communist tactics will be no different from European Communist tactics, I had to go through the execution orders of the Russian squads that went into the Baltic States. Every trade union official, every teacher, everybody with secondary level education was to be executed—and they were. The whole middle class was exterminated. In the same way, the officers of the Polish Army were exterminated. When Mugabe talks, he talks the straight Communist principle and practice. The people I have mentioned are the people who w ill suffer
932
if we run away or if we go on preventing the Rhodesians from defending themselves.
Dr. Kissinger forced terms on Southern Africa which probably went further than was wise but they were accepted. We should back those terms. The document which was put before Mr. Smith had been put before us. We saw the terms: we accepted them and we welcomed their acceptance. Either we must back them or we must recognise our impotence and go. Smith has accepted our terms. We have not the slightest evidence that he has gone back on them. We are the people who have gone back and so long as he stands on those terms I cannot see how we can honourably continue to impose sanctions against his regime. For my part I shall certainly find myself in the Lobby of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury.
2.58 p.m.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I should find it extremely easy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Paget, but I shall not do so because I should be repetitive. If the Amendment comes to a Division, I shall certainly vote for it. If I did not, it would be inconsistent of me; and, not being a professional politician, I have to he consistent. I have always voted against the sanctions order and I should like to tell your Lordships why. In the first place, I have always been convinced that sanctions were illegal under international law. If we study the United Nations Charter, Article 2(7) says,
"shall not interfere in matters of domestic jurisdiction."
Clause 36 says,
"shall not interfere in the internal affairs of any country."
I am please to see the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, opposite. I call him my noble friend socially, but I am afraid that I cannot call him my noble friend politically. The noble Lord at the time said that Rhodesia was a British colony and therefore Parliament was responsible for its people. But, as we have heard today, Rhodesia in fact never has been a British colony. It had internal self-government from 1923 and before that was administered by the British South Africa Company. There are many lawyers who agree with

933
this position. One of the most notable was the ex-American Secretary of State, Mr. Dean Acheson.
I said that I was not going to be repetitive of the noble Lord who has just sat down, but perhaps the House will forgive me if I am slightly repetitive here. Mr. Dean Acheson, addressing the American Bar Association in 1968, said:
"It will surprise some of my fellow citizens, although hardly anybody here, to be told that the USA is today engaged on an international conspiracy instigated by Britain and blessed by the United Nations to overthrow the Government of a country that has done us no harm and threatens no one. That is bare-faced aggression, unprovoked and unjustified by a single legal or moral principle."
That is the chief reason why I have always voted against sanctions. The other reason was expressed by, among others, the late, much respected Lord Silkin, the well-known Socialist Minister of Town and Country Planning. He said that sanctions were a completely barren policy, as many others have said, because they will hurt the Africans more than they will hurt the European peoples. I agree with him there.
My Lords, may I refer for a moment to the so-called package deal? I, like other noble Lords, understood that Mr. Smith had accepted a package deal from Dr. Kissinger backed up by Dr. Vorster and also (if we can take the Foreign Office statement at that time that we have had quoted in this House) certainly backed up by the Foreign Office; and nobody at the time denied it. The main points of the package were that the Rhodesian Government was to accept majority rule in two years' time. That is a real breakthrough of some importance. In the meantime there would be an interim Government, with control of law and order and defence in white hands. I presume that meant in Rhodesian Government hands. The other point was the Council of State, which would be 50 per cent. black and 50 per cent. white. During that period of two years a Constitution was to be worked out. But that appears to me to be "THE" basis of negotiation, not "a" basis. It appears now to have become "a" basis; but surely, if we are to be honourable, it was "the" basis.
When we come to majority rule (and we have had quite a lot of debate about
934
majority rule) there may be some confusion here. I do not know whether Mr. Smith accepted majority rule or responsible majority rule; but I am quite sure that Her Majesty's Government would not want irresponsible majority rule. We must remember that the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, said in his maiden speech, on which I congratulate him, that we have had a population explosion in Rhodesia. I understand that the present population of the Africans is about six million of which three-quarters are under twenty years old. What is majority rule going to mean? Who is going to have the vote? Will all over 18 or over 16 have the vote? There must be—and I sincerely hope there is—some satisfactory system worked out, anyway initially, to see that majority rule is responsible rule. 1 do not think that anyone would object—I am sure none would in this House or in the other place or in Rhodesia—if we had majority, responsible, black rule; but it must be responsible.
The noble Lord, Lord Paget, said that "One man, one vote" in Africa has always meant up to now—perhaps there is the exception of Botswana—"One vote only, for once." You do get a fascist Government. I am not saying there are not good African Governments. There are one or two good ones. There is one in Malawi, one in Botswana and one in Zambia; but not according to the principle that we always hoped for: one man one vote. I would not blame the Africans for this. After all, human life started in Africa long before it did in Europe. I would blame our post-war politicians, no doubt backed up by one or two of the permanent officials, who tried to foist on to the Africans a completely alien form of government and constitution which they find difficult to understand. I would not blame the Africans for that at all: I would blame ourselves.
My Lords, we must look at the consequences of this. If "one man one vote" in Rhodesia is to mean a completely unqualified vote, it would appear to me that Rhodesia will probably dissolve into anarchy, unless the British Government are to have a presence there—and 1 do not mean only a Governor or a representative. I think they will have to have a presence with troops. Where they will get the troops from I do not know; but presumably they will have to get them from our

