Sitting of 1 March 1977

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Read the Third time and passed.

ORAL ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS
  EMPLOYMENT

    Minimum Wage
    Mr. Dempseyasked the Secretary of State for Employment if he will communicate with the relevant interests with a view to introducing a national minimum wage; and if he will make a statement.
    The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker): Since the Government took office, the most practical approach to the problem of low pay has been the special provision included in the TUC guidelines for negotiators. We have been glad to endorse these provisions and we are taking steps to improve enforcement of existing statutory minimum pay in wages council industries.
    Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that from time to time in the House there is criticism that some people are better off on social security than when they are working? Would he not agree that this is due not to the fact that the social security scales are too high but to the fact that many workers' wages are too low? Will he therefore take the initiative to ensure that a national minimum wage is fixed above the level of social security scales to correct this anomaly?
    Mr. Walker: I think that there is widespread recognition of the problem
    164
    to which my hon. Friend has referred. With respect to my hon. Friend, however, I suggest that perhaps the way he has proposed is not the right way to tackle it. Wages policy alone will not eliminate the problem; social security benefits and fiscal policies have their rôle to play too.
    Sir B. Rhys Williams: Since the cost of raising a family is so much larger than the cost of a household with only one or two people, would it not be better to solve the problem of poverty in families where the breadwinner is in employment by raising family allowances?
    Mr. Walker: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that blanket provision across the board, by its failure to discriminate, will not tackle the pockets of poverty which undeniably exist. It is better to have a discriminatory approach in the provision of social security benefits, perhaps supplemented by fiscal policies. The hon. Gentleman will recognise that social security benefit policies are not matters for me.
    Mr. William Hamilton: Can my hon. Friend say what additional and urgent steps are being taken to make sure that employers obey the law in respect of people who are subject to wages council orders?
    Mr. Walker: The House will have seen the widespread publicity which has rightly been accorded to the blitzes, as they have been described, launched by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State. These have exposed the extent of underpayment and have most beneficially concentrated the attention of those directly concerned on the need to comply with the statutory minima. My hon. Friend has now launched a series of talks with the TUC, the CBI and other interests to see how much further this can be carried out and made effective. In the meantime, proposals for further blitzes are, I understand, on the agenda.
    Mr. Hayhoe: Is it not a fact that if a national minimum wage was established at a high enough level to get over the problem that people with large families can in certain circumstances get a higher take-home income when they are out of work than when they are in work, the net effect of such a high minimum

    165
    wage would be to destroy a large number of jobs?
    Mr. Walker: I am not sure that I want to enter into a dialogue with the hon. Gentleman on that aspect. In countries where a national minimum wage has been introduced, there has been a speedy restoration of the differential that it set out to eliminate in the first place. An inter departmental committee was set up in the late 1960s to inquire into a national minimum wage and its possible effects. A report was published by the Department of Employment in 1969, and many of the areas which have been subject to questions are dealt with in that report. Perhaps we might usefully refresh our memories by looking at it again.

    Large Cities and Towns
    Mr. Peter Bottomleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment to what factors he attributes the rise in unemployment in large cities and towns since the present administration took office in 1974.
    Mr. Hodgsonasked the Secretary of State for Employment to what factors he attributes the rise in unemployment in large cities and towns since the present administration took office in 1974.
    Mr. Anthony Grantasked the Secretary of State for Employment to what factors he attributes the rise in unemployment in large cities and towns since the present administration took office in 1974.
    The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth): The extent of the rise in unemployment that has taken place since February 1974 varies considerably between different cities and towns. These increases are in part a reflection of the present economic recession and in part a reflection of more fundamental changes taking place in the structure of employment.
    These changes in the structure of employment—which reflect partly national trends and partly factors that are special to the larger conurbations—have led to an underlying increase in unemployment, which has been going on for between 10 and 15 years.
    Mr. Bottomley: Does the right hon. Gentleman expect the House to believe that the Government's economic, industrial and financial policies have nothing to do with the increase in unemployment in virtually every town and city in the country?
    Mr. Booth: Many of the Government's policies have sustained a considerable amount of employment in the large conurbations and the cities. The increase in the number of people employed in the public services has particularly helped.
    Mr. Hodgson: Will the right hon. Gentleman learn from the Government's mistakes and accept that the unending increase in taxation legislation has placed an appalling burden on small businesses? Will he also recognise that a large number of jobs have been lost in the small business sector as a result?
    Mr. Booth: We are, of course, concerned about the loss of jobs in any part of the economy, including the small business sector. This is an area that I am studying with a view to seeing how far measures operated by my Department may be adapted or even built upon to provide some assistance.
    Mr. Grant: Does the Secretary of State realise that the Government's regional policies are completely unrealistic in attempting to deal with the appalling unemployment problems of the conurbations? Is he aware that every time he goes to the Dispatch Box the situation gets worse? Will he now have another close look at regional policy and see that the limited resources are concentrated upon those urban areas which are suffering the greatest hardship?
    Mr. Booth: To take a minor point first, the situation does not get worse every time that I come to the Dispatch Box. On several occasions recently there has been a drop in the number of unemployed. In so far as we can identify a special problem with conurbations, I know that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that the fall in manufacturing employment has been faster in the conurbations than in the country generally. It is that to which we have to devote attention in pursuing an industrial and economic strategy to deal with the unemployment problem.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my right hon. Friend agree that a figure of 80,000 unemployed in the city of Liverpool means that Liverpool is now becoming a disaster area? Apart from the question of the Government changing their basic economic and industrial strategy, which is essential, cannot something now be done at least to convene a conference on Merseyside, where serious proposals might be put forward aimed at bringing down the high level of unemployment?
    Mr. Booth: Certainly on Merseyside, as in Sunderland, there is a serious unemployment problem. A committee of Ministers is well advanced in studying the special problems of conurbation areas taking into account the special employment problems. I hope to be able to announce very shortly in the House some development of my Department's measures which will have a bearing on this as well as on other matters.
    Dr. McDonald:Will my right hon. Friend not agree that the temporary employment subsidy has saved 181,000 jobs in towns and cities and elsewhere? Ought not that scheme to be extended, at least until the end of this year?
    Mr. Booth: The extension of the temporary employment subsidy is one of the major matters being considered by the Department of Employment. There has been a considerable uptake in the subsidy over the past few months during which the scheme has been operating. We shall shortly be facing the problem of certain firms whose 12-months' subsidy is coming to an end. This matter is under urgent review.
    Mr. Prior: Does the target of 700,000 unemployed by 1978 still represent Government policy, or is there now some new Government target?
    Mr. Booth: No. The Government have not adopted any new target. We are aiming to bring unemployment down in that period as rapidly as we can.

    Training (Northern Region)
    Mr. David Watkinsasked the Secretary of State for Employment what measures he is taking to promote the development of industrial training in the Northern Region.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The Northern Region has seven skillcentres plus three annexes, providing 2,013 training places in all. I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that this is a higher proportion of skillcentre places to working population than in any other region and is considered adequate for the present needs of the region. In addition, over 4,500 people were receiving training in January 1977 in colleges of further education and employers' establishments. The Training Services Agency will continue to make use of spare capacity in local colleges of further education and employers' establishments to develop industrial training.
    Mr. Watkins: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that detailed answer. Is he aware that there is a widespread feeling in the Northern Region that there is a greater need for group schemes, especially to cater for the smaller engineering employer in some of the more scattered areas of the region, some of whom, among other things, experience financial difficulties in making provision for training? Will my hon. Friend look into that?
    Mr. Walker: That is a valuable and useful contribution. As my hon. Friend said, some of the firms are likely to be particularly benefited by such group schemes. I shall draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Chairman of the Engineering Industry Training Board. No doubt he will be interested and will be in touch with my hon. Friend. I shall also draw my hon. Friend's remarks to the attention of the Training Services Agency.
    Several Hon. Members rose—
    Mr. Speaker: Questions on the Northern Region. Mr. Burden.
    Mr. Burden: Is it not a fact that there is an apparent reluctance on the part of people throughout the country to enter training centres to learn skills that would get them jobs in the engineering industry, such as capstan lathe-setting and operating, and milling and grinding? Is it not the case that there is a considerable shortage of people with these skills and that, once trained, such people could get employment almost immediately? What steps can the Minister take to stimulate people into undertaking this type of training?
    Mr. Walker: It is true that in some areas there are such shortages of skilled engineeering craftsmen. However, there are difficulties in matching the needs of one region in terms of the vacancies there with the surplus of manpower in another. It is here that the Employment Services Agency has a rôle to play in enabling greater mobility of labour.
    Mr. Edwin Wainwright: Will my hon. Friend take into account the fact that the Northern Region has always been heavily handicapped by unemployment and a lack of training services? While he is building up the efficiency of the training services and the number of training places in the region, will he also try to bring up the Yorkshire and Humberside Region to the same standard?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend, who has a constituency adjacent to mine, will be delighted to learn that it is hoped that the Doncaster skillcentre will be open this year.

    Manpower Services Commission
    Mr. Bryan Daviesasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he last met the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission.
    Mr. Booth: I last met the chairman of the Commission on 25th January.
    Mr. Davies: Was my right hon. Friend able to discuss with the chairman the particularly difficult situation concerning training opportunities for girls, bearing in mind two points: first the reduction in college of education places, particularly as this affects opportunities for girls and secondly the deplorable record of British industry over the past decade in offering day-release facilities for girls?
    Mr. Booth: Training was one of the subjects that I discussed with the chairman. My hon. Friend will be pleased to learn that the Training Services Agency has identified training in certain vocations for girls as a priority area. However, I point out that we are giving considerable support—about £55 million worth—to training in industry and that there is no sex discrimination in this form of vocational training. I am sure that a number of young male engineering apprentices will not object to a few female workmates.
    Mr. Adley: While I do not wish to deny the importance of training, may I ask the Secretary of State to take note of what is happening at the Bristol West Dock, where the ratepayers have put in millions of pounds to build a new dock, which has not started operating because of an industrial dispute? Will the right hon. Gentleman give his immediate attention to this problem and use the good offices of his Department to try to get things going?
    Mr. Booth: I am not quite sure how that supplementary question relates to the original Question. One of the many reasons why we have devoted so much time and attention to improving industrial relations is that some disputes can produce a loss of work. There has been an overall improvement, and I would have thought that that would have been welcomed by the hon. Gentleman.

    School Leavers (London)
    5. Mr. Christopher Priceasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many young people who left school in 1976 or earlier are still unemployed in South-East London.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Golding): On 13th January 1977, the latest date on which the unemployed were analysed by age groups, 7,103 young people under 20 years of age, of whom 2,675 were school leavers, who are defined as
    those still seeking their first employment, were registered as unemployed in South-East London. By 10th February 1977 the number of school leavers unemployed had fallen to 2,190. The statistics do not identify the date of leaving school but it is known that most of these were 1976 summer term leavers.
    Mr. Price: Does my hon. Friend agree that these scandalous figures show that South-East London is in quite as bad a position as many of the regions? Does he not agree that it is disgraceful that we should be paying thousands of youngsters to do nothing? Is he aware that the form of unemployment benefit often discourages young people from going back to school or from getting further training? Will the Government come forward with an opportunity guarantee to see that youngsters who

    171
    cannot find jobs are given something useful to do from the time they leave school?
    Mr. Golding: The figures are very disturbing, but they are much more disturbing in Lambeth, Lewisham and Southwark than they are in Bexley, Bromley and Croydon. There is a very big difference between these areas. The idea that my hon. Friend put forward is in line with the social contract aim to provide further education opportunities for all young people, disabled or not. This idea is being examined by the Manpower Services Commission, and we are looking forward to getting its observations on this aim as quickly as possible.
    Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister tell the House whether discussions are taking place with the Department of Education and Science to discover what educational skills school leavers have, and whether there is a high correlation between lack of achievement and ability and the failure to get jobs?
    Mr. Golding: We do not need discussions or inquiries to establish that. There is a very strong correlation between unemployed youngsters and those with a lack of training and qualifications.
    Mr. Prior: Will the Minister take very seriously the remarks of his hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, West (Mr. Price)? The whole House feels that the various methods we have at the moment for helping school leavers are not adequate and are not likely to be so over the next few years. What is required is a comprehensive training scheme to enable young people to go from school to some form of training that they feel is worth while and that the country can afford.
    Mr. Golding: Because we believe that very stronely, we have the Manpower Services Commission working on the feasibility of such a programme at present. The real problem is not with the school leaver—there has been a dramatic fall in the number of school leavers unemployed—but with unemployment among young people under 20 who are unqualified and untrained.
    Mr. Madden: Is my hon. Friend satisfied with the standard of equipment that youngsters receiving craft apprentice training are being forced to use? Is he
    172
    aware that at the Percival Whitley College at Halifax youngsters are serving apprenticeships on clapped-out machinery the like of which they would never meet in private industry? Will he have discussions to ensure that craft apprentices are given proper equipment on which to serve their apprenticeships?
    Mr. Golding: The mass of complaints that I receive are centred on the fact that training is very often on machinery that is far better than that used outside in private industry. When I visit my hon. Friend's constituency I will look into this problem.

    Safety Officers
    Mr. Ashleyasked the Secretary of State for Employment when he proposes to implement the regulations in the Health and Safety at Work Act etc. 1974 providing for the appointment of union-nominated safety officers; and if he will make a statement.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Grant): As my hon. Friend the Minister of State for Employment told the House on 1st February, the regulations will come into operation on 1st October 1978, and, as I told my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Perry Barr (Mr. Rooker) yesterday, they are now being printed and should be laid before Parliament by the end of March.
    Mr. Ashley: I appreciate that reply. Why have the Government adopted such a leisurely approach to such an urgent problem? Surely a delay of three months is excessive.
    Mr. Grant: I do not think that we have adopted a leisurely approach. We would like to see the regulations brought in earlier. The Government have given this matter the closest possible scrutiny, but we must have regard to the current expenditure restraints. The position does not preclude the making of voluntary arrangements, and the Government would welcome that because we believe that there should be a lead-in period. Discussions with shop stewards in the regions show that there is a need for further preparations and clarification before the regulations become effective.
    Mr. John H. Osborn: What discussions has the Minister had with shop floor

    173
    supervisors and junior management? Their morale is very low at present. What representations has he received from industrial groups to delay these regulations and stop the irritant to industrial relations at supervisory level?
    Mr. Grant: Before the hon. Gentleman distorts the facts, he should at least get them right. I have received no representations against the regulations from industry or industrialists. The CBI and the TUC together as members of the Health and Safety Commission have expressed a desire for the implementation of the regulations. There has been a very long period of consultation on the document issued by the Health and Safety Commission, so there is no foundation at all in the hon. Member's remarks.
    Mr. Spriggs: How many men and women have lost their lives or received serious injury in industrial accidents in the past 12 months? What representations has the Minister received from the trade unions on the setting up of safety committees?
    Mr. Grant: I will write to my hon. Friend about the first point and give him the exact figures. Of course, we received many representations prior to the period in which my hon. Friend made his announcement of the regulations being laid. There was considerable disappointment that we were not going ahead with them immediately. But the TUC has accepted the date that we announced, and so has the Commission. In fact, we have had very few representations about the date.

    Textile Industry
    Mr. George Rodgersasked the Sec retary of State for Employment by what number the labour force engaged in the textile industry has decreased during the last 10 years.
    Mr. Golding: Between June 1966 and June 1976 the number of employees in employment in the textiles industry in Great Britain decreased by 221,000.
    Mr. Rodgers: Is my hon. Friend aware that, despite the greatly diminished number of people employed in the industry, over the same period the output has been increased by some 30 per cent.? Does he recognise that this applies gen-
    174
    erally throughout manufacturing industry and that it is time that the Government reappraised their approach by reducing the length of the working week and the working lifetime?
    Mr. Golding: The increase in productivity is needed to maintain the present level of employment. Certainly, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said that we should perhaps look, together with other countries, at the whole question of the working week.
    Mr. Hoyle: Does my hon. Friend agree that the measure that has been of greatest help to the textile and footwear industries is the temporary employment subsidy? I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State say that an early decision would be taken on this issue. Can my hon. Friend give more precise details as many firms and employers are depending on it for the future?
    Mr. Golding: The decision on the temporary employment subsidy will have to take place in the context of the Budget, because it is of enormous importance to British industry at present. Some 40,000 jobs have been saved in the textile industry.
    Mr. James Lamond: Will my hon. Friend convey these figures to the Secretary of State for Trade and ask him to bear them in mind when he is arranging negotiations for a new Multifibre Arrangement? Such an agreement badly needs strengthening in the interests of textile workers in this country.
    Mr. Golding: Certainly, my right hon. Friend is well aware of the problems that the textile industry has faced over the last 10 years. He will do all he can, against this background, to get the best possible arrangement for the textile industry.

    Deaf Persons
    Mr. Luceasked the Secretary of State for Employment what action he is taking to facilitate the employment of deaf people.
    Mr. John Grant: I am informed by the Manpower Services Commission that the Employment Service Agency, together with the Training Services Agency, provides a comprehensive range of services to help all disabled people,

    175
    including deaf people, to get jobs. These services include the specialist attention of over 500 disablement resettlement officers, who advise about suitable employment; rehabilitation and in-depth assessment and guidance at any of the Agency's 26 employment rehabilitation centres; the loan of certain special aids to employment if these are required; and the training courses available under the Training Opportunities Scheme.
    Deaf people who possess the requisite qualifications for entry to professional or degree courses are also eligible for help under the Training Services Agency's professional training scheme.
    Mr. Luce: I am grateful for that reply. Does not the Minister agree that employers underestimate the capabilities, particularly in technical respects, of deaf people? Since the Department employs placement officers for the blind, will the hon. Gentleman consider using them to facilitate the employment of deaf people?
    Mr. Grant: I agree that many employers undervalue disabled people generally, not only people who are deaf. We hope to be able to assist the situation by publishing a guide to employers that will shortly be produced by the Manpower Services Commission.
    The difficulty about employing specialist officers is that such staff would have to be spread thinly. It would mean that they would not have the detailed knowledge of local jobs that is most important in the placing of disabled people.
    Mr. Ashley: Is not my hon. Friend talking a lot of nonsense when he says that a range of services is available, if he means skilled services? Will he bear in mind that, because of the depth of discrimination against deaf people and the subtlety of the problems they face, we require the services of skilled, energetic resettlement officers for the disabled? Will he do somethig about the matter instead of offering bromides in answer to legitimate questions?
    Mr. Grant: I cannot accept that my answers were bromides. I believe that resettlement officers for the disabled are doing a good and skilled job. I have already given the reason why we do not accept that specialists in this area
    176
    of activity would make the best contribution.
    Mr. Marten: Does the Minister know what percentage of registered disabled people are deaf and are at the same time unemployed?
    Mr. Grant: I cannot give that percentage figure off the cuff.
    Mr. Molloy: What progress has been made with the proposed scheme to make financial grants to employers who engage a certain category of disabled people?
    Mr. Grant: I am pleased to be able to inform the House that a scheme of grants to employers for adaptation of premises and equipment will be brought into operation by the Manpower Services Commission in the financial year 1977–78. Up to £500,000 is provided in the Estimate. A general condition of the scheme will involve grants for modifications related to the needs of individual disabled people, and grants are considered to be essential to the resettlement of individuals with the employers concerned.

    Newcastle upon Tyne
    Sir W. Elliottasked the Secretary of State for Employment by how much unemployment has risen in Newcastle since February 1974.
    Mr. Golding: Between February 1974 and February 1977, the numbers registered as unemployed in Newcastle upon Tyne and Walker employment office areas increased by 4,665.
    Sir W. Elliott: I recognise that that represents a deplorable increase. Although in the region generally off the peg advance factories, such as recently announced, will help as a whole, does the Minister recognise that there is still an employment problem in city centres? Is he aware that small and medium-size businesses face increasing difficulties in employment because of problems of taxation, congestion and legislation, which make employment more difficult? Will he use his best endeavours with his governmental colleagues to do something for employers in urban areas?
    Mr. Golding: I am well aware of the difficult situation in many of our inner city areas. The hon. Member will know that this is a matter for the Department

    177
    of Industry, but I shall draw his remarks to that Department's attention.
    Mr. Steen: Is it not a fact that the reason why the figures for unemployed school leavers in urban areas appear to have dropped dramatically is that once school leavers have taken advantage of the Government bonanza they then go to swell the adult unemployment figures? Will the Minister reintroduce the figures for young people so that the House can see the catastrophic situation which has arisen?
    Mr. Golding: In a later reply I shall be giving figures related to the age distribution among the unemployed. I agree that there is a severe problem of unemployment among people under the age of 20. In an earlier reply I corrected the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), who said that this problem was most marked among school leavers.

    Older Workers (Survey)
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Employment when his Department expects to have the result of the inquiry into why older workers give up or carry on working; and if he will make a statement.
    Mr. John Grant: My Department and the Department of Health and Social Security have jointly commissioned this survey from the Office of Population Censuses and Surveys with a view to increasing our understanding of the factors which influence older people to go on working, cease work or modify the nature and amount of work they do. We also hope to find out how their decisions are affected by the various rules which govern the receipt of the national insurance retirement pension. Initial results are expected at the end of this year, with further analyses in the first half of 1978.
    Mr. Madel: As the survey has been jointly conducted with the Department of Health and Social Security, is the Department of Employment using it as a means by which it can make a formal recommendation for the age of retirement to be lowered? If that is not the case, to what practical use will this expensive research be put?
    Mr. Grant: It is not particularly expensive as a piece of research. The
    178
    estimated cost of the survey is £157,000. There are pressures for a more positive policy in this area involving earlier or more flexible retirement, age discrimination legislation, and generally more protection for older workers. I believe that the survey will be of value in disclosing the facts on those matters.
    Mr. Gwilym Roberts: Does my hon. Friend accept that a major contribution to the solution of our unemployment problems would be made if there were an early extension of the job-swap scheme to all parts of the country and if it were to include other age groups within its compass?
    Mr. Grant: This matter was discussed on Second Reading of the Bill, and if a few more Members are present in Committee we shall be able to discuss the matter generally then.