935
commitment to NATO if we do not want to happen in Rhodesia what happened in Mozambique. In Mozambique, I am told agricultural production has gone to absolutely nothing. There is real famine and starvation there. Under the Portuguese they produced on the open market 30,000 tons of groundnuts. This has now gone down to 500 tons. They used to produce 15,000 tons of rice and it is now 1,000 tons. This state of affairs is deplorable. I ask the Government to try to play a stronger part in these negotiations. It would be disastrous if this extremely developed country Rhodesia was to become like Mozambique. It is also important that defence and law and order remains in white hands for the interim period.
We are inclined to forget that over half the police force and armed forces in Rhodesia are black. They are loyal Africans. When there is majority rule of the Africans, we should ensure that the Africans who have been loyal to the Rhodesian Government in the armed forces, the police and other spheres are not butchered or have to flee the country. If only Her Majesty's Government will play their cards in a stronger capacity, the day may be saved. In the case of Nigeria there has been a great disappointment in Africa. We hoped that would be all right, but what has happened there and in Uganda and other places has been most unsatisfactory. I beg the Government to try to recapture this will to govern which British Governments appear to have lost. Can we not try during this interim period to recapture for a short time the will to govern?
It seems extraordinary that there are negotiations with one of the parties who claim to head the terrorist organisations with whom the other party is fighting. I agree that you cannot call guerrilla warfare off in a day as easily as with a disciplined Regular Army. It seems extraordinary that the Government still give aid to countries harbouring guerrillas. We all wish for responsible African government in Rhodesia. There are plenty of moderate Africans in Rhodesia. Years ago I remember asking the Government why the BBC interviewed only the nationalist leaders, the firebrands. There are plenty of moderate Africans who want to appear on our news media but are rarely
936
allowed to do so. The Government gave us the usual answer that they have no control over the BBC. We ought to support the moderate Africans. My Lords, I have overstayed my time and I am sorry. However, I feel very strongly about this matter.
3.14 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, one of the few big disappointments of my life was when I failed with the then Commonwealth Secretary, Mr. Bottomley, to persuade Mr. Smith not to make a unilateral declaration of independence. There were a number of things in relation to today's debate that I wanted to say. However, we have had a long week. I sense that the House really wants to come to a conclusion. A great many of the things I should have said have been said already, and certainly better than I should have said them. When it came to the 17th speaker—I am the 19th—no-one except the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, had asked the House to support the Amendment. I quite decided that I should not say anything, but my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton, who was the 17th speaker and who was the first to make that suggestion, wisely or not has stimulated me. I understand it is his view that there should be a military solution. I rather gathered that he would have favoured our sending either armaments or troops to overcome the guerrillas—
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will permit me—no: merely that we should let Smith do it without obstructing him.
Lord GARDINER: I wondered whether my noble friend had noticed that in The Times yesterday there was a report of what Senator Clark had said—he being the chairman of the Carter Committee, the Senate Committee on African countries. According to The Times, he pointed out that the new Government was free of commitments. He said:
"The new government should take a frank position in favour of armed struggle if all other negotiated settlements fail'."
The report went on to say:
"If the Geneva Conference collapsed, the nationalists had 'no choice' but to continue fighting."
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, if the noble and learned Lord will allow me to intervene, may 1 point out that he referred to the "Carter Chairman" of the Senate Committee. Of course, he is nothing of the kind. He is simply the chairman of the Democratic Foreign Affairs Committee in the Senate. Surely one can attach too much importance to the utterances of itinerant senators. Would it not be better to go straight to the horse's mouth? —because President-elect Carter himself is on record as having said that economic sanctions are counter-productive.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I do not go further than The Times report, which was headed:
"US urged to support guerrillas if talks fail".
It begins:
"United States Senator Dick Clark said today the new Carter Administration should support guerrilla war in Rhodesia if all attempts to negotiate a settlement failed."
Then he said what I have already reported. So I wondered whether my noble friend Lord Paget of Northampton really meant what he said, because, if so, it would probably be the first time since the War of Independence that British and American troops might be facing one another in a second Vietnam—
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, since 1812.
Lord GARDINER: Since 1812: I am much obliged, my Lords. But I am not going to break my own good resolution and, apart from congratulating our two maiden speakers, as I most warmly do, I hope that this House will soon be allowed to come to a decision.
3.18 p.m.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: My Lords, when I entered the Chamber today I received a little note from the Chief Government Whip, requesting that all speeches should be limited to 10 minutes. I have looked at the times; I am the 20th speaker and there have been four transgressors, not from any one side, and it would ill-become me to be the fifth. Therefore, I assure your Lordships that I shall be brief. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said in his opening remarks that we could not run the Geneva Conference from this House. That is true; but he was good enough to go on to
938
say that all that was said in your Lordships' House would be noted both by Her Majesty's Government and by Geneva. There are, of course, issues which have been touched on today which cannot be left to Geneva but for which Her Majesty's Government are, and must remain, responsible. For a very few moments, therefore, I want to speak on one of those and then have one word speaking for myself, on the question of dividing on the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Salisbury.
The point I wish to speak about concerns the result of the failure of the Smith Government in leaving Rhodesia unprepared and untrained as regards administrative responsibility for running an independent Rhodesia. There are no commissioned Africans in the police or in the armed forces. There are no Africans in the higher posts of the Civil Service or the Judiciary. If during the transitional period the whites elect to leave, partial chaos will result. The regimental sergeant major of today may be the GOC of the Forces tomorrow. And when independence conies, there is an acute danger of a leadership struggle and tribal conflicts—
Lord ALPORT: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord for just one moment? I do not want to prolong his speech, because I am one of those who spoke for longer than I should have done. But he will recognise that exactly the same position existed in the other British colonies when we gave them independence.
Lord BALFOUR of INCHRYE: Yes, my Lords, but I was dealing particularly with the issue which we are debating today. In the limited time available, I will not be led astray. Her Majesty's Government have a real responsibility to those Africans who are not politically active, and who have no voice to speak for their welfare and their interests, and they must not be betrayed by Her Majesty's Government's not assuming the full responsibilities which are theirs as regards those Africans. That is why my plea tonight is that Her Majesty's Government must stand by that part of the Kissinger package deal that provides for the Armed Forces, the police and internal security to be reserved, and not handed over unconditionally during the transitional period.

939
The other point on which I want to touch is the question of dividing. It is for the noble Marquess to decide whether or not he divides. But to me it is intolerable that we are asked to continue sanctions on the one hand, and that on the other there has been no clear, positive, definite denunciation, to the specific territories responsible, of guerrilla warfare and of promises of its intensification which have been made by those who are negotiating today in Geneva. We put sanctions on those whom we are allowing to be murdered by terrorist forces, encouraged by the same leaders with whom we are negotiating in Geneva. That contradiction would drive me into the Division Lobby against the Government.
I do not want to see a Division in your Lordships' House on this matter, but the responsibility of a Division will rest upon the Minister when he replies, and not upon individual Members. If the Minister will respond by saying, "Yes, individually, those countries are to be blamed and will be, if not reprimanded, at any rate admonished and requested to consider suspension during the period of Geneva ", then I sincerely hope that the noble Marquess will not divide. But if the Minister will not say something broadly on those lines, I am suggesting that if the noble Marquess considers a Division necessary I could not but follow him in the failure of the Minister to make that clear denunciation.
3.24 p.m.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I am in total agreement with the just compliments paid to the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, and the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, on their maiden speeches, and for the sake of brevity I shall say no more. The Greek kingdom of Oxiana lasted for 200 years, the treaties which ended the Napoleonic wars helped to keep Europe generally at peace for 100 years, and the peace at Versailles in 1919 ensured that Europe blazed up 20 years later. What had an Alexandrine General and Castlereagh in common? What did Clemenceau and Ian Smith have in common? Alexander and Castlereagh understood that it was imperative for a victor to make a generous peace and to allow the defeated their pride. Clemenceau and Smith, when in positions of absolute power, failed to do this. It is only too
940
clear, my Lords, that the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, is far nearer in his views to Alexander the Great than to those of Clemenceau.
The settlers' persistent drift to the hard, unforgiving right has increased the bitterness of the African Rhodesians. They have been humiliated: they have consequently moved to take up more extreme positions, and now the task of Mr. Richard is made infinitely more difficult. It is never easy to make hard, bigoted and bitter men compromise. The Europeans in Rhodesia have made Mr. Mugabe bitter and bigoted. Lord Paget has illustrated that. They have made Bishop Muzorewa bitter; they have made Messrs. Sithole and Nkomo hard. So would we, if we had been subjected to humiliation heaped upon us by an arrogant settler population.
It is essential to separate in our minds the political neanderthalism of the Europeans in Rhodesia from the very real economic and technical achievements. Somehow that achievement has to be preserved and accessible to all, and somehow the neanderthalism must become as extinct as Neanderthal man. Sanctions have brought Mr. Smith to the negotiating table—not our sanctions, but those applied by the South African Government. Would it not look extraordinarily odd if this House were to remove sanctions from Rhodesia when South Africa is applying some? Would it not look even odder, when this House has spent the last six weeks or so sending back to another place Amendments to Bills which we think enhance the rights of individuals and help to preserve people's liberties? I mention but two, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill clauses on industrial democracy and the mutilation of the Docks Bill, so as to stop the exploitation by the strongest part of a strong union of the weaker part of that union and other unions. How can we then take any pressure off Mr. Smith who, as all of us know, is as stubborn in the defence of his privileges as dockers are of theirs? I hope the noble Marquess will not force me to vote for the Government this afternoon.
3.28 p.m.
Lord CARADON: My Lords, it is much too late to indulge in personal reminiscence, but three recollections come