    Construction Industry
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he will make a further statement on the level of unemployment in the construction industry; and what proposals he has for reducing it at least to the level of March 1974.
    Mr. Harold Walker: The latest available quarterly figures for the industry in Great Britain are those for August 1976, when 193.800 workers were registered as unemployed. Questions about future programmes of construction work should be addressed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The Government's special employment measures are available to help workers in the construction industry who are unemployed or threatened with redundancy.
    Mr. Latham: Since the work load in the construction industry is so abysmal and is growing steadily worse, will the Government at least insist that the report from the economic development council for building advocating more home ownership—a report which has been suppressed because it may be politically embarrassing—is published as soon as possible?
    Mr. Walker: That is a matter for the NEDC. As for what the report will or will not disclose, I do not know the answer to that matter any more than does

    179
    the hon. Gentleman, except what has been reported speculatively in the Press. We should find the facts before we make sweeping allegations of that nature.
    Mr. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend accept that the construction workers are sick and tired of always being hit by slumps? Is it not time that the Government got down to arranging some sort of crash programme to insist that the construction industry must build more houses, help in home improvements and assist local authorities to take their plans out of pigeon-holes to ensure that more use is made of construction workers on public buildings?
    Mr. Walker: I share my hon. Friend's concern about unemployment in the construction industry. I hope that he will take some small comfort from the recent fall in interest rates, which is expected to lead to an increased demand for building in the private sector and has considerably improved the competitive position in the building societies. I hope that that will give some comfort and help to the building industry.
    Mr. Hall-Davis: Will the Minister discuss with the Secretary of State for Industry and the Chancellor of the Exchequer the case for increasing development grants for new industrial building to promote construction and renovation in older areas? If necessary, will he consider making reductions in grants on new machinery to offset the cost as a switch in balance would be beneficial?
    Mr. Walker: Of course, the hon. Gentleman knows that these matters are readily recognised by the Secretary of State for Industry. But it is equally recognised that the Government's industrial and economic strategy is one of providing for more assistance in the measures that are being taken in terms of Sections 7 and 8 of the Industry Act. I hope that in that way the Department of Industry will be able to express a positive response to the kind of strategy of which the hon. Gentleman spoke.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my hon. Friend realise that by cutting public spending he will automatically cut back on manufacturing industry? Does he not appreciate that the six-month moratorium on public utilities that arose out of the last set of measures in December and the housing
    180
    cut-back of last July are throwing pipe-workers out of work and putting them on short time in North Derbyshire, in the Stanton and Staveley areas, and other regions throughout the country? If the Minister really wants to put things on a sound basis and footing, should he not stop listening to Members of the Opposition who are demanding public spending cuts?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend will recall that when my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his statement in December he made it quite clear that the programme that he was then announcing would not of itself lead to increased unemployment and that any increase in unemployment would be the result of other factors, such as the general state of the world economy. Our aim must be to achieve a general strengthening of the economy and to provide a sound basis for construction and other industries.

    Northern Region
    Mr. Radiceasked the Secretary of State for Employment whether he is satisfied with the level of unemployment in the Northern Region.
    Mr. Golding: No. That is why in addition to the allocation of an extra £145 million for training purposes, the Government have introduced a number of special measures to alleviate the worst effects of unemployment. These include the temporary employment subsidy, the job creation programme, the work experience scheme, the recruitment subsidy for school leavers, the youth employment subsidy, the job release scheme, and the strengthening of the careers service. So far, these measures have benefited more than 28,000 workers in the Northern Region.
    Mr. Radice: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. In view of the high level of unemployment in the Northern Region, should not the Government consider introducing a new regional incentive to make up for the withdrawal of the regional employment premium?
    Mr. Golding: The policy of the Government is quite clear. We intend to provide selective assistance to industry rather than assistance on the basis of geography.
    Mr. Blenkinsop: Does not my hon. Friend realise that the sudden abolition of the regional employment premium has caused serious anxiety in the area? Is there not a need—in addition to the temporary measures that the Minister has mentioned—for some long-term industrial grant linked with the employment provisions of the industrial projects?
    Mr. Golding: With the announcement of the abolition of the regional employment premium, which will not end before the end of March, came an expansion of the temporary employment subsidy. The Northern Region has already had 10,762 jobs saved by the temporary employment subsidy and the area stands to benefit from its extension.
    Mr. James Johnson: Is the Minister satisfied with the level of employment on Humberside? Since the Minister was unable to go there himself, will he confer with the Minister of State, who will be visiting Hull this weekend? In the light of that consultation, will he make a statement next week about our difficulties on Humberside?
    Mr. Golding: It was not a question of my not wanting to go to Hull. I am not satisfied with the level of unemployment in any part of the United Kingdom and my hon. Friend will bear that in mind when he makes his visit.

    Job Creation
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Employment how many new jobs he estimates need to be created by 1980 to provide employment for those coming on to the labour market, either for the first time, through technological innovation, or increased productivity.
    Mr. Harold Walker: If present trends continue, we estimate that about 140,000 additional people each year may be seeking employment. No reliable estimates exist of the employment effects of technological innovation or increased productivity.
    Mr. Madden: Is my hon. Friend aware that estimates have been made that about 2 million new jobs will be needed to take account of the factors mentioned in the Question? Does he agree that the country's track record in creating new jobs, particularly in manufacturing industry, has left a great deal to be desired? Does
    182
    the Minister also agree that sustained public expenditure cuts over a long period will aggravate and not improve the situation?
    Mr. Walker: My hon. Friend knows that public expenditure restraint is an integral part of the Government's economic and industrial strategy, and we believe that that strategy is the right road to full employment.

    CITY OF LONDON
    Mr. Rifkindasked the Prime Minister when he last visited the City of London.
    Mr. Charles Morrisonasked the Prime Minister when he last visited the City of London.
    Mr. Gryllsasked the Prime Minister when he last visited the City of London.
    The Prime Minister (Mr. James Callaghan): I last visited the City of London on 16th February when I attended the annual dinner of the British Overseas Trade Board and its Advisory Council.
    Mr. Rifkind: Is the Prime Minister aware that both the City of London and British industry are gravely concerned about the fragile condition of British Leyland? Does the Prime Minister recall that in 1975 the Government said that future public money for British Leyland would depend on better industrial relations and increased productivity? Does he not agree that industrial relations at Leyland are in a parlous state and that production is only one-third of total capacity? When will the Government decide that enough is enough?
    The Prime Minister: The hon. Gentleman has called attention to a serious problem. The funds that were made available by the Government and that are committed will of course continue to be made available, but there must be a review of the situation before further funds are committed. As the hon. Gentleman may know, the Secretary of State for Industry yesterday had a lettter from the National Enterprise Board. The Government are giving serious consideration to this and my right hon. Friend will make

    183
    a statement as soon as we have been able to conclude our deliberations.
    On industrial relations, I recognise the difficulties that have arisen as a result of the pay policy of the past two years and that the policy has created difficulties with differentials, but it has been a necessary step in overcoming inflation. I say to those who are concerned about differentials that perhaps the biggest differential of all is between the man who is in a job and the man who is out of one, and some of them could be out of one.
    Mr. Grylls: Is not the most helpful thing the Prime Minister could say to British Leyland that stage 3 of the policy will be more flexible? Would it not be the supreme irony and very sad if the social contract in the end was responsible for bringing down British Leyland?
    The Prime Minister: I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's question because it gives me an opportunity to say that the discussions with the trade union movement will clearly have to be on the basis of a more flexible policy than there has been during the past two years. I have made this clear from the Dispatch Box time after time, and I hope that this will be understood in British Leyland.
    As the TUC does not wish to come to a conclusion on this matter until after the Budget, it is not possible for us to reach finality now. I hope that those in British Leyland who feel that they have a genuine grievance—and I do not deny that—will remember that the agreement runs out in August and that thereafter—and possibly before then if an agreement is concluded—there will be an opportunity to get greater flexibility. The Secretary of State for Industry is considering the position of Leyland and he will make a statement to the House as soon as he can.
    Mr. Morrison: Is the Prime Minister aware that last month foreign-made cars accounted for 43 per cent. of the home market? Given that choice and preference of the taxpayer, how much longer does the Prime Minister think that the British taxpayer will be willing to pour money into British Leyland to produce cars that are increasingly not wanted at home and to support a company that is,
    184
    regrettably, giving a worse name to British industry every day?
    The Prime Minister: I hope that we shall not carry that point too far, because I am sure that the hon. Gentleman does not want to pour scorn on an important British national asset. British Leyland's record last year was that the company failed to produce about 200,000 cars that had been included in its plan. I hope that Leyland understands that not only European car manufacturers but the Japanese are simply waiting to pour cars into this country for every car that we fail to produce.
    Mrs. Dunwoody: When he visits the City of London will the Prime Minister discuss with what is probably the wealthiest local authority in the world the situation of tenants living in the Barbican, who not protected by the Rent Acts and who are in dire need because there is no willingness on behalf of the City of London to protect the interests of these people?
    The Prime Minister: Perhaps my hon. Friend will put that question to the appropriate Minister. I shall draw it to his attention, but I am not sure that it is a responsibility for a Minister.
    Mr. Pardoe: Will the right hon. Gentleman give no credence to the new myth that the problems of British Leyland are due to the pay policy? Is he aware that the problems of Leyland pre-dated the present policy and the last Government's pay policy? Will he also not go to the City of London for advice on how to run Leyland, because the City has already virtually destroyed the company? Will he look at Meriden, which has not been disrupted by the pay policy, and draw the appropriate conclusion?
    The Prime Minister: I shall take all those considerations into account with pleasure. I have never thought that there was any particular connection between the Question on the Order Paper and the supplementaries that I am asked, so the hon. Gentleman can be certain that I shall not be going to the City for that purpose.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that we are asking whether the problems of Leyland do not

    185
    demonstrate the weaknesses of his two main pillars of policy, the social contract and the industrial strategy? Are they not mutually incompatible? Does he not agree that we are getting neither the production from the nation as a whole nor the productivity that we need because we have neither a pay policy that allows for differentials nor a taxation policy that permits of incentives?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Lady is adding to her consistent policy of a completely negative approach on all these questions. She is aware that although she failed to support the incomes policy, some of her spokesmen did, including the Opposition spokesman on Treasury policy. I do not know why she should go back on his policy in this matter. The right hon. Lady is consistently negative on this matter and on industrial strategy. She is consistently negative on industrial democracy and consistently negative on devolution. Indeed, it is difficult to know what she stands for on any single issue.
    Mrs. Thatcher: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that the negative thing is to refuse differentials and the negative thing is to refuse incentives? Does he not realise that the positive thing is to give differentials for skill and the positive thing is to give incentives? Only in this way shall we get the positive results that his Government will never get.
    The Prime Minister: The only way in which the right hon. Lady exceeds her capacity for a negative approach is in her capacity for stating the obvious. The Government's position on differentials has been made completely clear. I made it clear in my answer to the hon. Member for Surrey, North-West (Mr. Grylls), who asked a constructive question on this matter earlier. The right hon. Lady is not trying to help industrial relations in this matter; nor is she concerned with the future welfare of British industry. She has only one concern—naked ambition.

    ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEGAL SERVICES
    Mr. Tebbitasked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a further person to the Royal Commission on Legal Services.
    Mr. Brothertonasked the Prime Minister if he will recommend the appointment of an additional member to the Royal Commission on Legal Services.
    The Prime Minister: No.
    Mr. Tebbit: In view of all that has happened since the Prime Minister appointed a Mr. Joseph Haines to the Royal Commission, including the publicaaion of a scandalous breach of confidence in a recent book, is he still convinced that Mr. Haines is a suitable person to sit in judgment on the British legal profession?
    The Prime Minister: Yes.
    Mr. Brotherton: In view of that reply, will the Prime Minister tell the House by what criteria he judges whether a man is suitable to sit in judgment on the legal profession?
    The Prime Minister: When I look at the hon. Gentleman, I have no doubts as to what is suitable.
    Mr. Thorpe: Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that, among other things, the Royal Commission will have to consider the arrangements foe determining the remuneration of the profession? Since one of the members, Mr. Haines, appears to get his remuneration by selling confidences to the highest bidder and since the legal profession exists, and only subsists, on the basis of trust and confidence between client and lawyer, does the right hen. Gentleman think that this gentleman has very much to offer?
    The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman has suffered a great deal from personal obloquy and should be the last person to pursue that sort of vendetta against someone else.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the ex-Leader of the Liberal Party is the last person who should be raising matters of this sort, because he was the man who opened supermarkets on the South Coast and got money from pensioners and others—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. We all know that personal attacks are deprecated.
    Mr. Skinner: The right hon. Gentleman got away with it.
    Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman was not referring to an hon. Member of the House or I should have intervened earlier.
    Mr. Thorpe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I have never opened a supermarket or anything else on the South Coast.
    Mr. Skinner: It is a well-known fact that the right hon. Gentleman was involved in opening supermarkets and being paid appearance money by London and County Securities Limited when he was a director of that company and when the auditor had already published the result of his investigation on the accounts and the books of the company had been in default.

    CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
    Mr. Wrigglesworthasked the Prime Minister if he will list the responsibilities which he has allocated to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
    The Prime Minister: The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for all Treasury business, including the direction of economic and financial policy and the control of public expenditure. He is the Minister responsible for the Inland Revenue and Customs and Excise and some other smaller Departments. The Chancellor is also Chairman of NEDC and a governor of the International Monetary Fund.
    Mr. Wrigglesworth: Can my right hon. Friend give the House his views on the proposal by the Cabinet Secretary for splitting the Treasury into different parts and, in particular, on the proposal, which had the support of his two predecessors, for putting the public expenditure part of the Treasury into the Civil Service Department?
    The Prime Minister: I have been reading the evidence with very great interest and watching some of the articles appearing in the Press. I shall continue to give these matters my full consideration and if I have any change to propose I shall inform the House.
    Mr. Michael Marshall: Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity to tell the House and the country what he
    188
    has so far refused to tell us, namely, what are the responsibilities between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer in view of his position as economic overlord, about which we have heard so much but seen so little?
    The Prime Minister: I repeat that I have taken over no responsibilities from the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but I am still First Lord of the Treasury.
    Mr. Kilroy-Silk: In what year shall we have a return to full employment?
    The Prime Minister: The problem of unemployment is one that afflicts the whole of the Western industrialised world. I propose to discuss these matters with President Carter when I visit the United States next week and also to raise them at the Rome European Council, because it is clear that no one nation can return to full employment on its own. It will require international effort and we shall bend all our efforts to secure that at the earliest possible moment.
    Mr. Gow: Does the Prime Minister recall a letter that the Chancellor of the Exchequer wrote on 15th December 1976 to the managing director of the International Monetary Fund in which he stated that it would be a continuing part of the Government's strategy to reduce the share of resources taken by the public sector? Will the right hon. Gentleman take this opportunity of confirming that that is still an essential element of Government strategy?
    The Prime Minister: Yes, we shall keep to the formula agreed with the International Monetary Fund. If circumstances change, we shall have other discussions with it. If the circumstances change, the arrangements can be changed.
    Mr. Atkinson: If the rate of inflation is likely to rise to 17 per cent. year on year together with massive unemployment, the two things happening together, does that not suggest that the Treasury has failed in its purpose? Is it not time to reconsider the dismantling of the Treasury? If we are serious about job creation, should we not have an economic directorate to replace the parts of the Treasury that have singularly failed to intervene in the economy and done nothing to put right the shortcomings of a free market system?
    The Prime Minister: Although there may be advantages in changing the machinery of the Treasury and in making other combinations, I express no view on that this afternoon. I do not think that will solve the fundamental economic problems that we face, although it may make for a better organising of them.
    As a result of the depreciation of sterling last autumn, together with the increase in food prices, inflation will be at a higher level than we had expected or were working for in the first half of this year, but I repeat as strongly as I can that if we can get a third round in the wages agreement, on the present forecasts and from what we can see of matters such as the strength of sterling and the price of imported commodities and food and raw materials, there is every reason for there to be a substantial falling away in the rate of inflation in the second half of this year and the first half of 1978.
    Mr. David Steel: Is the Chancellor of the Exchequer still responsible for devising the formula by which the current rate of inflation is dinned into the public's mind? If so, by how much is it reduced from the 84 per cent., which is the figure that he gave us so clearly during the last election?
    The Prime Minister: The figure of 8·4 per cent. has been explained many times as a short-term forecast over a period of three months. I try to give the House the most accurate forecasts but I regret to say that, as others have discovered before me and no doubt will discover after me, they are usually wrong. However, we must try to take some account of what is forecast. The best forecast that I can give the House now is the one that I have already given, namely, an increase during the first half of this year and a rapid falling away from the middle of 1977 to the middle of 1978.
    Mr. Prior: Does the Prime Minister agree that it would be quite wrong for his hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) to blame the Treasury for the high rate of inflation and the high rate of unemployment? Would it not be better if the Government considered their own record and did the necessary thing?
    The Prime Minister: I do not think that it would be altogether fair to blame the Treasury. I blame the previous Government. The right hon. Gentleman was a distinguished ornament of a Government who printed money like a drunken sailor on his first night ashore. At least his Government hold this record, namely, that the rate of expansion of the money supply under the Administration of which he was an ornament has never been exceeded in this country before. Thank heavens a Labour Government came in and started to put matters right.

    NEW MEMBER
    The following Member took and subscribed the Oath:
    Peter Leonard Brooke, Esq., for City of London and Westminster, South.

BRITISH LEYLAND MOTOR CORPORATION
Mr. Hal Miller: I beg to ask leave, Mr. Speaker, to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the worsening situation at British Leyland as a result of the continuing refusal of the tool-room committee to recommend a return to work on the advice of its union."
I rise with due good wishes to yourself, Mr. Speaker, on the occasion of St. David's Day, which is not a reference to the new Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs making his debut this afternoon.
This is a matter that is clearly specific—namely, the continuing refusal of the toolroom committee to recommend a return to work on the advice of its union. It is an important matter—even more important than yesterday—in that production of the Mini has now ceased, directly affecting the remainder of my constituents who were still at work yesterday at British Leyland. It also involves the cessation of production of the Maxi and Princess models.
The matter is important because of the Government's pay policy, because of the need for some incentives to be restored for skilled workers and because of the need for the company to have

191
restored to it freedom of action in order to set a common starting date for the various agreements in its plants and to set common rates of pay. It is important for industrial democracy because there are real questions arising as to how skilled workers are to negotiate their differentials when they may not command a majority in their own unions.
It is a highly important matter because of the way in which a Left-wing extremist leadership is misleading a body of toolmakers who have a very genuine grievance. It is highly important for the Government's industrial policy as we have a situation in which there is extra manufacturing capacity yet we are unable in our factories to meet domestic demand, thereby allowing in so many imports.
It is an urgent matter, Mr. Speaker—you yourself described the situation yesterday as fluid and the Minister of State described the company as bleeding to death—because we have reports today that the company has drawn on its investment funds while the newspapers refer to the company being at a crisis point. I therefore submit that it is a specific, important and urgent matter.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asks leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that he thinks should have urgent consideration; namely,
"the worsening situation at British Leyland as a result of the continuing refusal of the tool-room committee to recommend a return to work on the advice of its union".
The hon. Gentleman gave me notice this morning that he was going to raise this matter today. The House will recall that yesterday I said that the situation was fluid. I am satisfied that the matter raised by the hon. Member is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. Gentleman have the leave of the House?
The leave of the House having been given—
Mr. Speaker: The motion for the Adjournment of the House will now stand over until the commencement of public business tomorrow, when a debate on the matter will take place for three hours.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL (OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT)
3.41 p.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: I beg to move,
That leave be given in a Bill to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 in relation to the unfair dismissal of employees who ordinarily work partly outside and partly inside Great Britain.
This is a specific and important matter affecting the constituents of hon. Members on both sides of the House not by the thousand but by the tens of thousands—people who believe themselves to be protected by our law but who are not so protected. Drivers who go across to the Continent, executives who sell to our overseas customers, buyers who purchase abroad, directors, managers and ordinary working people whom it was intended that the law should cover have been stripped naked of their rights by two decisions of the Employment Appeal Tribunal.
My Bill, which I seek leave to introduce with support from both sides of the House, would consist of one clause only—namely, to provide that those who work outside the United Kingdom remain unprotected, but that those who work partly inside and partly outside do not lose their protection merely because they make journeys abroad.
Briefly, the position is that Schedule 1, paragraph 9(2) of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 provides that the right to bring an action for unfair dismissal
"does not apply to any employment where under his contract of employment the employee ordinarily works outside Great Britain."
I think that all of us believed that a person ordinarily works either inside or outside Great Britain. If he ordinarily works here, he cannot ordinarily work somewhere else.
Unfortunately, that view was not shared by the Employment Appeal Tribunal in the case of Portec (UK) Ltd. v. Mogensen. In that case a director who spent a part of his year working inside the United Kingdom and part of it working outside the United Kingdom was dismissed when he was working within the United Kingdom and he was awarded £5,200 by the Industrial Tribunal, that

193
being the maximum permitted. The company then saw fit to appeal, and the Employment Appeal Tribunal held that if a person works partly outside and partly within the United Kingdom, provided that both employments are ordinarily part of his terms of service, he is not protected by the law. In other words, unless his visit abroad is either on an odd occasion or is "extraordinary", he is not protected and he loses the rights which otherwise he would have.
That means that if a lorry driver, reporter, exporter or anyone who maintains a machine goes abroad on anything other than an odd occasion, he will probably find when he gets back that his employers are entitled to dismiss him and that he will have no protection whatever from the rules which were introduced originally in the Industrial Relations Act in one of the very few parts which were totally uncontroversial and for which we all voted and which have now been restated in precise terms in the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act.
The other case is Wilson v. Maynard Shipbuilding Consultants. I do not want to say too much about that case, because I understand that there may yet be an appeal. However, in his judgment, Mr. Justice Phillips said:
"The law under which employees who might lose their right to claim compensation for un
194
fair dismissal because they work partly in Great Britain and partly abroad should be amended to take account of the difficulties likely to arise from the development of the EEC, the growth of international companies, and the expansion of motor transport."
I submit that the law should be amended because, as it stands, it is unfair, unreasonable, ludicrous in the result of its interpretation and totally contrary to what all of us believed that it was intended to achieve.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Greville Janner, Mr. Ronald Atkins, Mr. Tom Bradley, Mr. David Knox, Mr. David Mudd, Mr. Arnold Shaw, Sir Derek Walker-Smith, Mr. Phillip Whitehead, Mr. Nicholas Winterton and Mr. Ian Wrigglesworth.