941
to me as we listen to this debate today. It is a very remarkable debate. First, it was in 1962 that I was an Ambassador at the United Nations, and I recommended to the Government at that time that African leaders should participate in a constitutional conference. I pressed the case for their participation on the Ministers at that time. It was rejected and I resigned. I did not feel that I could speak in the United Nations for my country if we were not to give an opportunity for African leaders to participate in the planning of the future.
That was nearly 15 years ago. Had it been adopted at that time, we would have had a very different situation from the situation we have now, when we have the illegal regime negotiating with the people whom they have exiled or interned.
The second recollection that comes to my mind is when I had the privilege of proposing the resolution in the Security Council imposing sanctions against the illegal regime, and I worked then to get unanimity. It was not easy to obtain. There was African opinion and Asian opinion, American opinion and Russian opinion; we worked together to get a unanimous decision. I believe that we were right to attempt to get it. The alternative of military intervention has been spoken of today. I have never been in favour of violence on one side or the other. We believed that agreement could be obtained by other methods, and I still think so. We did then work for agreement and I hope it is recognised by everybody in the House—the noble Baroness has made this clear to us—that when we participate in a mandatory decision of the Security Council we are bound by that decision. The specific obligation which we undertake when we go to the United Nations is that we shall carry out the mandatory decisions, particularly when they are unanimous, of the Security Council. It is not for us, at the whim of Members of either this House or the other, to say that we will or we will not remove or continue to impose sanctions. If we wish to remove them we shall have to persuade our colleagues—not only the Africans but also the Europeans, the Americans, the Canadians and everybody who voted originally for the Resolution; and they are not likely to go back upon it. It is worth remembering our international
942
obligation. My noble friend is proposing that we should show contempt for the principal international obligation that we have accepted in the modern world.
My third recollection would be that I have spoken in such debates on either this side of the House or the other for a matter of 10 years or so. I do not remember any more important debate than this. I cannot think of any time over those years when it was so important that we should not give support to the illegal regime, that we should not cause a breakdown in the possibility of agreement and that we should not wrongly start what I believe would be started if this vote took place today; namely, a racial war in Southern Africa which would destroy Southern Africa and involve the whole world. I go back to those recollections.
I wish also to say a word about majority rule, which has become the catch-phrase. I have never liked it. "Majority rule" suggests that it is the majority who are wishing to rule over the minority. I do not believe in it. I believe in a system, much abused in this House, of one man, one vote. I have had some experience of these matters. The restricted franchise is a delusion. To say that a man becomes capable of participating in the affairs of his country if he earns £300 a year but that if he earns £280 he should take no part in them is insulting and ridiculous. My experience is that the illiterate Jamaican or Nigerian villager is just as capable as I am or any Member of this House of deciding whom he wants to speak for him. He has a right to decide whether this or that man shall speak for him.
I hope that we are now moving to the time when there will be free elections throughout Rhodesia on the basis of one man, one vote, without distinction. It is the only sensible and tolerable system. To speak about the restricted franchise is to seek to destroy the genuine will of people who are perfectly entitled to participate in the running of their own countries.
Reference has been made in our debate to the British obligation. Some Members of this House do not feel any sense of British obligation. I certainly do, whether it is in Cyprus, or in the Middle East or in Southern Africa. There we have a clear obligation and responsibility and I hope that we shall not run away from it.

943
I am quite prepared, as we all are, to think about proposals on how this might take place, as put forward to us by the noble Lord, Lord Alport. There are all kinds of ways in which it could be done, but it is nonsense to imagine that on the great issues that are still to be decided in Geneva easy accommodations can be made, however good the chairman may be. I should like to pay my special tribute to Mr. Ivor Richard who, in tackling an almost impossible task, has shown great skill and persistence. His experience at the United Nations, where he is very highly regarded, has made him the right man for the post, and it was wrong to suggest that anybody else should take over from him the chairmanship of the Conference.
We must proceed, thereafter, to take our full share, and, when we look at the range, I also have some experience of the range of the things which have to be dealt with in the year before independence—economic, political and military. To suggest that the Smith regime can ever hand over to the rebel leaders in the interim is ridiculous. To suggest that the rebel leaders could continue to accept the rule of those against whom they have been fighting is ridiculous. These things cannot be resolved unless there is some independent authority who will step in. It is difficult, of course. Of course there is risk, and it might even break down.
I think the final point in the minds of every Member of this House today is that if it does break down in Geneva and if it breaks down subsequently in the year or more that is required in Rhodesia itself, the prospect for Rhodesia is appalling. The other day I flew from Lusaka to Salisbury and saw the beauty of the countryside and all the work that has been done in Salisbury itself. I thought to myself, surely this is not an obstacle to be destroyed; it is a prize to be won. We have a chance to win it now and we are going to throw it away because at the last moment a proposal is put to us which will destroy the Rhodesia Conference immediately and, worse still, will plunge Rhodesia into the worst state it has yet known, with no foreseeable prospect of coming out successfully.
Of course we should be prepared to take risks and of course we should be prepared to face the dangers. We with others—
944
anyone who is prepared to help—but it needs an independent initiative. When we look back in future years at a race war in Africa, involving the whole world and playing into the hands of those who politically we may object to, we may look back and remember today and remember that we were asked to destroy the Conference, to destroy Rhodesia and to destroy the good name of this country.
3.37 p.m.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Caradon, said that we had no free will in this matter; that we were bound by mandatory sanctions. I do not share that view. I always believe that sanctions are an ineffective, uncivilised international weapon and in particular, in the country where we are all hoping to establish a multiracial community, they are a very unsatisfactory preliminary in endeavouring to develop that community. They distort the economy: the wealthy can evade them the poor are denied the opportunity of progress.
At this moment I am very concerned about the future of the hundreds of thousands—indeed the millions—of non-tribal Africans. Up to date 1,500 men, women and children have been murdered by terrorists in Rhodesia. All but a tiny few have been tribal Africans.
When Dr. Kissinger put forward his six proposals he gave a categorical assurance:
"As soon as the necessary preliminaries have been carried out sanctions will be lifted and there will be a cessation of terrorism."
Those who represent the terrorists have said that they will not pay attention to that but they will intensify the campaign of terrorism, and in the last few days that campaign has been intensified. Opening the debate the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, said that the continuance of guerrilla warfare after the opening of the Conference is a tragedy. But what are we going to do about it? I know we are powerless; we are poverty-stricken. What are we going to do about this? This is how I address myself to this debate.
If we cannot get terrorism suspended, then we must use the argument for suspension of sanctions. I ask the noble Lord when he replies to address himself

945
to this. It is no good saying it is a tragedy. What are the British Government with their weak power going to do about this?—because the lives and future of these tribal Africans depend on it. It is not merely the murder, but also the rape and the torture that is going on.
May I just emphasise one other side of the sanctions? I am concerned that 11 years of sanctions have made fewer tribal Africans, fewer black Africans, ready to take the responsibilities of Government. Ten years ago nearly to the day, in the other place I advocated a crash programme of secondary education, with Britain and Rhodesia spending matching contributions in order to prepare the Africans for their responsibilities. Unfortunately that suggestion was not adopted. If it had been, the problems would have been very much easier today. Let us beware when we are dealing with differing points of view that we do not aid those who want to see this Conference fail, and who want to see Rhodesia following in the wake of Angola, with a disrupted economy and large massacres in tribal warfare. That is our responsibility. We are powerless in money at present, but we still have some influence. I beg Her Majesty's Government to use that influence in the interests of the tribal Africans and against the terrorists.
3.43 p.m.
Lord WALSTON: My Lords, may I begin by apologising for not being here at the beginning of the debate. This was not due to any discourtesy or lack of willingness to be here, but there were circumstances beyond my control. Therefore, I missed the opening speech of the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and several other speakers, but I think I know fairly well what has been said, and the general line that has been taken in the debate.
My Lords, of course nobody can possibly suggest that the noble Marquess and those who support him in this Amendment are motivated by anything other than the most loyal, devoted and highest motives. But, with the greatest respect to the noble Marquess and to his friends, I would say that what they are attempting to do today can only show a complete blindness to the real state of affairs existing today, and which has existed
946
for many years, in the whole of Southern Africa. They are not alone in their blindness; it has been shared by many others in this country and elsewhere, alas! It was shared in particular by Mr. Vorster and his friends in South Africa for far too many years. It was always within their power to bring the Smith regime to an end years ago, simply by cutting off petrol supplies. Yet they would not do it, because they felt as the noble Marquess and his frends feel. It required the joint efforts of those two rather curious allies—or bedfellows shall I call them?— in the last few months to open the eyes of Mr. Vorster, the two doctors, Dr. Kissinger and Dr. Castro; and of the two, I believe that Dr. Castro has been the strongest influence, because it was not until Cuban troops appeared in Angola that South Africa really understood what the eventual implications of the campaign, if one can call it that, in Southern Africa meant.
In spite of détente—and we all wish détente success—we must not close our eyes to the fact that there are three ideologies in this world today and they can never agree with each other. There is the Chinese ideology, the Soviet Union's ideology and the ideology of the Western World; and there is an inevitable conflict between those three, a conflict which we hope will not become an armed conflict but which none the less is a very real conflict. And Africa is one of those areas where this conflict is being fought out.
What do we want in Africa? I am deliberately not mentioning any of the moral aspects, the reasons of responsibility of this country towards a former colony, territory, call it what you like. They are strong aspects, but I am not mentioning those. I am looking at it purely from the materialistic point of view of how best to preserve Western values in a world which is threatened in the way that it is. How can we best preserve those in Southern Africa? Is it better for us to rely upon a fortress South Africa, with a salient sticking out like a sore thumb, of Rhodesia, armed conflict, armed assistance from the Western World, if it can be arranged, fighting off the hoards of black Africa? Or is it better for us to attempt to create in Southern Africa as a whole, and the whole of the African Continent, countries which at least are not ill-disposed to the Western World, which at least do

947
not offer a haven, any more than they do at the present time, to the technicians, the advisers, the capital, the military assistance, the tanks and all the rest of it, of the Soviet Union and possibly of China, too? It must be that we will serve our interests best by being on friendly terms with the whole of Southern Africa, not only because of its economic resources but also because of its military potential.
How can we achieve this? We can only achieve it now—and we have only in the past been able to achieve it, but we have failed—by the success of the Geneva Conference. In the past, that success has been denied us because of the intransigence of Mr. Smith. Had it been possible, as it was, and had people been willing to apply upon Mr. Smith the pressure they are now applying, a settlement would have been possible five years ago, because the African leaders would not have been so intransigent, the guerrilla activity would not have built up so much, the factions would not have appeared among the Africans about which we have heard today, and our task would have been infinitely easier. But that is not the case. We must accept things as they are today. The lesson we must learn from the past surely must be this, that the longer a settlement is delayed, the more intransigent, the more violent and the more powerful will become the leaders of the African movement. Therefore, we must strain every effort to make sure that Geneva today succeeds.
My Lords, by passing this Amendment, what arc we doing? We are siding with Mr. Smith and his small band of Europeans. Let me remind your Lordships that of the European population—if this indeed be relevant; it is with some of those who put forward the argument of kith and kin—something under half actually come from this country. The rest come from Malta, Greece, Italy and many admirable countries, but not kith and kin. We must not give support to further intransigence on their part, and we must not give further support to the violence and the antagonism of the Africans themselves.
If I were the man in the Kremlin who was responsible for Africa today, I should be looking with interest at this debate and doing all that was in my power—very
948
little, I am glad to say, if anything—to ensure that this Amendment was carried, because for me in the Kremlin that would be one of the greatest helps I could possibly have in spreading my influence among the people of black Africa. I would be disappointed if this Amendment were not pressed, and disappointed if this Amendment, being pressed, was defeated by an overwhelming majority. Therefore, I hope that all those who sincerely wish, as the noble Marquess and his friends and all of us do, to see the influence of the Western World in black Africa extended, will unite in continuing the sanctions.
There is one more thing we must do—there are many things, but there is only one I will mention. We must, and here I find myself happily and surprisingly in agreement with the noble Viscount, Lord Massereene and Ferrard, take a more positive line in Geneva. The Africans themselves have asked that we shall appoint a governor, somebody in charge of Rhodesia during this intervening period, whether it be for 12, 15, 18 or 20 months, and I do not really believe that that will be the cause of failure. They want us to do that. Mr. Smith has said, and I see the force of his arguments, that there must be white control of defence and law and order. A British governor, assisted by a Council of State representative of all the different factions, but the responsibility lying with him, would fulfil both those requirements; those of the Africans, and those of Mr. Smith and the white Rhodesians. That is what the British Government should do, and I hope are doing now, in Geneva. We have for too long in this country lived as though we were still one of the richest countries in the world. We have ignored economic reality, but in our foreign policy for too long we have lived as though we had no influence whatsoever. We still have influence; we still have good will; we still have experience; and now is the time for us to exert it.
3.53 p.m.
Lord COLERAINE: My Lords, I should like to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, and the noble Lord, Lord Plunket, on two maiden speeches each of which in its own way was distinctive. If my compliments seem to be perfunctory now, they are not in fact. It is only that