UNFAIR DISMISSAL (OVERSEAS EMPLOYMENT)
Mr Greville Janner accordingly presented a Bill to amend the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act 1974 in relation to the unfair dismissal of employees who ordinarily work partly outside and partly inside Great Britain: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 6th May and to be printed. [Bill 79.]

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Tinn.]
3.46 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): In a typically incisive analytical passage in his last major speech, Tony Crosland at Luxembourg defined the essence of Britain's changing relationship with the world. He said:
"Looking back over a long span of history, we see that there have been two main strands in our relations with the outside world. At times we have been deeply involved in the European continent. Then, more recently, due largely to the preoccupations of empire, we pursued what has been described as the blue-water school of diplomacy. But one strand has never been completely exclusive of the other. It is now natural that, with the change in the relationship with our former imperial territories, there should be a change in the relationship with our neighbours in Europe. What we have learned from our blue-water school will, of course, continue to influence us and colour our contribution to Europe. But it is with Europe that, by will of people and Government, we are now inextricably involved."
This central reorientation of our relationships is one which I have long supported and am perhaps particularly identified with. Yet this strand in our foreign policy cannot be pursued exclusively. It is not a British instinct to seek to restrict our horizons and to think and act as if in a continental cocoon. The maritime influence is strong within many of us, and certainly within myself. I was born in Plymouth which I have represented in this House for nearly 11 years, and I was for two years Minister for the Navy.
We are an island race, part of Europe, but with the Atlantic breaking against our coast. An accident of history brought the industrial revolution to Britain before any other European country. This, coupled with British sea power, gave us the wherewithal to trade with and invest in almost every corner of the globe. Today our future lies with Europe as a member of the European Community. But the scale of our international interests is not such that we could withdraw from them even if we wished to do so.
196
There is in Britain today little yearning for past imperial glories. Over the last 10 years we have, all of us, become realistic about our influence in the world. Yet equally it is time to stop selling ourselves short. We need more self-confidence, more national buoyancy. We are in danger of exaggerating our weaknesses and of under-playing our potential. Let us examine our strengths first.
We play a leading part in the European Community. It is not just one of the wealthiest and potentially most economically powerful groups in the world. The aspirations of the member States go beyond immediate national concerns. They are in principle and in practice prepared to forgo national advantage in return for longer-term Community advantage.
We are a country which is unusually dependent on foreign trade with overseas investments second only to those of the United States and still the financial centre of the world. So we have to be actively involved in the major international economic institutions—the OECD, the IMF and the GATT.
We are a vital element in the Atlantic Alliance and the only European member State of NATO which contributes to the strategic, tactical-nuclear and conventional forces of the Organisation. We have a continuing responsibility for Berlin, the exercise of which is vital to the stability of Europe. We are a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
We are a member of the Commonwealth, which gives us a unique insight into the preoccupations and interests of 35 independent countries, representing a broad cross-section of the world's population. The Commonwealth embraces countries at almost every stage of economic development, but its diversity is a strength, not a weakness. The process of understanding each other's problems can only benefit from the frank and informal exchange of opinions which a shared language and, a shared history make possible.
We have established a democratic system and a tradition of political stability of which we in this country, remain justifiably proud. By 1980 we shall be self-sufficient in oil and will be for the

197
next few decades the only major industrialised nation self-sufficient in energy. We have developed a way of life culturally and morally which is not only one of our most valued national assets but also a long-standing source of influence on Europe and on the world.
This is the positive side. I restate it today at the risk of sounding jingoistic because I think that our strengths are too readily overlooked at home and abroad. But, of course, there is a negative side, too, which no one but a fool would ignore. In today's world we can no longer rely on the natural advantages of our insular position to safeguard what we value. With the growth of interlocking relationships, we in Britain find ourselves increasingly limited in our ability to protect our interests on our own. We are of course not unique in this.
We live in a world in which probably no nation, and certainly no industrialised national, can any longer guarantee its prosperity and security without regard to the outside world. This in essence is what we mean by the vogue term "interdependence". It is interdependence which has, since 1945, transformed the international context in which British foreign policy has to operate. The central task of our foreign policy is to decide how best we can realise our fundamental objectives—to promote national prosperity and to safeguard national security—in an interdependent world.
We have first to recognise the link between prosperity and security. Prosperity is of little use without security. But, more important, our security, our reliability as an ally and our capacity to play a useful rôle in the world are infinitely more difficult to sustain if we are economically weak.
Against a five-fold increase in oil prices in 1973 and the subsequent runaway inflation of the summer of 1975 a great deal has already been achieved. But unless we complement sound domestic policies with international economic co-operation, most of our efforts at home, and in particular the benefits gained from the social contract, could very quickly be eroded.
We are increasingly vulnerable to decisions taken far from our shores and over which we have little, if any, control. Our
198
exports of goods and services represent something like one third of our gross national product. We import half our food and even more of our raw materials. Developments therefore in the international economy can and do have a direct impact on the prosperity of every inhabitant in this country.
It is an extraordinary comment on what the Foreign Office once was that one can peruse those volumes of official documents on British foreign policy between the wars and find barely a reference to economic problems. And this was at the time of the great slump and when Britain's decision to move off the gold standard was the most far reaching in its influence on international affairs.
The Foreign and Commonwealth Office is very different today. Contributing to the export drive is a central task of every overseas post and my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, North (Mr. Judd) plays a key co-ordinating rôle between home Departments in Britain and the European Community so that we are deeply involved in domestic matters.
Since 1945 the management of national economies has become almost as much an area of international, as of domestic, decision making. The industrialised democracies have a common interest in stable currencies, the expansion of free trade and the overriding need to avoid a repetition of the slump which took place so tragically in this country and in others in the 1930s. The world economic crisis of the last three years has underlined still further this mutual dependence. The economic summits at Rambouillet and Puerto Rico represented a joint recognition of the power and responsibility of the industrialised countries to promote the prosperity of the developed and developing nations alike. They also marked a concerted effort to avoid competitive beggar-my-neighbour measures at a time of crisis; and to co-operate in bringing the Western world out of recession, without refuelling inflation.
The forthcoming economic summit will enable us to consider further ways of stimulating world economic recovery. It is clear that such recovery depends first and foremost on an expansion of demand in the stronger economies of the world. A central economic issue is what to do about the OPEC surpluses. Then there

199
is the problem of unemployment: increasingly structural and long-lasting, not cyclical; increasingly an international, not a national, phenomenon. Any summit meeting of the world's leading industrial powers must examine closely and urgently the possibility of co-operation on an international scale to rid us all of the scourge of unemployment.
An equally important aspect of economic inter-dependence which is of concern to many hon. Members, the relationship between the developed and developing worlds. The fundamental and most intractable features of this relationship are that in the international economy one third of the world's population has a per capita income of less than £100 per annum; and that the present population of the developing countries is likely to increase by 60 per cent. before the end of the century.
But the gap between rich and poor countries is not simply a matter of statistics. It is supremely a moral question which demands a firm and principled stand. It is even a question of security. Gross and ever-increasing inequalities are in the world at large, as they are in our own national societies, a source of confrontation and ultimately open conflict. The British Government are committed to working for a more fair and rational world economic system which will offer the people of the poorer countries the possibility of lives no longer dominated by malnutrition, want or chronic insufficiency. The fact that it is simply not possible, within the framework of national consent, to meet the demands of the less developed countries immediately or all at once does not diminish the force of our commitment. Our national resources are finite, although the influence that we can have in redressing the imbalance in the world economy is greatly enhanced by our membership of the European Community and such things as the Lomé Agreement to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) made such a major contribution. The countries involved in the North-South dialogue are engaged in a complex and long-term process that virtually amounts to a permanent state of discussion and negotiation. It is vitally important that both sides should try to work together, despite their differences, in the forthcoming Common Fund
200
conference and the ministerial session of the Conference on International Economic Co-operation.
Increasingly since 1945 Britain has been voluntarily placing herself in common decision-making structures with other nations. This has meant compromise; not always getting one's way; but also achieving through common effort solutions to common problems which on our own we, like other nations, would be incapable of solving. This applies in particular to our membership of the European Community and our membership of NATO.
The unique quality of the Community is that it is an economic institution with a political future. It is also a solid buttress for democracy. There has been controversy about whether progress can be made towards political unity without progress towards economic unity and the interplay between the two. Experience shows that progress can be made at different speeds and that the two areas will not always move in tandem. But political advance and economic advance are inevitably linked. When one analyses the achievements of national Governments the linkage becomes obvious. Similarly, when measuring progress within the Community, one cannot escape a simple fact that the reason why the economically strong nations are prepared to consider helping the less well off members is political. It is polities not economics which is the decisive factor behind further enlargement—in the negotiations with Greece and in the discussions with Portugal and maybe later with Spain. [Interruption.] Turkey has shown no signs of applying yet. Over the next five years the Community must systematically face the problem of economic divergence between the member States. The immediate need is to restore economic growth to the Community so that we can establish the basic preconditions for successful policies which will promote convergence. While we can and must continue to make progress in political unity, there can be little doubt that were the present trends of economic divergence to become even more firmly established, then of itself it would present a serious threat to the cohesion of the Community.
The Community needs, if it is to command greater public support, to become more relevant to people's daily lives. We

201
can make it so, economically and socially, by taking action within the Community framework to reinforce and supplement national efforts to restore growth and fight inflation and unemployment. We can avoid creating butter mountains and selling off the surpluses to the Russians. We can do so democratically by giving people a say in directly electing the Members of the European Parliament. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] If direct elections are to make a positive contribution—
Mr. Kevin McNamara: Why does my right hon. Friend so disparage the efforts of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture and suggest that his right hon. Friend cannot settle the problem of the butter mountain in a way that he suggested elected Members could do so?
Dr. Owen: Far from disparaging the efforts of my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture, I strongly support them. The stand that he has taken over the butter mountain is part of a continuing policy to try to reform the common agricultural policy so that we eradicate the surpluses that exist. That is the Government's policy.
Mr. McNamara: It has nothing to do with elected Members.
Dr. Owen: I did not claim that. If my hon. Friend had listened, he would have heard that what I said was that there were a number of different ways in which we could make the Community more relevant. One was to deal with issues such as unemployment. One was to deal with the question of surpluses, which has caused in the public mind a great deal of feeling, and it is something that damages the Community. We can do this—and I know my hon. Friend's view on this matter—democratically by giving people a say in directly electing the Members of the European Parliament.
I recognise that there are different views on this matter. But if direct elections are to make a positive contribution, then any electoral system adopted in the United Kingdom, as in other member States, must carry conviction and must be truly representative. It is in this spirit that the Government genuinely intend to use their best endeavours, along with other member States to meet the 1978 May or June target date.
202
A White Paper which will contain some points still for decision in the light of the further discussion will be presented to Parliament within a few weeks. Then some of the problems and difficulties of electing 81 representative Members for Britain already discussed by the Select Committee will become more apparent to the House.
Constitutional changes need to be very carefully considered by Parliament as a whole. The cause of European democracy will not be served by repeating the problems we face on the Floor of this House with devolution. Nor will democracy be served by adopting in a hurry any system whose result will not add, when it comes, to people's confidence. in the directly elected Parliament. Of course, there are timing difficulties in delay. But no other member State has yet carried through the legislation necessary for direct elections. The more agreement we can reach now, the easier it will be to pass the legislation foreshadowed in the Queen's Speech.
The formation of NATO in 1949 reflected the fact that individually the States of Western Europe could not defend themselves and that security could lie only in collective effort made with the United States. The relationships of Britain and Europe with the United States are an integral feature of the interdependent world in which British foreign policy operates. This is the logical consequence of the United States' position in the international economy. It also reflects the United States' military strength. Anglo-United States relations rest on the strongest of foundations: shared ideals and shared principles.
Membership of NATO is the foundation of British security. The Organisation is as essential in an age of détente as it was during the cold war. For détente without security is a contradiction in terms. The continuing cohesion of the Atlantic Alliance and of NATO is therefore vital. Fortunately, the basic feature of this particular aspect of Europe's relations with America is its reassuring stability despite rapid change in international affairs. It is remarkable that after 30 years of peace and profound economic and social changes the Atlantic Alliance—an association of 15 free and democratic nations—should still be

203
strongly united and confident in its common objectives.
We are equally committed to détente, to the continuing search for a more constructive, more manageable and safer relationship with the Soviet Union and the other countries of Eastern Europe.
One of the priority tasks of détente is arms control and disarmament. This lies at the core of détente. The success of the present talks between the United States and the Soviet Union on strategic arms limitation is in everyone's interest. I hope that we can also move forward at the talks on mutual and balanced force reductions at Vienna.
A positive feature of our relations with the Soviet Union and some of the Warsaw Pact countries is the degree of cooperation which we have already achieved in the field of nuclear non-proliferation. We intend to build on this further so that we can together encourage further accessions to the non-proliferation treaty, and eliminate the risks inherent in the uncontrolled spread of nuclear technology. This whole area of policy is one which has interested me for many years. Britain takes very seriously her current chairmanship of the Nuclear Suppliers Group.
We must also ensure, as best we can, that the Helsinki Final Act is fully implemented and that we can bring a much needed human dimension to the development of detente. The Belgrade review conference in the summer gives the 35 signatory States the opportunity to examine progress on implementation over the last 18 months. The British Government's approach to the review meeting will be constructive. We do not want fruitless polemics. But we shall not hesitate to state our views frankly where we consider the performance of other countries to be unsatisfactory.
It would be a serious error to see detente as an exclusively European process or one confined to a bilateral relationship between the two super-Powers. There are a number of areas outside Europe where tensions present a chronic threat to world peace. The future credibility of detente depends on the restraint and responsibility of all States in their approach to crises inside and outside Europe. This is what we mean by the indivisibility of detente.
204
There are three major potential areas of conflict where Britain has an interest and where its policies will be tested over the next few months. In Southern Africa the intractability of the problems of the region, mainly stemming from racial discrimination, puts an increasing premium on violence. We shall uphold the principle of democracy in Namibia. The people of Namibia must be given the opportunity to determine their own political and constitutional future. We have repeatedly stated that it is an essential requirement that there should be countrywide elections in which all the political parties, including SWAPO, should be free to participate, and which would take place under United Nations' supervision.
The tensions are probably at their most acute in Rhodesia. Over the past year and especially during the last five months we have devoted a very great deal of effort to trying to bring about a settlement by negotiation—an orderly and peaceful transfer of power out of the hands of the white minority and into the hands of the majority, where it properly belongs.
The present position is that the Geneva Conference, of which we had high hopes, has had to go into recess while we seek a new basis for negotiation. In the course of this search we have ourselves put forward our own proposals for a transitional government. These were laid before the House on 25th January. Given good will on both sides, and a real desire to make progress towards early majority rule and independence, our proposals would, I am convinced, have enabled us to obtain agreement to the establishment of a transitional government. I much regret that, on 24th January, Mr. Smith rejected them even as a basis for negotiation.
Since then we have been considering with our American allies the options that remain open. We remain in contact with the nationalists and the front line presidents. We and the Americans have recently had joint discussions with South Africa at official level. In the light of our continuing consultations with all the parties concerned we shall decide in what form it may be possible to resume negotiations for a peaceful settlement.
Mr. Cyril D. Townsend: Will the right hon. Gentleman give consideration to introducing more moderate

205
black and white spokesmen in Rhodesia into the discussions?
Dr. Owen: One of the problems is that it is not for me or the Government to introduce leaders. We have to deal with the leaders that are there. What we must do is to make sure that they are properly representative. That is the main issue. We must try to see that all shades of opinion are able to participate. I must say that I think the Geneva Conference did achieve that.
I was saying that with regard to a peaceful settlement it is still not too late, but time is rapidly running out and nothing we have heard over the past few weeks gives any ground for optimism. But we cannot allow our vision of a free, prosperous and non-racial society in Rhodesia to become dimmed. This applies with equal force to Namibia and to South Africa itself. The situations in all three areas demean human dignity, create tension between races and sow the seeds of violence. We must do everything in our power to help establish conditions in the region in which people of all races can work together in equality and mutual respect. The alternative is the bleak prospect of bloodshed and chaos. Even now appalling tragedies are becoming more frequent.
This House rightly, feels moved by compassion and wishes to intervene, but we must realistically face the limitations of our power. I for my part stand ready at any time to go anywhere and talk to anyone if I judge that it will make a genuine contribution for a peaceful settlement.
In the Middle East there is now some prospect of breaking the deadlock. Let us hope that fresh minds and fresh opportunities will enable early progress to be made. I am hoping to visit Egypt and Israel in the next few months to talk to their leaders and to assess the situation at first hand. We recognise that, for the time being, the rôle of the United States in getting negotiations under way will be decisive. But Europe cannot and should not stand aside. Europe's interests in the Middle East are enormous. The nations of the area have become Europe's major trading partners and we have strong links based on traditional friendship and history as well as commerce.
Mr. Andrew Faulds: As a preliminary, may I just say how much we warmly welcome my right hon. Friend to the Dispatch Box? Does he not agree that one of the absolute prerequisites for any settlement in the Middle East is the cessation of the continuing colonisation of Israeli settlements in the Arab occupied territories?
Dr. Owen: The Government's view on this subject was made clear in United Nations' debates and United Nations' discussions. This is one of the factors that need to be corrected if we are to reach a peaceful settlement in the Middle East. There are factors on all sides which need to be considered. One of the ways of forging peace will be to try to balance all these different factors and bring them together possibly in some overall settlement.
Mr. Greville Janner: In order to avoid doubt, when my right hon. Friend said that this is one of the matters to be corrected is it not part of the Government's policy that there should be secure and recognised frontiers for all of the countries in the Middle East, including Israel?
Mr. Faulds: But no expansionism.
Dr. Owen: Yes, that represents the Government's policy. When we look at the whole question of boundaries we have to look at all these aspects. But as I understood it my hon. Friend's suggestion touched on the specific question of some settlement.
In Cyprus, the recent meetings between Archbishop Makarios and Mr. Denktash are a hopeful sign and yesterday I discussed the situation in detail with the President's emissary, Mr. Clark Clifford. It is too early to say whether substantial progress towards a settlement will be made in the inter-communal talks in Vienna starting on 31st March. We shall remain in close touch with our allies and our partners in the Community to decide what, if any, initiatives we can take to further a negotiated settlement. The recent declaration of the Nine on Cyprus reflects our concern.
Mr. John Corrie: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that at the moment a delegation of Greek Cypriot Members of Parliament