949
I do not wish to take up the time of the House for longer than is necessary. The noble Lord, Lord Walston, was good enough to tell me and others why we were supporting the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Salisbury. I think he has got it wrong. I think he misinterprets our motives.
This, I suppose, is the twelfth debate to which I have listened on the question of sanctions. I suppose that in all the others it would be fair to say that my intention was to support a gradual transition from white Government to black Government in Rhodesia, and in effect to keep at bay, not forever but to restrain, the advance of nationalist forces. That is no longer my own position. I realise today, and I accept it, that Rhodesia is dying; I realise that Zimbabwe is being born. My only hope now is that Zimbabwe, when it comes to birth, will be a countryߞI cannot say that I hope that it will be a democratic country because I do not believe that fits into the African picture—of stability, security, increasing prosperity, and peace for its inhabitants, black and white.
If I support the noble Marquess, as I do, it is because I believe the continuance of sanctions now would be more likely to advance a Marxist solution than the mild paternalistic solution which most of us would like to see. So long as we maintain sanctions, it seems to me that we are giving the green light to those elements on the African scene which are Marxist and which are influenced, if not dominated, by Russia. We are telling them, "Do what you will. We will give no support to the new Zimbabwe or the transitory State to resist you".
I do not think we sufficiently realise the unrelenting determination of the Soviet Union to make peace in Southern Africa impossible. If the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, is able to give a categorical assurance that Her Majesty's Government will approach (I will not say the five Front-Line Presidents because obviously two of them at least are beyond argument and do not want a peaceful settlement) Dr. Kaunda, President Nyerere and Seretse Khama and get from them an undertaking that they will no longer harbour and encourage terrorists within their territories, then perhaps my
950
noble friend—I cannot speak for him—would be willing to withdraw his Amendment.
There is the other point in his Amendment which is of immense importance and to which he has drawn particular attention, and that is that we really must have a guarantee that the black African who has been loyal to the Smith Government will be secure. If Lord Goronwy-Roberts can give an assurance on those two points—first, that Her Majesty's Government will approach those Front Line Presidents who are amenable and who may be as anxious as we are to have a peaceful settlement and obtain an assurance from them that they will not continue to harbour and encourage terrorism within their territories during this transitory period and, secondly, get some guarantee that the black African who has been loyal to the Smith Government will be secure —I would not be willing to press the Amendment to a Division.
The noble Baroness, Lady Vickers, who made a most impressive speech, indicated that there was not much point in pointing the finger of scorn at the Smith regime and condemning it. I think she believes, as I do, that they did their best; and I feel I may fairly say that if the people of this country had in the last 10 years shown half the resource, half the dedication, and half the sense of patriotism that the white Rhodesians have shown towards their country, we should not be in the mess we are in today.
4.1 p.m.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, like my noble friend Lord Wade, I should like, in the course of the few remarks with which I intend to detain your Lordships, to oppose the Amendment moved by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. I shall support the Motion to approve the order proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts. We have had a very thorough debate on this issue and not the least significant part of it has been the maiden speeches of the two noble Lords, Lord Brimelow and Lord Plunket. These were contributions of particular value and I should like to join in the congratulations that have been offered to them.
I have no doubt that sanctions together with the collapse of Portuguese colonialism and the expansion of guerrilla warfare

951
which came about as a result of it and pressure from the United States and South Africa, have contributed towards securing Mr. Smith's acceptance of the Kissinger plan. That, in itself, was a very considerable advance. It is not clear—and this has come out in the course of our debate—what kind of majority rule Mr. Smith has accepted. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, spoke of difficulties and frustrations in the past in dealing with Mr. Smith and it does seem that, in the remarks which he has made, he has spoken of some form of qualified franchise and that, when he speaks of majority rule, he does not necessarily mean black majority rule. Such an interpretation would of course be quite unacceptable to the African leaders and, I am sure, to the British Government.
However, if the reports in the Press are correct, the Rhodesian Foreign Minister, speaking in Geneva in the course of the last two days, has spoken of black majority rule in two years. But he said that the Rhodesian Government had made all the concessions it intended to make before it came to Geneva and when it accepted the Kissinger package. Mr. Smith may have thought that all was agreed and all was cut and dried and it may be that he has some complaint in this matter. On the other hand, the Front-Line Presidents may also have grounds for complaint and it may be that they were made to appear to agree to a package that they had not accepted in every detail.
In any event, the Kissinger plan, welcome and useful though it was, is not Holy Writ and, as the noble Lord, Lord Alport, said, we shall have to accept changes. The African Rhodesian leaders were not a party to it in any case, and acceptance of the Kissinger package does not legitimise the Smith régime as would appear to have been suggested during the course of our debate. I hope very much that there will be agreement at Geneva, but failure would not legitimise the regime, either. It would not be sufficient that Mr. Smith had accepted a particular package of proposals. What is important is whether the British Government approve of the régime which is established in Salisbury.
There is no argument for saying that because Mr. Smith has accepted at this
952
stage a particular package of proposals sanctions should be withdrawn. Indeed, the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, pointed out at the beginning of the debate that Mr. Smith himself appeared to accept that sanctions would continue until an interim Government was appointed and in being. We cannot, of course, turn sanctions on and off like a tap. If we once take them off, they are off for good and all. Since failure at the Conference would still leave an illegal régime in possession in Salisbury we cannot, at this stage, abandon sanctions. Only a successful Conference now or later could enable us to do that.
My Lords, I think we must bear in mind that the Smith régime is a repressive regime. During the course of our debates we have heard about political detainees; there has been published in the course of the past weeks a bulletin from the Catholic Commission for Justice and Peace which speaks of brutality, torture and killings by the Rhodesian security forces. That same bulletin admits that similar atrocities have been committed on the other side. I certainly hold no brief for the guerrillas and deplore the bloodshed which has taken place; but I must point out that when the Rhodesian Government rebelled in the first place, it was in order to avoid black majority rule. That is what they rebelled for; and guerrilla warfare became inevitable, however much we regret and deplore its existence. I support fully the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, when he said that the continuation of guerrilla warfare during the course of the Conference was a tragedy. I very much hope that guerrilla warfare will cease during the remainder of the Conference. But whether it does or not has, in my view, nothing to do with sanctions but much to do with the continued existence of the Smith régime.
I hope that the Conference may yet succeed in spite of the formidable obstacles. I hope, too, that the noble Lord and the Government will give consideration to what my noble friend Lord Wade and others have said during the course of the debate about the possibility, although there are risks and difficulties, of the British Government playing perhaps a more positive role with respect to the interim Government in Rhodesia than they seem at the moment to be prepared to play.

953
If they did enter into any kind of commitment in that respect it would not be an open-ended commitment because there would be a definite independence date. It would not be similar to the open-ended commitment that the Government entered into (rightly, in that case, as I believe) in Northern Ireland.
I hope the Conference will be able to secure a transition to black majority rule which will at the same time give a satisfactory assurance to the white population about their future. I remain convinced that sanctions can only be withdrawn when there is agreement on the time-table to independence and on the composition and function of the interim Government and when that interim Government is in being.
4.4 p.m.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, like everybody else, I should like to congratulate the two maiden speakers. The noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, was a notable head of the Foreign Office and he made a speech which one would expect of somebody of his distinction and attainments. I have an idea that I might like this speech better than some he may make in a Party political way; but whenever he does it he will be listened to with interest by the House. My noble friend Lord Plunket made, I thought, a most moving speech. I cannot help thinking that if there are people like him in Rhodesia the sort of State that my noble friend Lord Coleraine referred to, and hoped for, is attainable even at this late stage.
We have had a good debate. The tone was set by my noble friend Lord Salisbury who made a most responsible and moderate speech. There cannot be anybody in this House who does not wish the negotiations now taking place at Geneva to succeed. The consequences of failure are awful to contemplate. It is to everybody's advantage, black and white, inhabitant of Rhodesia or neighbour, colonial power or American friend, to do everything they can to prevent the breakdown of these talks. It is difficult when one is not concerned in negotiations to assess accurately the way things are going. It certainly does not—in spite of a small improvement in the past day or two—sound very hopeful. Often attitudes taken up by people in public are not the same as those
954
they may take up in private. Let us hope that that is so in this case; and we can certainly take comfort in one thought: it cannot be in anybody's interest to be responsible for the breakdown of that Conference.
Who it was who was responsible for bringing it about, I cannot judge. It was certainly Dr. Kissinger's initiative. I have a suspicion that Dr. Vorster had more to do with its actual realisation than anyone else. One thing stands out very clearly. Mr. Smith has moved a very long way indeed in accepting the proposition—and I am sure that it was a proposition—put to him by the British and American Governments. To accept majority rule in two years is a vast advance on any position that he has hitherto held and is of great significance. I do not think that we ought to underestimate the difficulties that that must bring for Mr. Smith, nor the undoubted fact that he cannot be pressed too far to go much further without losing the confidence of a large number of his supporters who are a very vital factor in any satisfactory and fair settlement.
I suppose that it is natural that black African leaders should take the agreement and the concessions made by Mr. Smith for granted and use them as a base from which further demands are made. But they would in my judgment be unwise to press too hard in the belief that Mr. Smith has much more to give. I do not believe that he has the political sea room. It seems that there is little doubt that Mr. Smith genuinely believed that a proposition had been made to him and accepted not only by the American and British Governments, but by the black African leaders as well.
There is surely no one in this House who—as my noble friend who sits behind me has said—would wish to condone the continued and increasing guerrilla activity operating from Mozambique at a time when apparently genuine efforts are being made to reach an understanding. The noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, in his speech condemned that forthrightly; though I am critical—and I must tell him so—of the way that the Government did not earlier on make some conditions about guerrilla activity before the Conference started. If we put ourselves in the same position, we would not think it

955
conducive to a good atmosphere, or the likelihood of a successful Conference, if our friends and relations were being murdered and unmercifully harried by those in the employment of fellow delegates at that Conference. Nor can we be happy, whatever the safeguards, at money channelled from the British taxpayer to a country which is encouraging and taking part in this activity.
In all this I sympathise with my noble friend. I share with him his anxieties about terrorism. I am sad, too, that the most inaptly named Heads of State, the Front-Line Presidents, who one would have hoped would have exerted moderation for nationalists, reaffirmed on 6th November their belief in war as the only way to achieve majority rule. I feel that for a time we shall have to live with the uncertainties about the American President-elect, though one could perhaps make a guess that his sympathies are not likely to be wholly with Mr. Smith. Nor do we know what Mr. Vorster's latest position is. Though he has stated his support for Mr. Smith, it is difficult to judge how much pressure he will show or feel able or be willing to exert.
All this leads me to think that the going will be very rough, and of course there is a real possibility of the failure of the Conference. We should do everything in our power to see that it does not fail, and do nothing to make its failure more likely, or to be made the excuse for its failure. That is where I do have doubts, not about what my noble friend Lord Salisbury said but about the wisdom of pressing this matter to a Division and, conceivably, winning it. Whether or not he likes it, the effect of the Amendment, if it were agreed to, would mean that this country would no longer be operating sanctions. That would be done unilaterally against the votes that we have cast in the United Nations—I think most mistakenly given. The noble Lord, Lord Hunt, reminded us earlier of the debate in this House 11 years ago: I was one of those who voted against sanctions. Nevertheless, at this moment it would mean that we were breaking international obligations unilaterally and without consultation.
But, perhaps even more important than that, one wonders what effect it would have on the Conference at Geneva. One cannot expect everybody to under
956
stand the intricacies of the British Constitution: we hardly do so ourselves! Probably the delegates at Geneva would take the view that the British, for reasons which would be very obscure to them, had decided in the middle of the Conference of which they (the British) were in the chair, to make a gesture in support of Mr. Smith—a gesture, incidentally, which Mr. Smith himself does not expect. He has made it clear that he is prepared for sanctions to be lifted only after the interim Government is set up. I must say I think that would have a deplorable effect on the Conference, on the British position and on the attitude of the Africans towards Britain. We should be misinterpreted and, I think, misrepresented at the United Nations and elsewhere.
I am no friend of sanctions, my Lords, and I have said so on a number of occasions. It is a foolish weapon; but at this moment it does not seem to me right to change it. If an interim Government emerges, sanctions should come off straight away. If the talks fail and it is clearly not the fault of Mr. Smith but because of the intransigence of others, then I think we should take a very radical look at this subject and perhaps adopt a very different view. But at this time I hope that my noble friend will not press this matter to a Division, because I believe it might well be harmful to the future of talks on which such a very great deal depends.
4.19 p.m.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, this has been a debate of very high quality on a matter of quite extraordinary importance. It has been marked by a high level of speaking, particularly in the case of two maiden speakers, the noble Lords, Lord Brimelow and Lord Plunket. It has been particularly interesting to have the views of people who, in quite different ways, have been personally involved in the Rhodesian problem for many years. The noble Lord, Lord Brimelow, brought out with classic clarity the implications of rejecting this order today. It is not only a matter of sanctions: it places this country and this Government in an almost impossible position to take advantage of any success that may accrue to the Geneva Conference. The noble Lord, Lord Plunket, in what has been aptly described as a moving speech, gave us advice from