207
is on its way to this country to discuss this problem with him? Does he not feel it unfair that either side should be coming here while delicate talks are going on?
Dr. Owen: I have tried to make myself available to all sides. I visited Cyprus myself and spoke to Turkish Cypriot leaders and Greek Cypriot leaders. I have spoken to individual Greeks, Turks and Greek and Turkish Cypriots coming through London. What I have always felt in this complex situation is that one needs information about how people feel on the island. My door has been open to many different sides and I can assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no discrimination.
It is concern for the rights of the individual that govern our policies towards our few remaining dependent territories. We cannot avoid responding to changing circumstances but we must consider at all times the wishes and interests of the people who are dependent upon us. My hon. Friend, the Member for Merthyr Tydfil (Mr. Rowlands) has just returned from a gruelling and very hard-working visit to the Falkland Islands. He will give the House an account of his consultations and conversations there and in Buenos Aires when he speaks at the end of this debate but I should like to remind the House of the purpose of that visit.
The Government believe that a framework of greater political and economic co-operation in the region of the South-West Atlantic is necessary if we are to have any prospect of achieving a prosperous and durable future for the Islands. The Government therefore decided that the time had come to consider both with the Islanders and with the Argentine Government whether a climate existed for discussing the broad issues which bear on the future of the Falkland Islands and the possibilities of co-operation between Britain and Argentina in the region of the South-West Atlantic.
As my predecessor indicated, any such discussions would inevitably raise fundamental questions in the relationship between the Islands, Britain and Argentina. However, any changes which might be proposed must be acceptable to the Islanders whose interest and wellbeing are our main concern. In conse-
208
quence there must be full consultation with the Islanders at every stage; nothing will be done behind their backs.
I now reaffirm these pledges. My hon. Friend had very full discussions with all sections of islander opinion and made it clear that the issue of sovereignty is bound to be raised in any negotiations which might take place with the Argentines. He also assured them, however, that such negotiations would take place under the sovereignty umbrella; that is, Her Majesty's Government would wholly reserve their position on the issue of sovereignty which would in no way be prejudiced. It was on the basis of this assurance, and on the understanding that there would be full consultation at every stage, that the Joint Legislative and Executive Council of the Islands gave their approval for the Minister of State to hold talks in Buenos Aires to try to establish a basis for negotiation with the Government of Argentina. These talks have not yet been concluded but I can assure the House that there has been and there will be no sell-out. That would be to betray the very principles which I believe guide our British foreign policy.
Mr. Julian Amery: The right hon. Gentleman said there would be the fullest consultations. As with the analogous position of Gibraltar, it has been the position of successive British Governments that there would be no question of handing over sovereignty without the consent of the population. Can the right hon. Gentleman give an assurance that consultation also involves consent in this case?
Dr. Owen: One assurance I can give is that any change in the sovereignty would have to come before this House. I am confident that this House would not pass any legislation involving the sovereignty of the Islanders if it was not satisfied that this was in their best interests. The fact that their interests will be looked after not just by this Government but by this House is the best safeguard for the islanders.
Mr. Douglas Jay: In spite of that why can my right hon. Friend not give a plain assurance that there will be no transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the islanders, as has been done in other cases?
Dr. Owen: The wording I have used has been carefully phrased. There are no weasel words in what I have said. I have weighed this issue very carefully. I think the conduct of foreign affairs in this very difficult situation is quite clear. This House has to pass legislation before there are any changes in sovereignty. This House has always zealously guarded its reputation for looking after the interests of minority groups wherever they are, and of respecting democracy.
I recognise the Government have that reputation, too. Although I give an assurance on behalf of the Government I have to recognise that it is not always a decision just for the Government. It is not a decision which would be made just by the Government. It will also come back to this House, and that is the essential safeguard.
In conclusion, an effective foreign policy does not simply depend on a sound and prosperous economy; nor even on the vigour and stability of a nation's political institutions, vital though these are. Equally important is our commitment to the proclaimed values and beliefs of our society, based upon the ideals of morality, equality and justice. These ideals must permeate all aspects of our foreign policy.
In the field of human rights, this means that we must take our stand in any corner of the globe. We must not discriminate. We will apply the same standards and judgments to Chile as we do to Communist countries or to Uganda, or to South Africa. For, without respect for human rights, we cannot hope for peace and stability in the long run. It is not a question of interfering in other people's internal affairs. The United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the UN Covenants on Human Rights demonstrate clearly that abuses of human rights, wherever they may occur, are the legitimate subject of international concern. Of course, we have to balance morality with reality. In the last analysis, it is the Government and this House which must judge how best to give effect to the beliefs to which we all aspire; and, inevitably, different circumstances and different countries will require different measures. Governmental action must be hard-headed and practical. Above all, it must have realisable objectives, for otherwise it is all too easy
210
to drift into a combination of what Winston Churchill once called in this House "mush, slush and gush".
It is early days for me as Foreign Secretary. I have much to learn, but on one matter I shall be unshakable. Foreign policy must project outwards the values which lie at the core of British society. This is the only way in which a Foreign Secretary can hope to carry public opinion, and without public support any foreign policy is ultimately doomed to failure. I will apply this standard as best I can to the decisions which I take during my tenure of this office.
4.22 p.m.
Mr. John Davies: May I first extend to the right hon. Gentleman my compliments on his speech today and my good wishes for his tenure of his present office? He will understand if I say that I hope that that occupancy will be brief but successful.
I have a real sense of sympathy and fellow-feeling with the Foreign Secretary because I, too, was rather precipitated into a position on the Front Bench following the death of a great and much-respected parliamentarian in the person of Iain Macleod. Therefore, I have a strong sense of feeling for the right hon. Gentleman at this time.
In some ways, today's debate on foreign affairs comes as a very welcome one, because the Opposition have been pressing for it for a long time. However, to some degree it comes as a pointed commentary on the Government's assessment of priorities. It cannot fail to appear to the Opposition that the occasion for this debate arises largely from the fact that a sudden vacuum was found in the Government's programme as a result of the devolution disaster and that otherwise we might have been going on week after week calling for such a debate.
It would be hard to fault a lot of the general statements made by the Foreign Secretary today. Most of us will find ourselves at one with most of his broad feelings and with his general approach to the task facing him. But it is inevitable that on individual issues that may not be the case. Indeed, there may be—and it is illustrated by what I said about the occasion for this debate—a sense of difference in the fundamental approaches

211
of the two sides of the House to the purposes of foreign policy. I should like to consider, as the right hon. Gentleman did, some of the issues where the principal areas of tension lie at the moment rather than to dwell on other longer-term issues, such as the problems facing the less-developed world, which I hope we shall have an opportunity to debate in due course.
In foreign political terms, it seems to me that 1977 is a year of both dangers and opportunities. It is perhaps a singular year in this respect. The dangers are very great. The opportunities are quite exceptional in some senses. In considering the various areas of tension, perhaps I may be allowed to dwell upon those opportunities. I do not necessarily observe exactly the same order as that chosen by the right hon. Gentleman. But I do not seek, either, to assess what I have to say in terms of the precedence of individual questions.
The Foreign Secretary spoke last of all about the Falkland Islands. As he will know, there is a widespread feeling of anxiety on both sides of the House about the sovereignty issue and the position of the islanders. We are not unaware of the dilemma which the right hon. Gentleman faces. We know that although he is faced by proposals that might be made for the improvement of the islanders' economic prospects, they involve very heavy capital expenditure at a time when obviously that is unwelcome. The right hon. Gentleman will have in mind the extremely interesting Adjournment debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) some time ago when these issues were carefully and sensibly rehearsed.
However, in the light of what the right hon. Gentleman said, we do not feel completely satisfied and assured about this problem of the absolute sovereignty and the islanders' wishes in this respect. "Consultation" is a word that has all sorts of overtones. Too often it implies an endeavour to bring people into line with an existing state of decision. This is a kind of consultation that is totally inappropriate to the circumstances of this issue.
It was a disappointment to the House that the Foreign Secretary could not in clean terms say in response to my ight
212
hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that he could assure the House that there would be no transfer unless there was consent. I hope that the Minister of State will feel able to go somewhat further than the right hon. Gentleman did just now.
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Might not my right hon. Friend seek an assurance that if this matter is to be determined in the House of Commons it will be determined by a free vote and that the Government's majority will not be used to push through a measure that will be opposed by the islanders?
Mr. Davies: That is an important concomitant. But I should still like a clean statement to this effect. The House will make its decision in the way that it thinks fit, but it would be terrible if we were in any sense compromising the right of these people to decide their own future.
The Foreign Secretary dealt with Cyprus. In this area I believe that the opportunity is brighter than in almost any other and in some ways rather unexpectedly brighter. The developments which have taken place following the encounter between Archbishop Makarios and Mr. Denktash, and followed up by Mr. Clark Clifford's mission, all seem to suggest that it is possible now to find a degree of flexibility between hitherto immobile parties that will lead to a conclusion.
But the issue does not stop at Cyprus. The area of concern is the whole of this NATO flank and not least the very important problems that arise in relation to the eventual expansion of the European Economic Community. All these issues are involved in finding some sense of stability in the Eastern Mediterranean and one's feeling that the long-standing disputes and disagreements which have damaged the interests of Cyprus itself and those of Turkey and Greece can at long last be set aside. I feel sure that the House will only support the right hon. Gentleman in his endeavour to pursue the action of this reconciliation to a finality.
In the Middle East the prospects again are substantially better. There, however, there is a dangerous factor as well. The opportunities are perhaps not very long-lived. The alternative to seizing the

213
opportunities at this moment to bring about a settlement in that highly vital area can have the most incalculable consequences. The Middle East situation would seem to be characterised by extreme possibilities—the possibility of at long last an understanding and settlement or, failing that, the possibility of a most frightening explosion. Therefore, the issues of opportunity and danger are at their most evident in that area.
The deadlock must be broken. There is obviously a peculiarly delicate situation obtaining during the run-up to the Israeli elections. It is hard to see a situation emerging before then that will allow the reconvening of the Geneva Conference, but from all the discussions that I have been able to have I believe that there are signs of good will on both sides to create acceptable circumstances for the reconvening of that conference thereafter. I am sure that the visits of Dr. Waldheim and Mr. Vance have contributed to that situation.
The primary obstacle, the biggest hurdle in the way, is the whole issue of the Palestinian representation at such a conference, on the one side, and, on the other, the whole problem of the Palestinians' attitude to the State of Israel. It seems to me that inevitably a prelude to the conference must be some relaxation on both sides of their respective views. It seems to me inevitable also that in order to reach the far wider and more vital ultimate interest which exists both parties have to recede from their more extreme positions so that the purposes envisaged in Resolution No. 242 of the Security Council can at last be tabled as a matter for conference negotiation rather than for assertions of rigid positions by both sides.
There is an infinite number of intractable problems to solve at the conference table itself, but I believe that it is the first step now that counts, the approach to this essential tripwire of interest, represented by the real interests of the Palestinian people on one side and the real interests of the Israelis on the other. Again, the interest in the situation goes very wide. The United Kingdom and the whole of the EEC have deeply entrenched interests in the area. The right hon. Gentleman referred to them—the very high state of investment
214
there, the great reliance of Western Europe on Middle East oil.
There is no doubt that in the event of an explosion in the area the first issue which would almost fatally ensue would be an interruption of oil supplies, with all its incalculable effects on the Western industrialised countries. Then there is the strong trading relationship, which has recently intensified to the extent of movement in and out of the area. I welcome that, and I believe that the influence of our business men going there and of their business men coming to Europe serves again to try to reconcile the interests of all the parties in the area, to their eventual benefit.
Are we mobilising adequately the depth of interest of the EEC in this area in order to support the welcome efforts made by the United States and the United Nations to this end? Have they been adequately persistent in bringing home the immense importance of the interest there is in a resolution of the problems? At the last meeting of Foreign Ministers within the political forum of the EEC conclusions were reached which are not known outside at the moment, but it is to be hoped that they are not simply banal conclusions arrived at, thrown up in the air and left at that. They needed to be brought home to the people concerned.
I turn now to the question of Southern Africa. My hon. Friend the Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will deal in more detail with the problem of Rhodesia. It is my intention to deal with the problems of Southern Africa in their wider sense, and he will try to draw together some of the views which may be expressed by my right hon. and hon. Friends on these intractable problems. Nor is it my intention to try to reopen a kind of post-mortem on what has happened—that would be valueless—but I want to try to look to the future.
It is no secret that on this side of the House we were and continue to be deeply dissatisfied with the Government's handling of this matter, both for its dilatoriness and for its lack of any purpose. But that is in the past. The future is before us and it is to that that we must address ourselves. The issues go far beyond that

215
of Rhodesia itself. The ultimate question embraces the relationship of the whole of the continent, including, and not unimportantly, Nigeria. The whole continent is involved in what may now happen and what may happen in the very near future.
The strategic issues arising concern not just the vital mineral resources of that important continent but the key importance of the Cape route. Is it realised that the EEC is dependent upon imported hydro-carbons for more than 50 per cent. of its energy needs now and that it will continue as far almost as one can see forward in the light of present energy policies to import a very large proportion of its supplies round the Cape?
Again, 40 per cent. of the hydrocarbon needs of the United States are being imported. Not all of that comes round the Cape—a considerable proportion comes from nearer sources. But the situation of both the United States and the EEC illustrates the immense importance of this area, not just as an area of potential political, social and racial unrest, but as an area of practical importance to every industrialised Western country.
It is vital from our point of view, and for that reason it is necessary to lose no time. Time is not on our side in relation to the issues of Southern Africa, and there is no room for a long-winded reappraisal of the issues. There must be urgent action by the Government, including inducing the United States to take a far more forward rôle in prosecuting the whole of the need for a settlement for the future.
While the denial of minerals or port facilities is itself vital, it is not just a question of having the risk of a hostile force and a hostile interest launching missiles at tankers round the Cape. Let us think what the situation would be if there were implanted in the whole of the Cape area people whose interests were directly divergent from the interests of the future of the Western industrialised world. It would have the most overwhelming effect upon our whole strategic and tactical situations.
I turn now to issues nearer home, particularly to the question of the EEC. Much as I agree with a lot of what the
216
right hon. Gentleman has said, when it comes to the EEC. I am in much greater difficulty. My whole impression in many contacts with the Community at all levels and with all its member countries is that disenchantment with this country was never greater. It is pitiful to contrast the situation with what it was five years ago at the time of negotiation for our accession. There were difficulties, but most of the countries were avid to see us in the EEC, because they believed that we had something of a broad nature to contribute to its future.
Yet I am bound to say that petty-mindedness has been the hallmark of the United Kingdom contribution to the Community since the referendum. I deeply regret this. The whole of the Government's behaviour in relation to agriculture, the green pound, the problems of dairy produce and most recently the pig-meat arrangements, in relation to energy and the minimum safeguard price and all that it implies, its intervention in the North-South dialogue and its original terms and its original purpose signifies a failure to understand the rôle that this country had to play in the future of the Community. This is deeply disappointing to me and, I think, to many other people in other countries.
We now face the problem of direct elections. The right hon. Gentleman could not have been proud of his Minister of State's handling of European business questions yesterday. His rather smirking attitude to what was meant by the phrase "best endeavours" was particularly disagreeable to us. We believe that the phrase "best endeavours" means what it says—that one will act to the limit to achieve something one has undertaken, not to use it as a cloak for one's own pusillanimity. It will not be easily forgotten or forgiven if we are the people who bring the whole process of direct elections to a halt and frustrate it.
There is no need for a White Paper with green edges. It is a whole year since we had the original Green Paper, and since then we have had a Select Committee, which worked diligently and quickly. Why cannot we have the Bill before us now? None of us can understand that. The Foreign Secretary spoke movingly about the need to reinforce the buttress that the Community represents for world democracy—
Mr. Eric Heffer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree—obviously he does not agree—that there is no enthusiasm in this country for direct elections except among the Euro-fanatics and that most people in this country are about as enthusiastic for direct elections as they were for devolution? The right hon. Gentleman must know that if a referendum were held now on the subject of Common Market membership it is quite possible that the answer, based on experience, would be very different from what it was last time.
Mr. Davies: Not content with answering himself, the hon. Gentleman also puts himself forward as a person who can accurately define what the balance of opinion is in this country, but I take issue with him. I think that if it were put to the House, there is little doubt what the outcome would be.
Mr. Heffer: I said the country.
Mr. Davies: That is why I ask for the Bill now. Let us have it and put it to the test. I ask for nothing better.
It is lamentable that we should be speaking of the Community as a buttress of democracy but denying it the opportunity to be so in a more real sense.
I remember attending with Mr. Speaker the conference of European Speakers and registering that we then represented two-thirds of parliamentary democracies in the world. Yet the Government are apparently too inept to wish to pursue that to the logical conclusion of making the Community more democratic.
Mr. Nigel Spearing: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to other Speakers in other legislatures. Would he not agree that because of the history and the unwritten constitution of this country, the implications of direct elections to the United Kingdom might be of different and fundamental constitutional importance when compared with the implications for some other members of the EEC?
Mr. Davies: I believe that they are of fundamental constitutional importance to every member of the EEC and that it was because constitutional change was regarded by all member countries as necessary and desirable that each of the
218
Prime Ministers of those countries gave his undertaking to use his best endeavours—meaning it—to that end last September. It is incredible in some ways that there should now be an endeavour to withdraw from an undertaking given solemnly at that time by the Labour Prime Minister.
I turn briefly to the Foreign Secretary's problem in relation to the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly overshadowing so many of the problems that we face is the brooding and enigmatic presence of the USSR and the difficulty of understanding precisely what its objective is, how far it goes, and how far it can be contained and shifted. What is undoubtedly the basic pervasive issue within the Soviet Union is a relentless pursuit of ideological struggle.
The USSR wishes by all means to obtain a state where more and more countries are brought into the net of the Russian attitude to political dominion. It does not do this in terms of following a precise, well-planned blue-print. It pursues its needs with a degree of inexorable relentlessness that the West has shown itself poorly equipped to match. But whereas for the USSR all the issues involved in the ideological struggle are related and interlocked and each issue is seen as the motive force of the next, that is not matched on our side. We look at these things as individual bits of a sectionalised proposition and therefore we are weak in front of them.
I have frequently visited the Soviet Union in other capacities. One can complain about much, but not about any lack of a determined sense of purpose. It is this sense of purpose that we have hitherto failed to match. That is what worries me above all in our relationship with that country. We cannot see that that linkage is not simply a linkage in negotiation but a comprehension within the Western World, whether in NATO or in the EEC, or in the other organisations with which we are concerned.
We cannot see how closely inter-related these issues are. We cannot match the monolithic purpose of the Soviet Union in this issue, but we must, for otherwise all these issues of current tension, which are all in some way or another related to the massive problem of the reconciliation of the East-West struggle, will be totally nugatory in their ultimate effect on us.

219
I ask the Government to reconsider their position, whether it is at the Belgrade meeting concerning the Final Act of Helsinki, or the question of the support of the SALT initiative between Russia and the United States, or in the MBFR arrangements, or in any other field. They have close inter-relationships which are to be seen from the side of the West. These relationships must be comprehended and the negotiating position seen as a whole, not as separate bits. If they are seen as bits, they will be picked off as bits.
A great anxiety on this side of the House, particularly in the Conservative Party, is that the Government, in the all-important field of our relationships abroad, have had a sense hitherto of almost disinvolvement, a desire to be clear of so many issues without too great exposure.
Mr. Townsend: Does not my right hon. Friend feel as I do that it is rather shameful that the new President of the United States should be so much more outspoken on the subject of dissidents than the Prime Minister is? Is it not perfectly possible for the leader of a Western democracy to criticise Soviet attitudes to dissidents at the same time as conducting talks on arms control?
Mr. Davies: I do not believe that any one part of our concern over our relationship with the Soviet Union is a separate and intact matter which may be segregated from the rest. All aspects of the relationship have an inter-involvement which is of fundamental importance in trying to devise a proper strategic method of handling our relationships with the Soviet Union, and only when that is done, embracing the point my hon. Friend has raised, shall we be on even terms.
So I believe that if the new Foreign Secretary is now to show a sense of reinvolvement in the world's affairs, reflecting what he said at the opening of his speech, he will find nothing but support from here. It is when he shows, as has been shown too often over recent years, a sense of withdrawal, a sense of indifference, negligence or incompetence in the face of the world's problems that he will have no sympathy from here and no support for such action.
4.50 p.m.
Sir Geoffrey de Freitas: I join the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in offering kind words to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and in wishing him well. I disagree, of course, about the length of time that he should be at the Dispatch Box. I hope that he has a very long period there.
My right hon. Friend referred to Tony Crosland's speech in the European Parliament in January. It was an impressive speech and, as the Foreign Secretary commented, he made clear that we were not only a European—he was there, of course, as a European—but also an Atlantic and a Commonwealth Power. In the European Parliament we often find ourselves involved in all three areas. For example, it is no accident that British MPs play a disproportionate part in the European Parliament's Development Committee. Many of the questions answered by Tony Crosland on that day concerned Africa, especially Rhodesia. Rhodesia is one of the greatest problems facing my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
I welcome the emphasis that the right hon. Member for Knutsford put on the subject of Rhodesia, telling us that his colleague on the Front Bench would be bringing up this matter again later. I have no solution to offer, but I have a few words of encouragement based on the experience of Kenya. Twenty years ago it was impossible for us in this House to believe that in 1977 tens of thousands of white people could live and work in peace with blacks under a black Government. By 1963, however, when independence came to Kenya, it was accepted by the British Government—Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Prime Minister then—and by the whites living in Kenya that there was a reasonable chance of whites and blacks living and working together under a black Government.
I well remember the doubts which existed at the time. I was the British High Commissioner at independence. We went ahead, and today, 13 years later, blacks and whites live together in peace under a black Government. It can be argued that the figures of blacks and whites in Kenya are different from those in Rhodesia, but I feel that we have something of value

221
to learn. In Kenya at independence there were only 50,000 whites, while in Rhodesia there are about five times as many as that. The really important point is that in Kenya today there there are 20,000 whites living and working under a black Government—nearly half as many as the 50,000 there were at independence.
Mr. Ronald Bell: In addition to the numerical comparison that the right hon. Gentleman makes, there are two other factors to be borne in mind as differentiating the two cases. The first is that the harmonious relationship to which he refers in Kenya appears to depend to an alarming extent on the continued existence of one man. That is not a satisfactory state of affairs for a European community. The second consideration is that Rhodesia, different from all the independent African countries, is a highly advanced, sophisticated and industrialised country. Does that not make an almost crucial difference?
Sir G. de Freitas: Of course it is a difference. The hon. and learned Gentleman asked me a question, and I shall try to reply to it. I was making the point that it was once thought impossible for blacks and whites to live and work together in peace under a black Government. It has been proved that it is possible. There are half as many whites in Kenya today living and working in peace with the blacks. I mention that as a point of encouragement. It is a relevant factor, but it is not a solution. I said expressly that I was not offering a solution, but we should bear in mind that these things are possible.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary spoke about the European Parliament and directly-elected Members. The Government promised to use their best endeavours to bring in legislation in time. On 20th October, the present Foreign Secretary said that it was our "firm intention" to "use our best endeavours". He repeated that statement, but now we are faced with the problem.
Every two or three weeks there is a meeting of the Bureau of the European Parliament. At every meeting the question of Britain's progress on direct elections is an item on the agenda. It is all very well to say that other countries
222
have not completed their task. They have not, but they have got far along and we have not even started. As a British MP and a Vice-President of the Parliament, I have had to reassure the Committee that Britain will stand by its undertakings. I have explained the delay caused by the overloading of parliamentary business. I have explained the Committee system and said that constitutional matters must be taken on the Floor of the House. Yesterday, however, my hon. Friend the Minister of State went as far as to talk of the danger of rushing ahead impetuously. That was unbelievable in view of the undertakings that were given so long ago.
What on earth have the Government been doing these last six months, or even this year, if they were not working out how to implement their undertaking? I know it is no duty of the Government to make my life any easier. They have other problems. But what am I to tell my colleagues in the European Parliament? On the strength of the Government's undertaking of September, I fear that I have misled them.
Sir Anthony Royle: Is not the position of the Government at the moment dishonourable on this matter? Have they not been coming before the House saying that they will use their best endeavours, and did not the Minister of State make it clear yesterday that they have no such intention? Would it not be more honourable for them to come to the House and say that they have changed their minds and that they will not bring in the Bill, or, alternatively, tell us that they will bring in the Bill instead of sheltering under a facade of dishonour?
Sir G. de Freitas: I have never used the words "honour" and "dishonour" lightly inside the House or outside, and I do not intend to do so today. I am encouraged that the Foreign Secretary repeated today that the Government would use their best endeavours. I am encouraged by that, but I was deeply discouraged by what happened yesterday.
Let me set out certain facts. First, the Government are bound by a solemn undertaking. Secondly, they have reached only the White Paper stage. Thirdly, the Select Committee which recommended the single-Member constituency system and