957
Rhodesia itself by one who has lived and worked there; and I should like to echo what the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has said in this connection, that the more people like him stay on in Rhodesia when it becomes Zimbabwe, the better for the future of that country and of Africa.
I have particular appreciation, also, for the two speeches from the Front Benches opposite by the noble Baroness, Lady Elles, and the noble Lord, Lord Wade. The noble Baroness, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, and others all asked about the timing of the lifting of sanctions. I think I made it clear in my opening speech that the Government intend to lift sanctions once an interim Government is established, and expect and believe that they can count on the support of other countries in doing so; and, as several noble Lords have pointed out, Mr. Smith has accepted that position.
The noble Baroness, and a number of other speakers, also referred to the possibility of a trust fund, and this links with the points made most cogently by a number of speakers about the future of Rhodesians, of all colours and backgrounds, on independence. As the noble Baroness knows, it is early yet to be definitive about this proposal, but I can give her an assurance on the specific question which she put to me. She asked whether any trust fund would be used for the benefit of all Rhodesians, both black and white—and there are other elements in the population which could not properly be described as black or white. I can give her this assurance that any such fund would indeed be for the benefit of all Rhodesians—black, white or whatever colour they may be. I should like to confirm to the House that we have been discussing, and are discussing, with our friends the Americans the possibilities of such a fund, and it is quite possible that other countries from within the Commonwealth, and perhaps outside the Commonwealth, might be able to join in any engagement of this kind. At the moment, it would be not only premature but misleading for me to try to give any further details.
This takes me to the point made by my noble friend Lord Greenhill of Harrow and others, who stressed that if the Conference were to fail—and it is by no means certain of succeeding—the British
958
Government should not in any way abandon their efforts, but should continue to work as hard as they can for a solution in Rhodesia. I can, of course, give that assurance. Whatever happens we shall continue to do all in our power, in co-operation with our friends, and indeed in co-operation with the United Nations, to work towards a just and durable solution in Rhodesia.
This leads me to the trenchant speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Alport, speaking from very considerable experience and service to the Commonwealth and to Africa, who made a number of extremely interesting proposals. It is not for me this afternoon to return an affirmative or a negative answer to the kind of proposals he made, or others made by my noble friend, Lord Caradon, but to emphasise once more that suggestions, especially of that constructive kind, will most certainly he considered in the proper quarters. I have no doubt that all those involved will be looking at many of the things said by the two noble Lords I have mentioned and others with very great care and interest.
I now come to the Amendments. I have moved the order and the noble Marquess has said that he may force a Division on his Amendment. I could say a great deal or very little on this point. Indeed, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has put the argument most appropriately this afternoon. Whatever our views may be, about either sanctions or the constitutional position of Rhodesia in the future, he has put the argument why this House—which in my short experience of it is capable of rising to the level of events—should not at this juncture divide within itself on this question. I do not think that the Amendment would be carried, but even if it were not carried the implications of a Division in a Chamber of British Parliament would be interpreted—indeed, misinterpreted, as we have heard—in more than one quarter. Our position as a country which has always done its uttermost to live up to its international obligations would give rise to shattering doubt. I believe we would be isolated among our own friends if we were to adopt this Amendment unilaterally or showed that any considerable number of us was prepared to take it to the point of Division.