223
that the first direct elections should be on our Westminster model has been overtaken by events. It was recognised that it would need 15 months after Royal Assent to get such a system established. Fourthly, the Governments of the other member countries of the Community want the European Parliament to be infused by this shot of electoral democracy. It is interesting, in view of what certain of my hon. Friends have said in interventions, that the more unpopular the Commission has become, such as the nonsense about selling cheap butter to the Russians, the more people appear to want direct control through election of their Members of Parliament in the European Parliament. Presumably this is to get a grip on the inefficiencies which they see in the Commission.
In the autumn of 1973, the Commission's public opinion poll showed that in the United Kingdom only 33 per cent. of people wanted directly-elected European Members, but by the autumn of last year that figure had risen to 57 per cent. The Foreign Secretary made the point that there is a lot of public criticism of the Community, especially of the Commission, and that there is a wish to have a choice in the selection of MPs to go to the European Parliament. Because of the time which has passed, it is impossible to offer the Select Committee solution. I know no one who has applied himself to this task who thinks that 81 constituencies can be drawn up by the Boundary Commission in tinme.
Fortunately, two years ago we had the experience of the referendum. It proves that we can count votes by counties and regions and arrive at an expression of public electoral opinion. We know that the machinery exists. We have the possibility of using proportional representation on a national list, in the same way as the French will use a national list. The French have a constituency system just as we have, with single Members. For this first European election, however, they have decided to use proportional representation with national lists. One of the reasons why they have done this is because their single-Member constituencies, like ours, will not be accepted by the other countries for the second European election in five or six years' time. We should have some form of proportional
224
representation to the European Parliament in five or six years' time.
The Times, in a leading article on Saturday, 26th February, said:
"The arguments for PR in the European context are overwhelmingly strong.… The list system…is the commonest system among our European partners. It would therefore not be an inappropriate choice for European elections which eventually are to be standardised throughout the Community."
I ask the Government to note this when they start work on their White Paper. It is an important point, and I do not see how there is anything inconsistent—certainly the French do not—between having single-Member constituencies for national parliamentary elections and a system of proportional representation for elections to the European Parliament. Under our system, when we come to Westminster our first rôle is to serve as an electoral college and to choose our Government. There is no such rôle foreseen—certainly not in our lifetime—for the European Parliament.
The European Parliament's task is to reflect the opinions of democratic Europe, and the rôle is in no way that of an electoral college. If we are to have the White Paper, let the Government be realistic and admit that it is impossible to arrange the 81 constituencies in time. One of the reasons for that is that the Liberal Party will oppose every single Boundary Commission report, and it has said so.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe indicated assent.
Sir G. de Freitas: It is a well-known fact that it wants to hold up the establishment of these constituencies. I want the Government to bring forward a plan for having national lists, one each for England, for Scotland, for Wales and for Northern Ireland. I admit that there is an obvious undemocratic feature of the list system. It gives the power of selecting candidates to the party machine and not to the people in the constituency. In the interests of getting the 81 elected Members to the European Parliament in time, we have to face that obvious disadvantage and—
Mr. Thorpe: I am sure the right hon. Gentleman would agree that the real difficulty, which I wholly concede exists, could be overcome by having primaries.
Sir G. de Freitas: I want to make this as simple as possible in order to get our 81 people on parade. There is a lot to be said for primaries, and there is a lot in favour of the French system of single-Member constituencies and an effective primary. I am not arguing that but I am trying to obtain the simplest method of getting our people to the Parliament in time. After all, the same system will not be adopted in future elections.
We have to recognise that the list system hands power to the machines of our parties. I am convinced that the parties will have enough sense of responsibility to the public to balance the lists to reflect minorities on European views. The Labour MPs who go to the European Parliament have found it easy for pro-Europeans and anti-Europeans to live together. This is helped by the fact that in the European Parliament we are organised into transnational political groups. The Labour Party Members belong to the Socialist Group, and our leader is a German.
The differing views of Labour MPs are diffused among 66 Members of the Socialist Group of nine nationalities, so there is little opportunity for disagreement among ourselves. One result, for example, is that we British Members of the Socialist Group have elected unanimously as our chairman my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has not supported direct elections. I am convinced that our parties will be big enough to consider their responsibility to the public and to reflect minorities in their lists.
I ask the Government whether they are prepared to face the fact that Britain may be the only one of the nine countries unable to fulfil its obligations and that we will have to nominate Members to the European Parliament. I remind the Government that our country, not our Parliament, was described more than 100 years ago by John Bright as the Mother of Parliaments. I feel that our Parliament has the duty not to let down the Mother of Parliaments in this way.
Mr. John Davies: The right hon. Gentleman asked whether the Government would be prepared to envisage a situation in which they alone were nominating Members to the European Parliament. But that is not the situation.
226
It is that if the Government fail to take the action they must take, all will be frustrated.
Sir G. de Freitas: That is the present position. I can assure the right hon. Gentleman, however, that a lot of thought has been given to the matter, and, despite the Government's assurances, it is very likely that the eight other countries would go ahead in their own way. I do not see exactly how it can be done, but the point is that some assurances must be given. We may bring the whole lot down, but, even if we do not, failure will certainly prevent us from being represented by democratically-elected Members at the European Parliament.
5.8 p.m.
Mr. Reginald Maudling: I congratulate the new Foreign Secretary and I wish him well. He will find that we shall chide and criticise him, but when he speaks for Britain in the world we wish him well and we want him to succeed. Our objective is to see that his voice speaks as accurately and as effectively as possible. It is very tempting to range over a whole number of topics in a debate such as this, delayed as it has been for a long while, but I want to deal with three points.
First, I agree strongly with the Foreign Secretary that there are new opportunities in the Middle East. I am delighted that he is going there, and I am sure that he will have a warm welcome. Indeed, the initiative that Britain and Europe can take is important.
Secondly, concerning Rhodesia, I have never yet understood—and I should like an answer to this if possible—why the Government blame Mr. Smith for turning down their proposals when we were told by the Foreign Secretary's predecessor that those proposals differed in nothing but detail from the Kissinger proposals which had been turned down by the nationalists. Why should the blame fall on Mr. Smith when previously the nationalists had turned down the same proposals? That is a mystery that has so far not been explained.
I seriously ask the Foreign Minister not to underestimate the prospects of what is called an internal solution. He should not too easily assume that the guerrilla forces outside speak for the

227
people of Rhodesia as a whole. Nor should he too easily assume that the front-line Presidents speak entirely for the people of Rhodesia as a whole.
I took note of what the right hon. Gentleman said about Namibia—that it was for the people of Namibia to decide their future and that there should be country-wide elections to decide what they want. It seems that the fundamental problem of Rhodesia is, first, to find out what the people who live there want. Secondly, it is necessary to find some means of guaranteeing to the European population there that a constitution for majority rule which will, as it must, guarantee individual rights and free courts of law will be a constitution that endures, as in Kenya, and is not torn up within a few months by some Rhodesian Amin.
My third incidental point concerns the Falkland Islands. I was a little disappointed with what the Foreign Secretary said about this subject. He should be a little more explicit and I hope that the Minister of State will be more explicit when he replies. There was talk about consultation and about acceptance by the islanders. When asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) whether he would give a firm undertaking that he would not agree to a transfer of sovereignty without the consent of the islanders, he said that that was a matter for Parliament.
With deep respect, that is not true. What we want from the Government quite categorically is an assurance that they, as Her Majesty's Government, will not propose to Parliament a transfer of sovereignty without the full acceptance of the islanders. It is a simple question to which I hope we shall receive a simple answer this evening. Unless we do, disturbance, doubt and worry will abound. That is not the right climate in which to find a lasting solution.
The main issue to which I wish to refer is that of East-West relations, which seems to overshadow everything else. There seems to be a state of confusion, and confusion in these matters can mean danger. There is apparently a deepening difference between Russia and other Communist States. There is a loosening of ties in Eastern Europe and a growth
228
of the Communist parties in Western Europe as well as a growing feeling of independence among those parties. For instance, there is the conference about to take place in Madrid.
One sometimes feels that the NATO Powers, and in particular the United States, are uncertain how to react to these new developments within the Communist world which are of such great importance. There is disappointment over the result so far of Helsinki. Yet there have been mixed reactions. The Russian forces continue to grow and expand while we are cutting down ours and the Americans are apparently concentrating on the SALT talks.
There is continued political aggression from the Communist world, throughout Africa in particular. The attitude of the new United States' Administration to the Cuban arrival in Africa seems a little ambivalent. There is no truce between the two sides in the political battle. There has been little movement by the Russians over Basket III. Yet we continue in our economic relations the extraordinary system whereby we transfer resources to the East at our expense.
I am not talking just about the butter mountain which, whatever the technical details, is manifestly absurd. I am talking about the massive transfer of resources involved in the extension of credit running to tens of billions of dollars from the West to the East. Any transfer of resources on that scale must mean an addition to the economic power of the East and therefore to its ability to build up its armed forces. It seems that the West is still uncertain what it wants and expects.
The basic document is the Final Act of Helsinki. I agree with the Foreign Secretary about the need for a thorough review of this, not a shouting match, but a sensible review. Different views can be taken about Helsinki. It can be said that it is the dawn of a new era of peace, or that it is a complete sell-out by the West and détente is a sham. I do not accept either view. Helsinki achieved nothing in practice. But it created an opportunity and now time is needed to develop this opportunity—far more time than we realised when it was being made. Above all, let us not throw away this opportunity.

229
Because the dangers of war between East and West are so stupendous it is almost impossible to envisage them. People talk in terms of tens of millions of casualties. I am reminded of the words of Winston Churchill who spoke of "roaming and peering about around the rim of Hell." This is precisely what will be happening if we are not careful. I say to those so anxious to dance on the grave of détente "Beware. You may be dancing on the grave of civilisation at the same time."
Yet another thing we must remember is that to let down our guard would be the greatest folly. That is why we on the Conservative Benches are concerned about the latest defence White Paper and the Government's attitude to defence generally. This applies not only to military weapons but to intelligence weapons, too.
The danger to peace comes from an imbalance of forces. No one will attack us because we are too strong. They are only likely to attack us if they think we are too weak. In this balance of forces intelligence is just as important as guns or tanks or bombs or aircraft. Without an intelligence service forces are blind and cannot operate. That is why, when I hear this constant denigration of the CIA I reflect that people do not realise that the CIA matters as much to our defence as does the American Fleet or the American Air Force.
Mr. Stanley Newens: It does not.
Mr. Maudling: It does. Without intelligence these things are useless. Perhaps the CIA makes mistakes. Maybe the KGB makes mistakes—we do not hear about them. Without intelligence our defence system is completely useless.
What is the Russian aim? It is impossible to tell whether it is world domination or whether Russia merely wishes to defend itself within Mother Russia. Whichever it is, the tactics of the Russians are obviously to weaken the West for offensive or defensive reasons. If it is trying to weaken us, we must also try in any way we can to weaken it. I want to see mutual and balanced force reductions not only in weapons but in intelligence. Until the Russian intelligence
230
service is reduced, we cannot afford to reduce ours.
Mr. Newens: In his defence of the CIA and intelligence operations is the right hon. Gentleman also defending the covert operations carried out by the CIA?
Mr. Maudling: I am not defending any particular operation, about which I probably have no knowledge, by intelligence forces on either side. All that I am saying, with the greatest conviction I can muster, is that to cast away our intelligence services is to cast away something vital to the defence of the West.
Human rights is the most difficult area of all. Much that happens in Russia, and even more in Cambodia is totally repugnant to us all. It is right that we should say so and say why we find it repugnant. It is also wise of the Foreign Secretary to remember that we want to get practical results. How do we do that? I do not think that simple denunciation of the Soviet Union and all its works is a form of statesmanship that is likely to get results. The Russians have their own ideas, which are often different from ours.
I remember last year discussing with Mr. Gromyko the question of Russian citizens coming to this country, something about which we feel very strongly. He argued that it was a privilege for a Russian to leave his country. I said "Mr. Foreign Secretary, this is where the gulf lies between us. For us in Britain it is not a privilege to go abroad; it is a right. You as a Russian consider it a privilege." This is something deep in the Russian character. But it is not a new feature of Communism. I would imagine that it was equally true in the days of the Tsar and has been present throughout Russian history.
We must never under-estimate the different backgrounds and outlooks of various peoples. We shall not change points of view by force. That can only be done by persuasion and in particular by showing people in the world as a whole that our way of life is a better way of life than that in a Communist country. It will take a long time and while this is going on we must maintain our own position in defence in the interests of maintaining peace. So long as the Communist Powers try to subvert Western countries,

231
we are entitled to support resistance in Eastern Europe. But in the short term, at least, that cannot be a productive process.
It is essential to achieve understanding in the long run with the Soviet people, who form such a vast proportion of the population of the world. The West must work together to do this. The West needs to increase the attractiveness to the ordinary human being of our system of life and society. The West needs to maintain its defences and it needs to promote a contest of ideas between the two sides. This should not be a war of subversive propaganda, but a genuine contest of ideas.
This may be very idealistic, but it is a course that we must pursue, because the alternative in the long term to co-existence and understanding with the Soviet Union could be the charred remnants of all civilisation.
5.21 p.m.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: I also congratulate the Foreign Secretary on his appointment. As a fellow Devon Member I say to him
"Us be mighty proud of 'ee, m'dear, and us hopes you'll do a proper job."
Since the right hon. Gentleman is a lineal descendant of Lord Palmerston, I must warn him that there are those in Devon who expect him to blow the Russian and the Scottish trawlers out of the sea when they are overfishing within our fishing limits if we fail to get rid of them by negotiation.
It is a pleasure to welcome the right hon. Member for Lanark (Mrs. Hart) to the Government Front Bench once again. Although she says it is her last performance, she is rather like a prima donna making her third return. I hope that her absence is only momentary and will not last several weeks or months, as on previous occasions.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) in that I think there are exciting initiatives which could be taken by this country. Some of these we could take on our own, some within the EEC, some within the Commonwealth, and some as a permanent member of the United Nations.
Among those we should take on our own within Europe is the initiative on the
232
reforming of the common agricultural policy. I support the robust remarks of the Minister of Agriculture about the butter mountain. I would rather see a surplus than a grave shortage, but to spend £910 a ton to export butter to a third country which is not even a developing country is lunacy on stilts. We must look at that situation and renegotiate the common agricultural policy. I hope that we shall take a major initiative in this respect.
I do agree with the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) about direct elections. It is a year since the Green Paper was published and in that time there have been three reports from the Select Committee. We know exactly why the Government are in difficulties. It is not because this is a major change and they cannot make up their minds. They have discovered to their horror that under our existing Westminster electoral system certain minorities will be gravely under-represented. One of these minorities is the Roman Catholic element in Northern Ireland and another is the Labour Party itself. That is a wonderful way of concentrating the Government's mind.
This sort of under-representation can happen under our electoral system and it is no coincidence that our European colleagues, who were persuaded to give us an additional seat so that the Roman Catholic minority in Northern Ireland could be represented, know that any Roman Catholic candidate who got more than third of the vote would not have any guarantee of being elected. In fact. the probability is that he would not be elected.
It is inevitable that we must have a list system on a regional or national basis. The Government have not a hope in hell of getting 81 single-Member constituencies delineated by the Boundary Commission because there would be strong protests about every possible permutation. It is also a fact that every possible permutation of four, five or six constituencies could give any result that one wanted to see, and the Government would be open to charges of gerrymandering from any party that felt disadvantaged.
I accept that the Government have problems, but I am certain that if the fair representation of the Labour Party

233
is at stake, they will persuade the Leader of the House to defend proportional representation for the European Parliament elections as passionately as he attacked it for the Assemblies in Scotland and Wales. If he was asked why he had changed his mind, I suspect his answer would be like that of the High Court judge who on one set of facts found in favour of the plaintiff and 10 years later on the same set of facts found in favour of the defendant. When asked why he had changed his mind in this way he said that things did not appear to appear to him now as they had appeared to appear to him then. When the right hon. Gentleman is raised to the peerage, I suggest that he take that as his motto.
I think that we should drag him and his colleagues into the twentieth century. The only passionate defenders of the present electoral system are the two Front Benches. There is no alternative—we must have a modern electoral system. The Government should welcome something which would have the majority support of this House. That would be a refreshing change. I do not think that there is a shadow of doubt that there would be a large majority for direct elections to the European Parliament as there was for staying in the EEC on the renegotiated terms. I suggest that the Government take their courage in their hands.
On the problem of Cyprus, I understand why the Foreign Secretary cannot say more on the talks with Mr. Clark Clifford, the President's special adviser. The talks that have taken place between Mr. Denktash and the Archbishop, one of which was chaired by the Secretary-General of the United Nations, give us great hope. I hope that the Secretary-General himself or some other senior UN representative will take the chair at the talks in Geneva. Obviously, a continuing peace-keeping rôle by the United Nations is needed for a considerable period of time.
Also I hope that we shall consider the possibility of the EEC having a rôle in Cyprus in the settlement. We cannot force it upon it, but we can make it clear that if there is some need for a European Community monitoring system, we should be willing and ready to help.
234
We have the NATO connection with both the Greeks and the Turks and Common Market negotiations are proceeding with Greece. I hope that we can bring about some meaningful economic connection between the Community and Cyprus itself. I am fairly optimistic about that. I hope that the Turkish community will realise that there will have to be a very thorough inquiry and investigation into the list of undeclared prisoners and missing persons. This is well-documented and there is considerable disquiet on the part of Greek Cypriots who believe that a large number of prisoners are being held in Turkish-held territory and on the mainland itself.
I welcome the visit of Mr. Cyrus Vance. But having listened to the speeches at the 31st General Assembly of the UN on the Middle East, I was disappointed by the repetitiveness of the arguments. As far as public performance is concerned, the UN has changed very little. I say this with some regret as I am chairman of the United Nations Association, but I do not believe that the next initiative on the Middle East will come from the UN. While one supports the reconvening of the Geneva conference to see how we can clothe Resolution No. 242 with flesh and blood, there are still very grave problems and stumbling blocks, in particular the recognition of the PLO.
I believe that what we shall see is a series of bilateral agreements—between Israel and Lebanon, Israel and Egypt and possibly Israel and Syria. If this could be brought about successfully, there would still be a need for a UN presence and guarantees. There is no question about the desire for a settlement; it is a question of how best to keep people round the table. I am not convinced that a full-scale Geneva conference with all the problems of PLO recognition is the best way to go about this.
I turn to Africa and particularly to Uganda. I was a member of an all-party delegation which in 1961 went to see Pandit Nehru as Prime Minister of India. We urged upon him the view that if the Commonwealth was to be a multi-racial organisation, it was quite inconsistent to have the continued membership of countries such as South Africa that practised blatant racialism. Not only was Mr. Nehru sympathetic, but at the Commonwealth Conference the presssure of

235
Commonwealth opinion, led notably by the then Conservative Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Diefenbaker, caused Dr. Verwoerd to withdraw South Africa from the Commonwealth.
I take the view that the same vital principles are at stake in the case of Uganda, because the Commonwealth subscribed to a certain degree of human rights. We must accept that in this regard there are several members of the Commonwealth which are far from perfect, and I do not intend to enumerate them because they are well known to the House. Others have military or other forms of authoritarian government, but what is happening in Uganda is unique.
There is a regime of oppression and terror that constitutes a total rejection of the principles for which the Commonwealth stands. The expulsion of the entire Asian community from Uganda was blatantly racialist and has brought appalling hardship to many. The pattern of repression and violence culminated in the deaths of two Cabinet Ministers and Archbishop Luwum, and led to acts of genocide against members of the Langi and Acholi and acts of unparalleled barbarism and offences against civilisation.
Our quarrel is not with the people of Uganda, with whom we maintain friendly relations, but with the dictator who at present misrules them. In my view, unless the Commonwealth is to be regarded as an organised hypocrisy we should agree collectively to suspend Uganda from membership. I hope and believe that the Commonwealth will take that line.
I turn to another troubled part of the African continent—namely, Rhodesia. There is one positive sphere of influence in which we can give practical help, and that is in regard to Rhodesian students who are in this country. When I saw the Minister of State who received a United Nations Association delegation, I pointed out that since 1970 there has been a dramatic fall amounting to 75 per cent. in the number of students who come from Rhodesia to the United Kingdom.
The right hon. Gentleman who was then in charge of the Ministry of Overseas Development and who is now a Minister of State at the Foreign Office has agreed to set up a special scheme for those students from Zimbabwe who did not get awards under the regular
236
programme. That will help 120 more students who are in this country from Rhodesia. I refer principally to African students—not for racialist reasons, but because they do not obtain the training in Rhodesia that is readily available to Europeans.
This is one area in which we have a great and continuing responsibility that we can discharge. That responsibility involves training people who cannot otherwise obtain the necessary training in Rhodesia. If I am told by the Government that we cannot increase the public expenditure involved, we shall have to do what we did in regard to the Maltese with work vouchers by giving priority treatment to students from Rhodesia in the same way as we gave such treatment to Maltese citizens.
I hope that the Government will examine the activities of Shell and BP, which allegedly are subsidising Freight Services in South Africa, which is directly re-exporting to Rhodesia and therefore indirectly breaching sanctions. I believe that it is possible successfully to bring pressure to bear on responsible companies.
My colleagues, led by Sir Anthony Nutting, wrote to the Chairman of Barclays Bank the other day about the £10 million purchase of defence bonds in South Africa through a South African subsidiary. The Chairman of Barclays Bank—and I wish to pay him full credit—has reacted responsibly by recognising the dangers and the emotive situation throughout the rest of Africa. When the moment is right, he has agreed to switch that holding back into normal gilts.
I agree with the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) that there is no instant formula for Rhodesia. Is the two-year commitment to majority rule still accepted by Mr. Smith? By "majority rule" I mean the rule of the majority and not what Mr. Smith referred to as the majority of "reasonable people". If the idea of majority rule is still acceptable, we must try to set up a working party in the transitional two-year stage. That is what must be put in a referendum to all the people of Rhodesia. I do not believe that the referendum should be a popularity choice between Mr. Mugabe and Bishop Muzorewa, but it should broach the question whether interim arrangements are