959
I am certain that it would have a devastating impact on the great mass of moderate, constructive African opinion, those who are not as articulate as the extremists, and the various variecoloured fringes in this argument, not always black—the people whom the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, has asked the Government to approach—and upon the extremists of every kind. It is not difficult to assess the effect. It would be an invitation to go along the path of violence, bloodshed and misery indefinitely because on the course we are pursuing now, I think as a united nation we had been seen to be faltering.
May I say that the tone and temper of the speech of the noble Marquess could not have been bettered, both from my point of view and, I am sure, that of the Government and this House. He put to me very fairly three points on which he wanted reassurance. A number of other noble Lords, including Lord Balfour of Inchrye and Lord Coleraine, put similar points to me. They come under three headings. If the talks fail because the Africans wreck them, will Her Majesty's Government lift sanctions? I cannot lay down now the action that Her Majesty's Government would take if the Conference failed, for whatever reason or because of action coming from whatever quarter. The question then would be whether we should lift sanctions because the Conference had been wrecked by one element or whether we should redouble sanctions because the Conference had been wrecked by another element. It is difficult to give a partisan assurance. What I can say is that the shortest path to the wrecking of this Conference is to force this Amendment to a Division in the House this afternoon.
To return to the points made by the noble Marquess, if any Minister gave an hypothetical assurance based upon an hypothetical situation as described by the noble Marquess, it would immediately be interpreted variously by various interests. It would not add to the sense of security that the noble Marquess quite rightly is seeking. It would add to the general uncertainty among all those engaged in the work of the Conference. Therefore the assurance that I can give is this. Her Majesty's Government will lift sanctions and give a lead in so doing—except that
960
we must, of course, remember that it is an international operation—immediately an interim Administration is seen to be established. That is the positive answer. Equally, the positive thing to do is to work to avoid the wrecking of the Conference by anybody.
As for the second point on guerrilla warfare, much as I appreciated the tone of the speech made by the noble Marquess, I must say to him frankly that I refute and rather resent the suggestion that Her Majesty's Government condone guerrilla warfare and terrorism. It is not true, and if the noble Marquess had been present rather more frequently in this House he might have heard me saying this repeatedly. Her Majesty's Government condemn and deplore terrorism from whatever quarter it emanates. That includes activity of this kind in this or any other part of Africa.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I thought I said in my opening remarks that I knew that the noble Lord had condemned terrorism, and I was very glad to hear him say again today that he condemns it.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I very much appreciate the response of the noble Marquess to what I have said. I understood him more than to suggest that Her Majesty's Government condone terrorism and I am sure that he knows this is not so.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I suggested that the noble Lord's colleague, the Foreign Secretary, was condoning terrorism, but I went out of my way to suggest that the noble Lord had said something quite different.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is almost worse than saying that I condone terrorism. As I know the Foreign Secretary rather well, I can assure the noble Marquess that that suggestion is quite groundless. Knowing also the rest of my colleagues and the British people, I am sure that nobody here condones terrorism anywhere, certainly not in Rhodesia.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, will the noble Lord permit me to intervene for one moment?
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): No, my Lords; let my noble friend continue. He should not give way.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, is—
Several noble Lords: Order, order!
Lord PEART: My Lords, my noble friend should not give way.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords I must obey the Leader of the House.
Lord CARRINGTON: Why, my Lords?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: For exactly the same reason, my Lords, as Members of the House felt that they had to obey the noble Lord when he was the Leader of the House. I regard the interjections of my noble friend Lord Paget with a mixture of affection and alarm—mostly alarm on these occasions. But seriously, on this point about guerrilla warfare, to which a number of other speakers have referred, the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, asked what we were doing about it. I wish that we could do much more, but he added that he realised that we had not the power we used to have —one kind of power. I agree with him that Britain still has great influence and I can assure him that we are duly bringing our influence and our arguments forward in favour of the cessation of terrorism.
With regard to our friends in Africa—and they are our friends—and the three Presidents in particular whom the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine, suggested we should approach, we are in fact constantly talking to them. We shall continue to talk and to exert every ounce of influence we have, and indeed to call in our friends. I think it was my noble friend Lord Caradon who referred to the fact that we have been sustained and supported in what we have been doing by the rest of the Nine. Indeed, we have had powerful support from the Member States of the Community and of course, as usual, widespread support from our friends in the Commonwealth. We shall not only ourselves approach our friends in Africa to see what can be done to reduce and to end terrorism; we shall avail ourselves
962
increasingly of the resources and persuasion of our other friends in Europe and the Commonwealth. Further than that it would not be right for me to go because I cannot give guarantees. Nobody can.
On the third point, the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, asked me for guarantees in relation to the 6th Principle, and that was echoed by the noble Lord, Lord Coleraine. I have said that this and other matters will be part of the work of the Conference, but certainly Her Majesty's Government will be promoting a settlement as far as they possibly can which will include, of course, the absence of discrimination against minorities and of discrimination against people who, for sincere and proper reasons, have served the illegal regime. We shall do our utmost on that third point.
I close by making a final appeal to the noble Marquess. He has made his point and, if I may say so without presumption, he has put forward his own and his friends' views with great clarity and sincerity. I hope he will rest on that and will not, by an action this afternoon, create a situation in which the world tomorrow might say that the first pebble in the avalanche which will wreck the Conference was loosened in the British House of Lords. We have now a real chance. I know that the noble Marquess and his friends are as keen as I am to see Rhodesia emerge from its present troubles as a strong, prosperous, independent nation in the comity of countries and, we hope, as one noble Lord said, a member of the Commonwealth.
4.40 p.m.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, we have had a long and interesting debate. If I may be allowed to say so from my own point of view, I am grateful for the way that noble Lords who did not agree with my views have taken my remarks, and I welcome this opportunity of saying how grateful I am. I hope your Lordships will not expect me to reply to all the points raised. There is a number of them to which I should like to reply, but we have had a long session, and I had a long innings at the beginning, so if your Lordships will allow me not to reply in detail, I shall be grateful.

963
As so many others have done, I should like to refer briefly to the two exceptional maiden speeches to which we have listened today. The two noble Lords concerned provided a great deal of weight to our discussions in their respective spheres, one from a highly technical point of view, and one from knowledge on the ground. I am particularly glad that we had the advantage of hearing the speech of my noble friend Lord Plunket on this occasion.
May I also say how much I appreciate the way the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has responded to my enquiries. As I might have expected, he has treated them with great courteousness and sympathy. I should like to respond in a similar way. Obviously, there is a great deal of common ground between us. We all want to see the end of sanctions as quickly as possible. We are all anxious to secure a settlement in Rhodesia as it is now, at this stage, since the package deal was announced the question of method and timing that stands between us. My Lords, I raised three issues. On the first, there is a very considerable difference of opinion. It is the only issue where there is a major difference, because it is my belief that the African representatives will take the continuance of sanctions as what I might call a blank cheque to ask for more and more concessions. I know that many noble Lords do not take that view, but I must make it clear that that is my view. This leaves me in some difficulty. I have said already that I do not wish to do anything that will impede progress or disrupt the Conference. My worry is that by accepting the order today, we shall have a continuance of sanctions, if the Conference breaks down, for another 12 months. If I do not pursue it today, it may be possible to bring this up in some form if there were a breakdown in the Conference before a year is up. I do not know whether the noble Lord the Leader of the House would go along with that.
Lord PEART: My Lords, may I just say that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, has made a very constructive suggestion. I think this should be considered through the usual channels, and we will do this.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble
964
Lord the Leader of the House because this gets over the difficulty which I see at the present time. On the other two points, I realise that the noble Lord, Lord Goronwy-Roberts, has a problem. He is not in a position to give a positive promise on either. At the same time, I should have liked to see him go a little further on the point dealing with guerrillas, because here we are supporting a country which is harbouring guerrillas. It seems to me that the noble Lord might have been able to go a little further than he has, although I appreciate that in spirit we are not very far apart.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I hope the noble Marquess will not press my noble friend. I have given an assurance. I mean it in the best sense, because we all wish to do what is best.
The Marquess of SALISBURY: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Leader of the House for saying that. Although I am bound to say I am not entirely happy with the position, and specifically in view of the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, that we must do nothing which would lead us to be accused of wrecking the Conference, under the circumstances I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

SUPPLEMENTARY BENEFITS BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.
AIRCRAFT AND SHIPBUILDING INDUSTRIES BILL
Returned from the Commons with certain Lords Amendments agreed to; a Lords Amendment agreed to with an Amendment; certain other Lords Amendments disagreed to with Amendments in lieu thereof; and the remaining Lords Amendments disagreed to with Reasons for such disagreement; the said Amendments and Reasons to be printed.
  KENYA: UK AID
  KENYA: UK AID
  THE GREEN POUND AND THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  THE GREEN POUND AND THE BALANCE OF PAYMENTS
  FISHING AND THE 200 MILE LIMIT
  FISHING AND THE 200 MILE LIMIT