237
acceptable to the Rhodesian people as a whole.
The bargain would have to involve the consideration that violence would be called off during negotiations. It would also mean that the verdict would have to be accepted by both sides, and thereafter I suggest the possibility of a Commonwealth monitoring mission to ensure that the transitional agreements are honoured. That monitoring agreement should be involved at ministerial, military and police level, rather as the United Nations carried out its rôle in the Congo shortly after the war in that area.
If Mr. Smith does not accept the concept of African majority rule in two years—and even if he does and is not prepared to use his best endeavours to move towards an interim settlement—we must be blunt with him and say "Sorry, we have tried, but you are now on your own, and there is nothing more we can do to help." At some stage Mr. Smith must be brought up against the facts of the situation, or the situation in Rhodesia will be appalling month after month. We must seek to establish whether that two-year acceptance still stands and we must try to work for an interim settlement.
There are certain other hopeful signs. I was delighted that one of the actions taken by the Foreign Secretary was to instruct our delegate at the United Nations to raise before the Human Rights Commission the situation in Uganda with particular reference to the Archbishop and the two Ministers. I hope that we shall he able to see the appointment of a commissioner for the United Nations Human Rights Commission, but even if that does not happen it is very much better that cases are referred to the Commission and that the offending country should refuse to entertain those objections than that the world should be silent and do nothing. There is now a movement to try to obtain some agreement on human rights, and I hope that when the General Assembly reconvenes the German initiative on terrorism will be given a fair wind.
The position of President Carter—with his obvious intention to achieve success in SALT II and to move on to SALT III and to disarmament questions generally, as well as his firm stand on human rights—is enormously encouraging. I agree that when we reach Belgrade we must
238
be firm and make plain our reaction to continued repression in the Soviet Union. One of the most frightening developments has been the arrest of Mr. Orlov, whose main crime was that he was the head of a committee that sought to monitor the Helsinki Agreement in the Soviet Union.
The fight against terrorism was not greatly helped by the French and the Abu Daoud affair, but since the European Convention on Human Rights is to be ratified in the next few weeks, we may soon look on that episode as a thing of the past.
If I may sum up, I am optimistic about the situation in Cyprus and think that the Community may have a rôle to play. On the Middle East, I think that progress will be slow and probably on a bilateral basis. I am gloomy about Rhodesia and I believe that it will be saved only if Mr. Smith genuinely wants to save all the people from the catastrophe that will follow.
The situation in Europe depends on whether the Labour Party has the courage to honour its commitment on the subject of direct elections or whether it wishes to gerrymander—which it will not succeed in doing—or whether it is prepared to come into the twentieth century and adopt electoral practices which are well known in other parts of the world but which have not yet reached these shores.
5.40 p.m.
Mr. Frank Allaun: I wish the new Foreign Secretary well in his vital job. If he succeeds in bringing peace and disarmament to a world that needs both so badly, he will do well for his country and for all mankind. He would, incidentally, achieve personal greatness.
I propose to make two suggestions. I want to tell the House about a discussion that I had with Tony Crosland three days before his fatal stroke. It took place in the Corridor outside the Library of the House of Commons. I raised with him the speeches that President Carter has been making about arms reduction. I referred, in particular, to the President's determination to reach agreement in the SALT talks; to cut the colossal American arms bill; and to stop all nuclear test explosions, not only in the atmosphere but underground.

239
Admittedly not all Presidents—and, if I may say so, not all Prime Ministers—have been known to carry out their election pledges entirely once the votes were in the ballot box. Nevertheless, it is exceedingly encouraging and significant that throughout his election campaign, and subsequently, Jimmy Carter gave such prominence to disarmament. It suggests that peace is an electoral asset.
Moreover, I understand that President Carter is expressing strongly-held personal views. There is no doubt that he will encounter tremendous pressure from the military-industrial complex to which President Eisenhower referred in his powerful valedictory address—the combination of big businessmen and top military officers with a strong vested interest in war scares and a vast military programme. So, Jimmy Carter will need all the support he can get.
I put it to Tony Crosland that it was high time that Britain made a public initiative to support the Carter proposals. The Foreign Secretary could not have been more amenable and I left his company feeling tremendously encouraged and hopeful. This made his death, for me, all the more tragic, I appeal to his successor to pursue this matter right away. It is noticeable that Sweden is doing so whereas, so far, our country has been almost completely silent. Why is that?
Thanks to that tireless veteran and highly respected worker for disarmament, the right hon. Philip Noel-Baker, I have been supplied with a detailed report of all Jimmy Carter's speeches on this subject. I hope that the Secretary of State and other Foreign Office Ministers will study them, if they have not already done so.
I regard the proposals for stopping all nuclear test explosions as being of tremendous importance, for if one stops the testing of new weapons that helps to prevent such weapons ever being developed and produced. There has recently been a response from a leading Soviet spokesman saying for the first time that the Russian Government will agree to inspection on site within Soviet frontiers, though I believe that seismic technique has so advanced that this is hardly necessary.
As for arms spending, a week ago Carter cut back the bill. It was not as
240
great a reduction as had been promised, but, all the same, it was a step in the right direction and I believe that there will be more to come. There has been another vital development and that is the statement by Cyrus Vance, the new Secretary of State, a statement that clearly could not have been made without the President's approval. Vance dealt with the dangers of the vast exports of arms. He said that America should not be guided by commercial motives so much as by peace and political motives. That should go for Britain, too.
In addition the Catholic and other Churches are now taking a forthright line on peace. But what about the British Labour Government? The Foreign Secretary should show his determination in some dramatic way, such as by going to the United Nations and voicing there his support for President Carter's proposals. The Foreign Secretary should seize this favourable opportunity. Otherwise some incident may arise somewhere which would make progress more difficult. He should note the sympathetic reaction by Mr. Brezhnev who in speech after speech has appealed for a cut in arms spending in the East and West.
This is particularly significant for us in Britain. Yesterday's defence White Paper, presenting expenditure of nearly £6½ billion a year, means that the average family of four is now spending £8.40 a week on military preparations. People may not realise this, but that is the sum that they pay in income tax, VAT, petrol and other taxes.
I add in passing that I am sometimes referred to in the Press—and more recently in Joe Haines's book—as a pacifist. I am not. A pacifist says that in no circumstances would he use violence. As Fenner Brockway said in 1936 when General Franco staged his military revolt against the democratically elected Government of Spain, there may be occasion when force is a necessary resort. But one does not need to be a pacifist to say that arms spending must be cut or that our aim should be not to try to win an East-West war but to avoid it.
I wish to warn the new Foreign Secretary of the danger of reactionary views being pressed on him by top figures in his Ministry. Two chapters in Joe

241
Haine's book,"The Politics of Power", are relevant. I am not referring to the kitchen tittle-tattle that seems so to excite the Press—almost exclusively so—but to far more important and serious sections of the book which I have scarcely seen mentioned in the Press. I ask the Minister who will reply to the debate to make a specific admission or denial of four particular allegations. I hope that this will be taken up by the civil servants who are present today and that it will be referred to in the Minister's speech. In addition, I ask the Foreign Secretary to be on guard to see that things never again happen in this way in future.
Dick Crossman's diaries showed the great pressure, usually based on mistaken views, exerted by the Civil Service mandarins over their so-called masters. He described how top Treasury officials manipulated a financiad crisis to stampede the Cabinet into a policy of wage restriction. Joe Haines's chapter on the Treasury entitled "All Brains, Little Sense" gives detailed confirmation. I might add that there are growing grounds for suspicion that civil servants did precisely the same thing recently—using a run on the pound to scare the Cabinet, or a majority of it, into drastic cuts in housing, health, education and war on want. Facts are now coming to light showing that the Government never really needed to make those cuts at all.
In his chapter on the Foreign Office, Mr. Haines says that the main characteristics of most of those gentlemen is their:
"enthusiasm bordering on the fanatical"
for the Common Market and their "implacable hatred" of Russia. He recounts four incidents in which even the Prime Minister was deliberately disobeyed and embarrassed by Foreign Office officials. He writes:
"At times the Foreign Office was acting like a State within a State".
His first instance was when the Foreign Secretary, now Prime Minister, was standing firm on Britain having a seat at the International Energy Conference. His position was being undermined at home here in Whitehall.
Secondly, there was the Soames affair. General de Gaulle had given an interview to Sir Christopher Soames in which he said that he wanted Britain to promote
242
a new free trade association in Europe instead of the EEC. He would later—but not until later—come out and publicly support a British initiative.
The Prime Minister refused the Foreign Office demand to divulge this proposal to the German Federal Chancellor. Despite this, when the Prime Minister returned from a visit abroad he found that the Foreign Office had leaked the news to other EEC Governments and to Washington. Of course it reached the international Press and the Foreign Office Press Office flouted an express Prime ministerial edict and briefed the British Press in detail. This did serious damage. If this allegation is incorrect, there has so far been no correction or denial.
The third occasion was in 1973 when the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) visited Czechoslovakia and secured the release of the Rev. David Hathaway, who had been imprisoned for smuggling Bibles into that country. The Foreign Office belittled his success and attempted to claim that it was due to pressure from Sir Alec Douglas-Home, the then Foreign Secretary. Once again a private telegram was deliberately leaked.
Far more serious was the fourth incident, during the Labour Prime Minister's visit to Moscow in 1975. He carefully prepared a speech urging peaceful co-existence—but the Foreign Office knew better. Officials said that reference to peaceful co-existence must be deleted because the phrase did not mean detente as the Prime Minister understood it, but some sinister Soviet scheme for ideological struggle.
The Prime Minister dug in his heels. He went ahead and explained his own interpretation in Moscow. Mr. Brezhnev was greatly impressed and said so. But that was not the end. Six months later—just before the Helsinki Conference—the Prime Minister prepared to refer again to peaceful coexistence. He was asked by a senior diplomat to drop the reference, but replied that he did not intend to be diverted.
Later that day, the Prime Minister was told by the Foreign Office that the British Foreign Secretary, the present Prime Minister, who was in Hungary had written saying that he felt strongly that the Prime Minister should not use the

243
phrase "peaceful co-existence" at Helsinki. Fortunately, the then Prime Minister refused to accept that this was an accurate report. He went ahead and his speech received wide acclaim.
The then Prime Minister mentioned the matter to the then Foreign Secretary when he arrived at Helsinki and discovered that the purported message was a fabrication—to put it more bluntly, a lie. The Foreign Secretary sacked the Private Secretary on the spot, but the real responsibility was that of a more senior colleague, who is probably still across the road in Whitehall.
Mr. Haines writes on page 91 of his book:
"Officialdom had deliberately set out to deceive the Prime Minister."
I repeat my question: will the Minister who is to wind up say whether Mr. Haines is right or wrong? Will he ensure that this sort of thing never occurs again?
I conclude with an appeal to the Foreign Secretary to heed more the Labour Party foreign policy than that of his official elite, who have an innate class bias. If my right hon. Friend does that, he will do great things for mankind at home and abroad.
5.56 p.m.
Mr. Dennis Walters: I hope that the hon. Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) will forgive me if I do not follow him in his revelations from Mr. Haines's book, but rather turn to some of the Foreign Secretary's remarks.
The right hon. Gentleman rightly referred to areas of the world which are of particular significance, and there are two that stand out not only for their importance, but because the consequences of failing to achieve an acceptable solution to their problems would be serious, dangerous and damaging to Britain, Europe and the western world. They are Central Africa and the Middle East.
In Rhodesia, as a result of powerful American pressure exercised via South Africa, Mr. Smith took a tremendous step forward which opened up the possibility of achieving a peaceful transition to majority rule and a reasonable settlement. This was an opportunity that should have been seized by the British Government
244
with the utmost vigour and a tremendous sense of urgency. In particular, British diplomacy should have kept as one of its primary objectives the need to maintain the total involvement of the United States in any negotiations.
The Americans were primarily responsible for breaking the log jam. Without their involvement, it was going to be impossible to achieve a soluton, but the British Government instead allowed themselves to get bogged down in the Geneva conference and allowed that to take place without American participation.
The result, as everyone knows, was a slow-moving fiasco that ended in complete failure. I urge the Foreign Secretary to use his best endeavours—I use that maligned phrase in the sense in which it was used by my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies)—to bring the United States back into the centre of the negotiating arena. The Foreign Secretary's reference to keeping in touch with America over this is not enough.
Rhodesia should be one of the first items on the agenda of the dialogue between the United States and the Soviet Union. The other item at the top of the agenda should be the Middle East.
Before dealing with the situation generally I shall refer briefly to the Euro-Arab dialogue. I hope that the Foreign Secretary will understand the disappointment and frustration among those who had great hopes when the dialogue began in 1974 that there would be a real breakthrough to a new mutually advantageous partnership between Europe and the Arab world. There was the prospect of a new start, a new era of partnership as equals.
The prize to be gained was immense not merely for the material advantage that would accrue to both parties from their partnership but for the contribution that the combined economic and political power of Europe and the Arab world could make to the economic welfare and progress of poor and under-privileged peoples elsewhere. During his chairmanship of the EEC Council of Ministers perhaps the Foreign Secretary will try to ascertain what has gone wrong and will put the dialogue back on the rails again.
According to a number of reports, and one in particular that appeared in The Times of 14th February, the dialogue is

245
still blocked over the question of the PLO. If that is so, I ask the Foreign Secretary to take a fresh look at realities. Whatever may be its faults, the PLO is the only leadership that the Palestinians now have. There is no reliable evidence to support the allegation that it does not have the bulk of the Palestinians behind it. The elections that took place on the West Bank last year were a strong indication that it has a wide measure of popular support.
The whole Arab world, including Jordan, acknowledges the PLO to be the sole legitimate representative organisation of the Palestinians. The General Assembly of the United Nations has accepted this judgment. Surely it is high time that the EEC followed suit.
I was delighted to hear that the Foreign Secretary is to visit the area in the near future. As the right hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford said, there has been a good deal of optimistic talk lately about getting a settlement—at last—in the Middle East and indeed there are many hopeful signs. In the Arab world there is overwhelming evidence of a real and widespread desire to have done with the destructive conflict with Israel. The bogy of Arab insistence on the elimination of Israel and the refusal to accept Israel's existence has been laid to rest. President Sadat, President Assad, King Hussein and most influential Arabs, including leaders of the Palestinians, have swallowed what was to them the rather bitter pill that Israel is an established fact and cannot be undone, except, perhaps, in the distant future, and then only by a process of agreement and gradual change.
On the Arab side the substantial threat to peace that still remains is that, if the present opportunity is lost, the Arabs may conclude that peace with Israel is unattainable on any terms they could accept and that renewed war sooner or later, and probably rather sooner than later, had become for them inevitable. If that happens their present mood for peace might disappear and they might well revert to a more uncompromising stance.
In the United States a new Administration has come to power that proclaims its concern for human rights and for morality in the conduct of foreign affairs, and it has the opportunity for a fresh start towards peace in the Middle East. The
246
question is whether it has the will to seize it.
In the world at large a consensus has now emerged in respect of the form which a settlement should take and this, too, is an encouraging sign. There is wide agreement within the international community that a settlement should be based on the principles laid down in the Security Council Resolution 242, supplemented by the creation of a Palestinian State on the West Bank and in the Gaza Strip so as to afford some satisfaction of the Palestinians' right of self-determination.
On the question of the extent of the withdrawal from occupied territories required of Israel by the resolution there is wide support for the interpretation enunciated in 1969 by the then American Secretary of State, Mr. Rogers. The Secretary of State then declared that
"while recognised political boundaries must be established, and agreed upon by the parties, any changes in the pre-existing lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to unsubstantial alterations required for mutual security."
There is also wide agreement within the international community that a virtually total withdrawal by Israel from the territories occupied in 1967 must be accompanied by international guarantees and other safeguards, such as demilitarised zones, to ensure the security not only of Israel but of all States in the area including any new Palestinian State that may be established.
Against the consensus that has now emerged so widely throughout the world Israel stands virtually alone. Echoing Mrs. Meir's frequent "Noes" we have Prime Minister Rabin proclaiming a series of "Nevers"—never talk with the Palestinians, never negotiate with the so-called PLO, never accept a West Bank Gaza Strip, and never withdraw from Jerusalem. Worse than any words, the Government of Israel, day by day, consolidate their illegal annexation of Jerusalem—that is of East Arab Jerusalem—and extend their colonisation in the rest of the occupied territories. In doing so they fly in the face of the rest of the world.
There is indeed no reason to doubt that any Government of the United States would come out unequivocally in favour of the sort of settlement that has such

247
wide international backing if it were not for the pressures of the Zionist lobby in Washington. What is in doubt is not Washington's acceptance of the consensus but whether it has the will and political courage to enforce it. That is where serious questions begin to arise about the present current of optimism about a settlement.
In spite of the present hopeful signs, the probability is that if ever a peace conference is reconvened at Geneva it will break down over three crucial issues—namely, that the Israelis would not agree to relinquishing Arab Jerusalem, that they would not agree to anything approaching total withdrawal from the occupied territories and that they would not agree to any return of Palestinian refugees who were expelled in 1948.
We hear a great deal of comment about the vital importance of Jerusalem to the Israelis, but we do not hear so much about the equally unshakeable determination of the Arabs to recover the Arab city of Jerusalem and not to make peace without it. If that is a breaking point for Israel in negotiating peace, so too, it could be a breaking point for the Arabs. That is why some compromise must be found.
One such compromise could be something on the lines suggested by Lord Caradon, by which the city would remain physically undivided but with the Jewish and Arab parts under separate sovereignty. If there is not some such compromise, on this issue alone a peace conference is very likely to break down.
We also hear a great deal from Israeli politicians about the Golan Heights, Sharm el Sheikh, the Gaza Strip and large areas of the West Bank being essential for Israel's security and, therefore as they put it, non-negotiable. But if the Israeli leaders believe that they can get peace while still hanging on to substantial parts of the occupied territories, they are mistaken. As King Hussein has said, they can have peace or they can have territory, but they cannot have both. To judge by what many leading Israeli politicians have been saying, it looks as though they have already made their choice and that it is for territory and against peace.
If that is so it is intolerable and deeply worrying, because, despite the many
248
difficulties, not for a very long time has there been a better chance of achieving an acceptable peaceful settlement. The relevant Arab leaders have all made unequivocal statements indicating their desire for peace and the Palestinians are also ready for a compromise.
Should there be another war, with the exception of the countries directly involved, Western Europe would suffer most. Europe must therefore use its influence to persuade the United States to act in its interests and in the interests of the West by putting pressure on Israel and persuading it of the need to compromise as well.
Western Europe must also indicate its willingness to share in the responsibility for any peace talks and its preparedness to participate in guarantees and, if necessary, in the policing of demilitarised zones which might be established as part of a peace settlement.
The situation is not static and time most definitely is not on the side of Europe or on the side of peace.
6.12 p.m.
Mr. Colin Jackson: I should like to join in the congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his assumption of office. Many of us will no doubt want to raise points with him on the various parts of the world for which he is now responsible.
I agree with a good deal of what was said by the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters). In fact, the hon. Gentleman has almost made my speech.
Before turning to the Middle East, I should like to comment on India and Cyprus. First, when the Foreign Secretary goes to Egypt and Israel—I shall come back to that subject—I hope that in his peregrinations he will not forget in the reasonably near future to visit our Commonwealth colleague, the Republic of India. I have been a Member of this House on and off for 13 years. Visits by Heads of the United Kingdom to India in that time have been shamefully infrequent.
There are to be elections in India. They will be a new paragraph in the Indian story. It is incredible that the Prime Minister or the Foreign Secretary can almost monthly or bi-monthly go to

249
America or Canada, Washington or Ottawa, Australia, New Zealand and Africa, but not visit the largest, most populous nation of the Commonwealth. I hope that in what I trust will be a reasonably optimistic year for the world at large India will be included. I hope that India will also get a fairer crack of the whip from the British Press and from some of our broadcasting personalities.
I believe that this could be the making year for Cyprus. It is extremely encouraging that Mr. Denktash and President Makarios should have had talks, which have clearly been positive. Mr. Clerides, another leading politician in Cyprus, has also sounded optimistic.
The key point to getting a settlement, if it can be arranged, is for the new part of Famagusta, which is uninhabited, to be returned to the Greek Cypriots. There is also the Morphou area which is important agriculturally to the Greek Cypriots. If we can get agreement on this fairly limited point with regard to the new Famagusta—the Greek Cypriots have made a remarkable recovery in their part of Cyprus—matched by progress on the part of the Turkish Cypriots, we might in 1977 be able to say that that is an area where a settlement has been properly and genuinely achieved.
I think that this is a year when we might get nearer to a settlement of the Middle East crisis. For many years a settlement has been ruled out. We were waiting for the American elections or just recovering from them. Europe, too, has been somewhat preoccupied. I know that the Israeli elections are coming up, but I cannot see why there should not be a real possibility later this year of the Geneva conference being reconvened.
I was pleased to hear the Foreign Secretary say that he will be visiting Egypt and Israel. I could not help feeling that if Cyrus Vance could go to six countries in seven days, a younger British Foreign Secretary might include Saudi Arabia or Syria as well as the two countries to which he referred. I hope that he will listen to this request that he should step up his programme and visit two Arab countries and Israel.
Mr. Greville Janner: For a balance?
Mr. Jackson: I should also like to see Britain play a more prominent rôle, first, in our bilateral relationships with the Arab world and, secondly, in the European Community. It is extraordinary that a nation that had such influence and was and is now widely acceptable in the Arab world should be lagging behind not only the Americans but the Germans and the French. It is not that the Arab nations would like to see us more, but that they would like us not to forget them.
As this is a new chapter and as we have a new Foreign Secretary, I hope that in 1977 we shall get increased trading contact with the Middle East. In Saudi Arabia the Germans and the Americans are leaving us behind. That does not mean that we do not have a lot of hardworking civil servants at the Foreign Office. However, it is disappointing. A similar story applies to the Gulf. We seem to lack the energy, the drive and the push among the Arab nations.
As the hon. Member for Westbury said, there is also the question of Eurabia—contact between the Arab nations and European countries. At one stage in history Europe was dominant. Rome was in Cairo. At another stage—the Dark Ages—the Arab peoples were flourishing as the civilised world and then they retreated as France and Britain came to supremacy. It is strange that the Arabians and the Europeans should not have had closer consultation.
Reference has been made to the conference in Tunisia, which got nowhere because people were asking who should represent the PLO. The Palestinians in their West Bank elections seem to like the PLO. I suggest that it must be the PLO, particularly as it is recognised by the United Nations and by other agencies.
There should be greater economic cooperation between Europe and the Arab world. I have always liked the idea of a triangle of effort. Here we bring in America and Japan. First, the Arabs with the oil wealth; secondly, the Western industrialised nations with their technical know-how; and, thirdly, the vast Fourth World, with the people who could use that wealth and technology. That is one way in which European

251
activities could help with the co-operation of the Arab world.
Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: What the hon. Gentleman said about Eurabia—the development of the European countries and Arabia—was interesting. However, he adverted to the question of Cyprus. Does he agree that it is about time that we had a European policy directed to trying to solve the problems of Greece, Turkey and Cyprus and that we have a part to play? Does he also agree that the new Foreign Secretary should go to those countries as well when he visits Egypt? There is plenty of time to take in the other countries quickly and to try to assist the initiative introduced only yesterday by the American special envoy who came to this country to discuss these matters.
Mr. Jackson: I do not want to rule out other visits by the Foreign Secretary, but if we do not watch out they might not be too fruitful. I am not planning the Foreign Secretary's itinerary, but if he wanted to stop off at Nicosia on the way, that would be encouraging.
The continuing occupation by Israeli settlers of large areas of Arab land is another matter about which I am concerned. Already 80 have been settled and another 27 or 28 are planned. How can anybody in diplomatic or international life possibly condone occupying areas which belong to someone else and in defiance of the United Nations? The chance of peace is blocked by an arrogance which says that the Israeli army has the right to sit where others might not sit.
I hope that this year, with the possibility of a conference, Israel will realise that. It is for her own benefit to withdraw from areas which might be inflammatory in the future. The year of 1977 could be a better year for the Middle East, for India and for the world in general.
6.22 p.m.
Sir Derek Walker-Smith: I should like to follow the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) in his references to Cyprus, which is an island in which I have long taken a close interest. On these occasions one must practise selec-
252
tivity, and I must therefore impose a self-denying ordinance on myself on that subject, without any disrespect to the hon. Member.
In my experience, foreign affairs debates take on a familiar pattern—a massive tour d'horizon by the Foreign Secretary followed by, I shall not say a debate of shreds and patches, because that would be disrespectful to the House, but a debate of unco-ordinated contributions on particular aspects of foreign affairs.
Seeing the Foreign Secretary at the Dispatch Box today takes my mind back to the days when I used to listen to the tour d'horizon of Ernest Bevin, not in this Chamber, because it was not built then, but in the House. It is a stimulating thought, although not without its sobre implications for me, that our present Foreign Secretary—and I join in the cordial congratulations that have been made to him—was in those days, like Shakespeare's schoolboy,
"with his satchel, And shining morning face, creeping like a snail Unwillingly to school."
I am sure that in the Foreign Secretary's case there was nothing snail-like in his progress to school. I am sure that with his love of learning and zest for advancement he galloped along on his way to school like a gazelle. The right hon. Gentleman now occupies this high office. If he can emulate Bevin in being a great British Foreign Secretary commanding world respect, he will succeed beyond his own expectations and perhaps even beyond the expectations of his well-wishers. I certainly wish him well if that be his lofty and praiseworthy endeavour.
Unfortunately, the rôle and status of a British Foreign Secretary today is scarcely that of a Bevin, still less of a Curzon or an Austen Chamberlain, still less again of a Canning or a Palmerston. However, the prime objectives of British foreign policy remain within the same parameters even if they have to be pursued against a diminished background: first, the security of Britain and the maintenance of her material position and free institutions; and, secondly, international harmony, based on the widest possible acceptance and practice of those principles for which Britain has traditionally stood—political democracy, individual liberty, tolerance

253
and fair dealing between man and man. Of course, these two are linked aspirations. Britain cannot have security except within the ambience of international harmony, based on a reasonable acceptance of those principles.
On the other hand, it is an act of self-deception to think that we can pursue foreign policy on a purely ideological basis. Indeed, that is a self-defeating concept because Britain can actively contribute to such international desiderata only in proportion as she is strong, secure and respected in the world.
Those being our objects, what is our most hopeful line of approach? First, whatever progress is made towards détente—and it is at best halting, erratic, plodding and painful—we must operate closely within the North Atlantic framework, acting our traditional part as interpreter and catalyst between Europe and the United States.
In the European context I should like to advance this proposition. On joining the EEC we made some sacrifice of national sovereignty. Having done so we should, by way of recoupment and consideration, use our membership of the EEC to further and assist those high international endeavours in which we are engaged. I shall explain the background against which I advance that proposition, give one or two examples of spheres in which we should apply it and indicate ways in which we can and should improve the structure and working of the Community.
Entry to the EEC inevitably entailed some sacrifice of sovereignty. I spelled out repeatedly both the loss of sovereignty and its irrevocability during more than a decade of debates in the House. Having done so—and those warnings having gone largely unheeded in the business community—I confess to a certain wry amusement when business men now complain to me about the things of which I warned them in earlier years. Deaf ears sometimes cause troubled minds and even querulous tongues.
During the decade of debate I pointed out that we would be bound by an Act of Accession and I reiterated the constitutional and legal reasons for that in some detail in our debate on 9th April 1975, leading to the clear conclusion that Britain is now committed to the
254
Community in law, in good faith and in fact. That being so, our duty is to improve the workings of the Community and to make them reflect in the highest degree the characteristics that we seek.
I shall give two examples of spheres in which the Community can help to promote and reinforce our proper objectives. First there is Africa. It would be an incorrigible and irrational optimist who could take much satisfaction in the outlook in Southern Africa today. An appropriate Rhodesian solution continues to elude us. The problem of restoring Southern Africa to its former place in the comity of nations is still with us. One party government supersedes democracy in too many of the African States. The abominations of Amin desecrate the East African scene. The events in Angola resulted in a victory not of black men over white, nor even black men over black. but put Angola under Cuban and, therefore, Soviet domination. That was a result which was a notable defeat for the West with ominous strategic implications for our vital sea routes. It was a major success on the cheap for Soviet imperialism.
Events have shown that Britain lacks the power to be effective in Africa, at any rate on an individual basis, and that the United States lacks the purposeful effectiveness and confidence that comes of knowledge and experience of that continent. It is right, therefore, that we should do all we can to redress the balance and reinforce the position of the West, standing as it does for free institutions and parliamentary democracy. The instrument, of course, is to hand in the economic sphere, particularly in the Lomé Convention.
We should seek to involve the Community, through its economic influence, in assisting the defence of democracy in Africa. Economic aid and advantage, the sort of preferential treatment assured to African products in Community markets under Lomé, should be geared to the acceptance of democratic practices. Certainly it is a patent absurdity if Community countries direct their economic efforts in ways that increase or maintain the strength of Soviet imperialism in Africa. Here I echo, much less eloquently and persuasively, what was so well said by my right hon. Friend the

255
Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling).
My second example is relations with the Soviet bloc and, in particular, the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement. In this is involved the question of human rights in Eastern Europe. All nine member States of the Community were signatories on 1st August 1975 of the Helsinki Agreement, but not, of course, the Community as such. As with the United Nations Organisation, only States could participate, and, therefore, the Community was ineligible on jurisdictional grounds. But since all member States are participants, clearly the Community can and should have a common view, which can be expressed in a common voice, reinforcing though not replacing, the voices of member States.
The Soviets do not recognise the Community, but this is only a question of time, as the fisheries negotiations have tended to suggest. After all, the Soviets resisted for a long time the idea that the United States had a proper rôle in security and co-operation in Europe; but participation in the Helsinki Agreement and the force reduction talks shows that they now accept the indispensability of a United States rôle in Europe. In this sense at least, the Soviets are realists and no doubt will increasingly recognise the relevance of the Community.
The stronger the pressures from both sides of the Atlantic, the better the prospects for a more liberal approach to human rights in Eastern Europe. The Soviets and their satellites are all formally committed under the terms of the Final Act at Helsinki. We get it in very clear terms in Article 7:
"The participating States will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of thought, conscience, religion or belief, for all without distinction as to race, sex, language or religion."
Then it goes on to express the same intention in regard to national minorities.
It is sad and disappointing, therefore, in the face of this clear commitment, to find breaches of the Helsinki Agreement in respect of human rights, in respect of the treatment of dissidents and minorites, in the refusal to allow free expression of opinion in the country or the uninhibited right of egress from it, and the failure to carry out so many
256
requirements of Basket III—co-operation in humanitarian and other fields.
All this inevitably gives rise to the suspicion that all that the Soviets were really interested in was the provision relating to the inviolability of frontiers—the formalisation, in effect, of the Potsdam Agreement—and that, with human rights provisions being a sort of quid pro quo, the Soviets are now trying to have the quid and to withhold the quo.
Against this, the West should protest with a united voice and is fully entitled to do so. The Soviets seek to resist international pressures by claiming, as in the case of President Carter's timely letter to Dr. Sakharov, that they constitute interference in their internal affairs and an infringement of their sovereignty. But this argument is inconsistent with the terms of the Helsinki Agreement itself. The participating States contract inter se to respect human rights. This is a collective and reciprocal obligation. Just as the indivisibility of security is expressly recognised in the Helsinki Agreement, so by clear implication at least is the indivisibility of human rights when it says
"The participating States recognise the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms."
The Governments and peoples of the participating States have, therefore, the right and duty not only to confer and observe human rights and fundamental freedoms within their own boundaries but the right and duty, jointly and severally, to expect and require observance in the other States. That right and duty vests, among others, in the nine member States, which should exercise it in close co-operation with the United States and Canada, and with each other within the framework of the Community. That they should do so is obviously a matter of paramount importance. Observance of those provisions of Helsinki which guarantee human rights is vital and indispensable. It is a condition precedent to true détente and would powerfully assist a successful outcome of efforts at mutual force reduction.
I am not saying that we should take a purely external, still less complacent, view of human rights. I am not suggesting that our duty can be discharged solely by criticism of others. On the

257
contrary, I am on record, both in this House and in the European Parliament, with suggestions for strengthening the apparatus for the protection of fundamental rights within the Community itself.
The Community is fortunate in respect of fundamental rights when viewed in context with other countries. Nevertheless, there is a curious paradox in its structure to which we should give attention. Although some articles of the EEC treaty, the so-called Treaty of Rome, afford protection to particular rights—Articles 7, 48 and 119, for example—there is a void in respect of the protection of fundamental rights as such. There is no provision in the treaties for that comprehensive protection which one would expect in a written constitution of a national State. There are no entrenched provisions, as they are normally called in the constitutional idiom.
The reason, no doubt, for this curious omission was that member States adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights at Strasbourg, and it was thought, no doubt, that this would suffice. But the Convention is concerned with civic and political rights and the Community is primarily concerned with economic and socio-economic matters, and it is in respect of those that there is a void that needs to be filled.
Much thought and preliminary work is being given to this now in the Community and in the various member States. The importance attached to it is illustrated by the Common Declaration of the institutions of the Community respecting fundamental rights, which the European Parliament for its part approved last month on my motion as Chairman of the Legal Affairs Committee of that Parliament. Though the European Court of Justice can do much in this regard, I hope that in the long term we can evolve a code or charter of fundamental rights in the Community. I hope, indeed, that we can also set up a Community Ombudsman as the citizens' watchdog over the administrative acts of the institutions. This improvement in the apparatus of fundamental rights in the Community would serve two purposes. First, it would benefit the individual citizen. Second, it would strengthen the position of the Community and its member States in pressing for
258
the observance of human rights elsewhere. This is likely, perhaps, to be a long and difficult path, but it is one well worth treading. I commend it to Ministers and wish them well in this and in the great tasks on which they are embarked.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern): I remind hon. Members that the debate finishes at 10 o'clock. One expects the winding-up speeches to begin at about 9.20 p.m. There are still 20 right hon. and hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate. The reason for my intimation of those statistics lies in the hope that Members will keep their speeches as brief as possible.
6.40 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Like others who have spoken, I express my congratulations to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary and wish him well. I was glad to hear him refer to the principles on which foreign policy should be based.
Just over a year ago, on 9th February 1976, I initiated a debate in the House under the title "Foreign Policy and Morality". I argued in that speech that the conduct of foreign affairs by major Powers was not infrequently utterly devoid of concern for the lofty principles of freedom, national self-determination and human rights to which their spokesmen so often paid fulsome lip service.
During that speech I strongly attacked the treatment of dissidents by the Soviet Government. I utterly deplored the invasion of Czechoslovakia by the Warsaw Pact forces in 1968 and the denial of basic freedoms to its opponents by the régime foisted on the Czech people. I believe that there is a continuing need for this House to raise its voice on behalf of those dissidents and those people. I was also bitterly critical of the foreign policy of United States Administrations, and particularly of their involvement in covert actions which led to the overthrow of Governments such as those of Mossadeq in Iran, of Arbenz in Guatemala and of Allende in Chile.
I am, therefore, unable to agree with the defence of the CIA voiced today by the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling). I referred in February last year with particular revulsion to CIA assassination plots designed

259
to kill—frequently by making use of criminals—leading world statesmen such as Castro, Ngo Dinh Diem, General Schneider, Trujillo and Patrice Lumumba. I cannot believe that anyone who defends the CIA can seriously be defending activities of that sort, which are now clearly documented, and at the same time believe in human rights.
Most of the information that I quoted previously was drawn from the reports of the United States Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities chaired by Senator Church. The facts which were known a year ago have since been greatly augmented, both by the Church Committee as well as by the committee established by the United States House of Representatives under Congressman Otis Pike.
There is now a new President of the United States and a new United States Secretary of State. It is too early to draw conclusions, but initial indications from President Carter's statements and appointments seem to suggest that the new Administration does not intend to rely on covert operations to anything like the same degree as did their immediate predecessors. But I believe it is appropriate at this time for the British Government to take stock of this change of direction by our major ally and to cast such weight as they may have against any reversions to the policies of covert intervention associated most recently with the activities of Dr. Kissinger.
Page 445 of book I of the final report of the United States Select Committee stated:
"The Committee has found that the CIA conducted some 900 major or sensitive covert action projects plus several thousand smaller projects since 1961."
These, as the committee concluded, had not been subjected to the
"rigorous public scrutiny and debate necessary to determine their compatibility with established American foreign policy goals."
In fact, even the President of the United States did not adequately control them. Page 429 of the report states:
"The Committee finds that Presidents have not established specific instruments of oversight to prevent abuses by the intelligence community. In essence, Presidents have not exercised effective oversight."
I believe that this is an extremely disconcerting state of affairs which undoubtedly
260
concerns us, not merely because the United States is our principal ally but also because of the close links between the British intelligence apparatus and the American National Security Agency.
It is precisely for that reason that I do not take the view that the right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet takes. Of course, I accept that there are legitimate intelligence activities, but I believe that we are called upon to speak out firmly and strongly against the covert activities which have been indulged in in the past.
We in this House have a right to know to what extent the very considerable establishment of British civil servants and intelligence staff—paid for out of funds approved by this House—have assisted in all those covert operations, frequently, as I have quoted, not under the full control of the United States President, let alone Ministers of the British Government with responsibility for the conduct of foreign affairs.
I should like to refer in particular to two covert operations which are dealt with in the Pike Report and which have been carried out by the CIA. The first concerns Angola. Much alarm has been expressed in this House, particularly by right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side, about the proclivities of the MPLA. It is interesting to learn what Mr. William Colby, the former Director of the CIA, said to the Pike Committee about the different groups contending for supremacy in Angola—the MPLA, UNITA and FNLA.
"They are all independents. They are all for black Africa. They are all for some fuzzy kind of social system, you know, without much articulation but some sort of let's not be exploited by the capitalist nations."
Mr. Colby was then asked why the Chinese were backing the moderate group. He replied:
"Because the Soviets are backing the MPLA is the simplest answer."
When the questioner commented
"It sounds like that is why we are doing
it",
Mr. Colby replied:
"It is."
In other words, on this basis the CIA expended by the end of 1975 alone at least $31 million in military hardware, transportation costs and cash payments—perhaps more—to finance a war. Some of the money filtered into the pockets of

261
the self-appointed recruiters of mercenaries in the United Kingdom whose activities were denounced in this House by the Government. Is it reasonable that covert activities of this nature should be tolerated? The mercenaries—one of my constituents died in the massacre—were, in my view, pathetic dupes manipulated, like the people of Angola, by the interests of the great Powers. We have to say quite frankly that this sort of thing was wrong and must not again be tolerated.
A callous disregard of all principles of morality, and of the enunciated aims of spokesmen on foreign policy, was demonstrated even more clearly in the case of the Kurds. That is the second case which I wish to quote from the Pike Report. The Kurdish people tragically missed their opportunity for national self-determination and are now divided between five States.
It is clear from the Pike Report that the United States Government, at the request of the Shah of Iran, who earlier in his reign had crushed his own Kurds quite barbarously, decided to provide covert financial support—some $16 million has been mentioned—for Iraqi Kurds led by Mustafa Barzani in their revolt against the Iraqi Government. At the time that this struggle was going on, a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House asked Questions about the suffering of these Kurds as a result of Iraqi bombardment. Apparently Mustafa Barzani distrusted the Iranians but sent gifts to Dr. Kissinger—three rugs and, on the occasion of Dr. Kissinger's marriage, a gold and pearl necklace. None the less, after three years of fighting the Shah of Iran reached agreement on his border dispute with Iraq early in 1975, and at a stroke all aid to the Kurds was cut off despite desperate appeals by their leaders to Dr. Kissinger and the United States. In fact, the United States administration even refused humanitarian aid to the refugees created by the war, and one high official stated:
"covert action should not be confused with missionary work."
Both these cases—Angola and that of the Kurds—like CIA activities in many other countries, demonstrate the need for basing foreign policy on different principles. Many people in the Third World are struggling to achieve social change,
262
and a Labour Government should be on their side. We should not be allied with any Power which is seeking to thwart or divert the aims or such people and to protect the rights of privileged groups or multinational companies to continue to exploit. In the long run, our own interests will be better served by basing foreign policy on the principles of humanity rather than on those of Machiavelli.
The case of Cyprus, where again there has been enormous suffering, is another one in which secret plans and other activities which have yet to see the full light of day have produce tragic results. Richard Crossman, in his diary of July 1967, quotes a paper on Cyprus which came before the Cabinet in which apparently is was suggested that, if the Greek Colonels staged a coup against President Makarios, British forces should stand aside. Although that policy was turned down, in effect that is what happened a number of years later, and the people of Cyprus have suffered grievously as a result, demonstrating once again the cynical disregard for the principles of self-determination and humanity which so many of the great Powers are only too content to mouth without putting them into practice.
I am one of those who believe that, in the long run, the division of the world into armed camps is undesirable. Therefore, I do not for a moment exonerate the Soviet Union from blame. But we have to consider seriously at some time the need to wind up the military alliances. Certainly we should not be thinking of extending them. I view with considerable concern some of the reports which are made from time to time about discussions taking place between Brazil and various racialist régimes in South Africa about a possible extension of NATO to the Southern Atlantic or some sort of Southern Atlantic Treaty Organisation.
I believe that British interests would be better served by a policy of non-alignment. I am not in favour of our indefinitely remaining a member of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and its sister alliances. I am anxious to make it clear that that is my view.
I recognise that it may not be possible at present to make all the changes which those who take my point of view wish to

263
see. But I make an earnest plea to my right hon. and hon. Friends who are responsible for our foreign policy that foreign policy should be conducted on a different basis in the future from that which characterised the foreign policy with which we were associated when Dr. Kissinger and his predecessors were in power, with their reliance on covert operations.
My right hon. Friend referred to the abject poverty in which so large a proportion of the world's people continue to exist. The major objective of all people of good will should be to work for the uplifting of their living standards and to enable the suffering millions to achieve their full emancipation as human beings. That cannot be achieved by covert operations, by boosting arms sales and by activities of that kind.
I welcome what my right hon. Friend said about his attitude to the problem of world poverty and human rights. In the future, I hope that we shall see these issues exercising an ever-increasing influence over the formulation of British foreign policy.
6.56 p.m.
Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I, too, join in the good wishes to the Foreign Secretary. When he is speaking for this country he willl have my support and that of all my right hon. and hon. Friends.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) will, I am sure, excuse me if I do not take up many of his remarks. I think that he was misguided in almost everything that he said. What really upset me was that his speech was so one-sided. There was one short sentence in which he suggested that the Soviet Union was not blameless. I suggest that, when he next speaks along these lines in a foreign affairs debate, he does not spend three-quarters of his time condemning the CIA without also condemning the KGB and underlining the disastrous and bloody events it has caused.
Mr. Newens: But I do.
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: It would not be a bad idea if this House followed the example of the European Parliament and imposed a time limit on speeches. I
264
intend to adhere to the time limit that I should be given in that Assembly.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I do not share every view of my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), but it is quite unfair to say that he has not frequently condemned various events which have occurred in Eastern Europe.
Mr. Greville Janner Mr. Greville Janner rose—
Mr. Scott-Hopkins: I do not think that I ought to give way again for a moment or two. I am sure that the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) will have his opportunity to make his own contribution.
In reply to the hon. Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell), I say merely that, whatever the hon. Member for Harlow may have done in other speeches, he did not do it today.
As I said in my opening remarks, I shall back up the Foreign Secretary in any action that, in the name of Britain, he takes to our advantage.
I intend to confine my remarks to the European Economic Community and the task of our Foreign Secretary there. He has a great deal of leeway to make up in the Community. Our reputation has never been lower than it is at the moment. Anthony Crosland, whose death we all regret, was beginning to make headway in restoring some of our lost prestige and good will. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will be able to continue along those lines.
If the right hon. Gentleman is to continue prevaricating about direct elections, if he intends to back up the idiotic remarks of the Minister of State yesterday, and if he will not push harder than he indicated he would today, our reputation in Europe will sink even lower. It would be disastrous if this country were the only one not able to fulfil its commitment. Our honour is at stake. If we do not fulfil this commitment no other country in the Community will be able to hold direct elections, but it is clear that direct elections are what are needed to control democratically the European institutions of the future.
I agreed with a lot of what the right hon. Member for Kettering (Sir G. de Freitas) said. A national list for the

265
direct elections is not, I believe, acceptable generally, and it is certainly not acceptable to me. I believe that the Government, even in the face of deliberate obstruction by the Liberals, whose Bench is nearly always empty on these occasions, could get through this Session a Bill which would allow our 81 seats in the European Parliament to be delineated by a boundaries commission.
As Chairman of the Council of Ministers, the right hon. Gentleman also faces the situation over applications to join the EEC. Greece is knocking at the door. Three other countries, Portugal, Spain and Turkey, will be knocking soon. What is the right hon. Gentleman's philosophy on that? Their entry, as did the entry of Britain, Denmark and Ireland, will mean tremendous upheaval for the Community. Does he want to see it happen quickly?
I am particularly concerned at present about the Greek application, which has proceeded smoothly in the recent negotiations, but what is the right hon. Gentleman's view of the way in which we should be dealing with our Turkish friends? This is very important. Both Greece and Turkey are associate members of the Community. We must avoid being seen to favour one as against the other. I hope that the negotiations with Greece are successful, and that Greece will be able to join the EEC in due course, but I hope that while we are negotiating with Greece we shall be able, as a Community, to deal with Turkey as well, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman, as Chairman of the Council of Ministers, will be able to reassure the Turks that we have every intention, if they ask to join, of dealing with them as generously as we are and will be dealing with Greece.
This attitude would help him to deal with the Cyprus situation as well. The EEC also has a role to play there, and I am glad that the European Parliament also takes that view. If that is so, every move the right hon. Gentleman can make in reassuring our Turkish friends will be of great advantage.
Equally, we want to know what the situation is regarding Portugal's probable application and that of Spain after its coming elections. Will the right hon. Gentleman encourage his colleagues in the Council of Ministers to look favour-
266
ably on the applications of Portugal and Spain?
I recently had the privilege of going to the Dutch Antilles and presiding over a preparatory meeting with representatives of Latin American countries, including Mexico. One of my main impressions is that we in this country seem almost to have ignored in our foreign relations the countries of the north of South America, The Minister of State has been to the Falkland Islands and the Argentine, but countries in the north of South America, such as Mexico, Venezuela and Nicaragua, are developing countries with enormous resources. In talking to their parliamentary representatives, it seemed to me that the influence of Britain, and, indeed, our name, is little heard and felt in that part of the world.
I was approached by Mexicans who wanted to open negotiations here for the development and improvement of their agriculture. I asked why Mexico had joined COMECON. They replied that basically they would join anything but that there had been no advances from this country or from Europe on a commercial basis. There is a great deal that we can do to strengthen our relationship with the countries in the north of South America, and it would be greatly to our advantage.
The EEC could play a great rôle in that area as well. I hope that when the conference between the European Parliament and Latin American parliaments takes place in July it will be able to lay the groundwork for Ministers to be able to reach fruitful conclusions for the Community and that part of the world.
I wish the Foreign Secretary well. He has a formidable task. Apart from what my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said about the relationship with America, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will concentrate on rebuilding our reputation in Europe, which is where our future has to be made and secured. We have a great rôle to play there. I wish him well in trying to further our interests.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. On behalf of the House, I thank the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) for taking only 10 minutes.
7.7 p.m.
Mr. David Watkins: I, too, join in the congratulations and good wishes to my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his appointment. I agree with the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that he will need our good wishes and our backing in the tremendous task that he faces.
I was glad to hear my right hon. Friend, in his opening speech, give some priority to the situation in the Middle East, because it is that on which I want to concentrate my remarks. It is an important area because, above all, it is one of considerable British interest. I hope we all recognise that we are basically elected to represent the British people and that it is British interests that we fundamentally seek to push in foreign policy in all parts of the world.
While it is true that Britain has little economic or military power in the Middle East, or in many other areas, we have one major advantage there: amongst the European countries, we are more trusted in the Arab world than any other. We should build on that trust by taking a more active rôle than appears to have been the case hitherto in securing the resumption of the Geneva Conference on the Middle East, and in doing so we should put forward the idea that the Palestinian people must be independently represented at Geneva.
I remind my right hon. Friend that his distinguished and so sadly missed predecessor told the General Assembly of the United Nations last October that any settlement in the Middle East must include a homeland for the people of Palestine where they would be free to look after their own affairs. Mr. Crosland appeared to have reservations about a sovereign Palestinian State. Nevertheless, his ideas went a long way towards that objective. I hope that my right hon. Friend will now be prepared to go just a little further, which is all that is now required, and support the general proposition that there should be a Palestinian State on the West Bank of the Jordan and in Gaza.
The idea itself has already been agreed in Pan-Arab circles, and very shortly the Palestine National Council will meet to decide its policy upon it. It is not for me or any other hon. Member to tell
268
the PNC what to do, but I hope that it will support the proposition. Whatever it decides, the world must note its decision, because one of the greatest tragedies and the greatest immorality of the conflict in the Middle East is that the people of Palestine who have suffered most have been consulted least. They are the most injured party. The whole conflict can be settled only when they are involved, in their own name and in their own right of nationhood, in settling it.
I wish to turn to the dialogue between the League of Arab States and the European Economic Community. In view of this country's long experience in the Middle East and the regard in which we are generally held there, it seems that we have been rather more reticient about playing an active part in this dialogue than our experience and the regard in which we are held justifies. For example, on 31st January at a Common Market meeting held in London, an important statement of policy on the conflict in the Middle East was agreed but was not published. Newpapers being what they are, the statement has since been published in Al Ahram on 21st February and Le Monde on 22nd February. Therefore, informed students of the Euro-Arab dialogue know the contents which go little further forward than previous statements on Common Market policy towards the Middle East.
I am rather surprised that the statement should not have been made public, and I hope that the Government will make clear that they support open covenants, openly arrived at. It is not good enough for Britain to connive at secret agreements, because secret agreements have no place in advancing the cause of peace anywhere. This was demonstrated by Dr. Kissinger's form of diplomacy, where, by having secret meetings with people at various stages of various conflicts and making statements which tried to be all things to all men, in the end his statements were nothing to anybody. That form of diplomacy and Dr. Kissinger's disastrous intervention in Rhodesia indicates the failure of that type of approach to settle conflicts in various parts of the world.
Turning to the question of energy, no one can talk about the Middle East without the subject of oil being raised. As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of

269
State pointed out, Britain has a unique position in that by the 1980s we shall be the only advanced industrial country which will be self-sufficient in oil, and a major exporter into the bargain. We shall have a strong claim to join the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries. In that connection I wish to refer to the policy of one OPEC member which has been little publicised in Western Europe—that is, the policy of the United Arab Emirates, a major exporter and a friend of this country. The UAE has pointed out that in the modern world no nation can exist independently of all the others, that oil producers and consumers have a mutual interdependence and that co-operation between them is vital for developed and underdeveloped countries. In our own unique position, as we are and as we shall be, we ought to take up and develop that policy.
By the 1980s our exports will be not only in oil but in all forms of energy, especially coal and gas. We shall be a major consumer and a major exporter. We ought to support the UAE's position and embrace world co-operation in the production, distribution and consumption of energy in all its forms. This may be a matter for the future, but it is for the foreseeable future. We ought to be acting now and taking a lead. We should take the opportunity of using the Euro-Arab dialogue to do so.
I put it to the Government that two British initiatives are needed. The first is the reconvening of the Geneva Conference, with the Palestinians represented there, and the second is in the field of energy along the lines that I have outlined. The reconvening of the Geneva Conference is more urgent but there is also an urgency about the second initiative, which will become ever more urgent as the demand for energy grows and resources diminish. The two are linked. The second would increase our credibility in advancing the first.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith) made a very valid point when he said that our field of activity and influence in the world is much restricted compared with what it was even a relatively short time ago. Initiatives like those that I have proposed are well within this country's capability in present-
270
day circumstances, and if my right hon. Friend takes the initiative he will have made a great start.
7.15 p.m.
Mr. Julian Amery: I follow the hon. Member for Consett (Mr. Watkins) in congratulating the new Foreign Secretary and extending my good wishes. The right hon. Gentleman goes to the big table in the international card game with an unfortunately weak hand of cards. The foundations of foreign policy are a firm political base, economic strength and military power, and the right hon. Gentleman has none of these things. Nevertheless, as he himself said, I think that with skill and with the support of the House he could play a great part.
Britain is not a Power in the sense that it used to be, but we remain a very considerable influence, partly because of our membership of the European Community, where we have a very special part to play, with our financial expertise, our military nuclear power and our technology, and partly because of our relationship with the United States. Perhaps there is no longer the special relationship with the American Government that there used to be, but nothing can take away the relationships that exist between human beings and contacts between business men, financiers, industrialists, Rhodes scholarships and the academic world. All this is still very much alive.
Then there is our position with the European, Commonwealth and former Commonwealth countries such as Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, which have become considerable Powers in recent years, and with the African, Asian and Middle Eastern countries which were previously associated with our system. There is still a considerable hand to be played. It will need a great deal of skill to play it. But the right hon. Gentleman can count on the support of the House if, basing himself on our interests in the European Community, he develops the themes that may flow from what Winston Churchill once called the three concentric circles.
The job of the Foreign Secretary is to promote and protect the interests of Britain, and the greatest of those interests is peace. There are many dangerous

271
situations in the world today. A number of hon. Members have referred to the Arab-Israeli situation. That is one danger. Another is the black and white confrontation in Southern Africa and the increasingly dangerous situation in the horn of Africa and East Africa. Then there is the gap—about which little has been said today—between rich and poor countries. All these situations contain the seeds of crisis and conflict, but the only real danger and the only real threat to peace is the threat posed by Soviet imperialism.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said in a brilliant opening speech that he believed that the leaders of the Soviet Union were bent on prosecuting their ideological struggle with increasing intensity. I do not think that anyone should overlook the intelligence report which, like everything else in America, has recently been leaked. The report, from a British source, printed in an American paper, stated that Mr. Brezhnev had said at a meeting in Prague that by 1984 or 1985 he would be in a position to impose his will on the free world.
I do not want to pursue the intentions of the Soviet leaders, however. Nor do I want to deal today with the manifestations of Soviet imperialism in terms of its military power. These would be better discussed in our defence debate on the not very illuminating White Paper which has just been published. I believe that in this foreign affairs debate we would do better to look under the surface at the economic and social causes of Soviet imperialism.
The clearest of those causes is the development inside the Soviet Union of a military industrial complex far greater in proportion to the rest of Soviet society than anything that was seen in Europe in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century, or in America since the war. I make no apology for repeating what I have said before on this score. This is still something that we are very slow to understand. There are 4 million men in the Red army. There are 1 million in the navy and air force. There are 1 million in the KGB. That is a total of 6 million. Behind them is an unquantifiable military-industrial complex which supplies them and extends into the
272
space industry which cannot easily be divorced from the military side.
If those of us with any military experience think of how many lieutenant-colonels, colonels, brigadiers, major-generals, generals and field-marshals, with all their staffs, are represented by 6 million military men; and add to it the industrial complex behind them, and if we think of the ADCs, the motor cars, the married quarters and everything that goes with them, we see that there is an enormous ruling class in the Soviet Union. It is a far greater proportion of the ruling group than anything that post-war America has known or that was ever known in Britain in the nineteenth century.
Of course we had a military industrial complex, but it was always a small proportion. In Britain before the First World War the Empire represented perhaps one-quarter or one-third of our interests. In America post-Second World War this complex was very small in comparison with the enormous interests of American industry and finance which were meeting the requirements of the American market. In the Soviet Union, however, this element enjoys privileges and power out of all proportion to those enjoyed by any other section of Soviet society. It is this which has led Mr. Brezhnev to proclaim himself a field-marshal.
The other day I received from the Soviet Union the latest photograph of Marshal Brezhnev which is being circulated to post offices and Government Departments in the Soviet Union. He sits in a blue uniform with enormous epaulettes, and the whole of his right chest is covered in decorations. His military record is not much better than mine! On the wall behind him is a photograph of Lenin in a crumpled lounge suit. This is the whole story of the Russian revolution from Robespierre to Bonaparte.
The privileges which this military elite enjoys are enormous. These people are parasites in that they create no wealth. They contribute nothing to the welfare of the Soviet Union, and their very existence intensifies the social, economic and national contradictions inside the Soviet system. The Ukraine, the

273
Caucasus and the Central Asian republics are very conscious of their independent nationalities. God knows we have talked enough about nationality in this House in the devolution debates during the last few weeks. The only way that that elite can justify itself is by maintaining an atmosphere of international tension, and that means, when the opportunity arises, expanding.
I had the opportunity not long ago to talk to a high-placed Communist in one of the Warsaw Pact countries. I reproached him with the Angolan affair and said that if they went on with this kind of adventure they could not expect to get credits from the West. He said that he absolutely understood; he shared my anxiety; but he said that he had to tell me that, although they did not have a public opinion as we had it, they had a military public opinion, and even if Marshal Brezhnev had wanted to stop the Angolan adventure he could not have done so.
What is to be our response? First, I agree very much with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) said. It is unwise to give the Soviet Union and its allies in the Warsaw Pact, unwilling though some of them may be, the kind of credits we are giving at very preferential rates. I was in Peking the other day, and a senior Chinese Minister told me that we might as well give them guns. He asked why give them money, why give them know-how? He said that by giving them guns we would be giving them less because it was the know-how that they needed. We must look more carefully at this side of our policy.
But the basic need is to maintain the alliance of free nations and to build it up. Here I disagree with those who want to pull out of the alliance. Washington is the leader of the alliance. However, we have to recognise that after the defeat in Vietnam, the devaluation of the dollar, Watergate and all that the Americans have been through, they may not be prepared to carry as much of the load in the future as they have in the past. Therefore, all of us in the free world may have to assume rather more of the load. We shall discuss in the debate on defence what this country should do, but I would not be surprised
274
if many of us recommended a measure of rearmament for Britain instead of cuts in defence.
I realise that the Government are in a certain straitjacket imposed by the IMF and that this prevents them from reflating the economy as the TUC would like. But I suspect—the Foreign Secretary can take soundings on this when he goes to Washington with the Prime Minister—that the IMF would not make too many difficulties if we had a measure of reflation in the interests of rearming. Equally, if we are to maintain arms we must maintain intelligence and security.
Let me utter here a word of warning that the attack on the CIA and on our own intelligence and security services is, wittingly or unwittingly, mounted on behalf of the KGB. This secret underground war between the intelligence services rages continuously. We would be mad if we were to disarm on that front.
There is one aspect on which the Foreign Secretary may have a special part to play. It is important that we should develop the EEC into a European defence community. An economic community is intended to produce and promote economic and financial interests in common. If we have economic and financial interests in common, it is only reasonable to have a foreign and defence policy to protect them. Of course we must do it within NATO, but perhaps we should take another look to see whether NATO could be improved. It seems to me deficient in two respects. In view of the way that the world has shrunk since the start of NATO in 1948–49, the geographic limitations of the Alliance seem to me to be absurd. The other great deficiency is that the Alliance does not include France, and we cannot defend Europe without France.
I was glad that the Foreign Secretary's first visit was to France. Reading reports of that visit, I was struck with the thought that in 1959 General de Gaulle circulated a memorandum to the Heads of Government in Washington and London advocating transforming the NATO Alliance or superimposing upon it a world-wide triumvirate of America, Britain and France. It received cautious support from Mr. Harold Macmillan. It was turned down by the Americans, not

275
surprisingly because we were only just a nuclear Power. The French were not in the league at all. That concept would now be out of date.
But I wonder whether we should not now be thinking of a triumvirate of Europe, America and Japan. A good deal of thought has been given to what is called trilateralism. Mr. Carter and many of his advisers have taken part in the trilateral group. I think the Foreign Secretary will find that discussions in Washington on the trilateral concept would not fall on infertile ground. I do not know whether the Americans are wise in proposing to withdraw from South Korea. I notice that the South Korean Opposition as well as their Government have doubts about that. But what seems clear is that if the Americans do withdraw, Japan must rearm. Japan cannot go on enjoying all the advantages of economic growth without carrying any of the burdens of security for those advantages.
On a recent visit to China and South-East Asia, I was interested to find that there is substantial acceptance there of the need for Japan to rearm. I was also impressed by the emphasis which the Chinese Ministers to whom I spoke placed on the importance of Japan maintaining the closest possible links with the United States. This, they said, should be its first priority.
I shall not weary the House with my impressions of China, but I should like to say a word about a problem which is sometimes in doubt. The new Chinese leadership is pragmatic and likely to move in the direction of greater industrialisation. Some people have asked whether, if China moved in that direction, there would be a reconciliation between China and the Soviet Union. I do not think so. In the first place, there is the old saying that two dry pieces of paper do not stick together; one needs a wet piece and a dry piece. The Russians are too poor to help the Chinese in any significant way. In addition, the Chinese have had a bitter experience of their alliance with the Soviet Union. Then there is the frontier problem.
Far more serious than any of these, however, is the conviction of the Chinese that the Soviet Union is out for world
276
hegemony. This is an obsession with them. They do not believe that they will be attacked in the first place. They think that we shall be attacked; and if we were overwhelmed they would be in a hopeless position. They see themselves as sinking or swimming with the West, particularly with Europe. Therefore, I think we should be wise to cultivate a good understanding with them, and in any trilateral development which we may pursue and in any alliance which may develop between the United States, Europe and Japan we should be in close consultation with the Chinese.
I think that a main objective of our new Foreign Secretary should be to encourage the development of the world from a bipolar world where there is only the United States and the Soviet Union to a polycentric world in which the new European Community, Japan and China all play their part.
President Theodore Roosevelt said
"Speak softly and carry a big stick."
President Carter seems to have dropped the stick but seems to be stumping up the pulpit denouncing all and sundry. I am all in favour of his letter to Dr. Sakharov. President Brezhnev signed a paper at Helsinki, and we have every right to hold him to it and every right to say "If you dishonour your signature on Basket III, how shall we trust you on any other document?" But denunciation and disarmament go ill together. I would prefer denunciation to be accompanied by a written go-ahead for the B1 and the X missile than the other way round.
Of course, we must stand out for human rights; this is the essence and basis of our values. But there is another principle which is no less important, and that is self-determination of nations, our refusal to accept the so-called Brezhnev doctrine. There is a real danger in Eastern Europe. The speeches made by both presidential candidates in the presidential elections were alarming, especially when President Carter said that he would not help Yugoslavia if it were invaded. That came on top of reports in London of the Sonnenfeld speech to American ambassadors and all the talk about not wanting to destabilise Europe. All this had a bad effect, in Yugoslavia, Romania and, for all I know, Albania. We should

277
seek to restore confidence in those countries. We have powerful means of discouraging any Soviet adventure in that direction. I hope that this will be kept on the NATO and European agenda consistently in the months ahead.
Some deprecating things have been said about Dr. Kissinger. I had the privilege to work to some extent with Dr. Kissinger. Kissinger, like his hero, Metternich, was master of American diplomacy but never master of America. He perhaps exaggerated the weakness of America and exaggerated the strength of the Soviet Union, but no one can deny that he secured an immense triumph in the Middle East, ousting the Soviets from the influential position they had in Egypt and finally in Syria.
There have been a number of speeches on the Middle East in the debate about the Arab-Israeli problem. If we look closely at the problem it seems that the main issue is the relation between the Arab States and the Israelis. But if we stand back and look at it from the Far East—as I did a few weeks ago—one gets the impression that the tide of Soviet imperialism in the Middle East broke on the rock of Israeli military strength and ran out on the sands of the oil-rich conservative Arab countries. Although they are not allied or in collusion in any way, they are pursuing parallel policies with the primary aim of keeping the Russians out of the area. If that is so, I do not see why we could not work for a situation where they live, if not in friendship, at least in mutual forbearance. But the key to this is the fact that the Arabs have understood that they can get no concessions out of Israel through the Soviets, but only through the Americans.
I wonder whether the same does not apply to the situation in Southern Africa. Here I venture a word of criticism of the Government. The Kissinger proposals were accepted by Mr. Smith after great pressure had been exercised by the British, American and South African Governments. In my judgment, they gave the African nationalist leaders all that they legitimately could ask for. When I say "legitimately", I mean African rule after two years but on the assumption that it would be a moderate, democratic rule taking into account all the rights of the minorities.
278
When the Africans turned down the proposals, our Government and the Americans made no attempt to put equivalent pressure on them to accept the Kissinger proposals, yet we had plenty of means at our disposal. We could have threatened to lift sanctions and the arms embargo and could have refused to give them aid. Instead of that, the British Government produced proposals which virtually amounted to asking Mr. Smith to surrender at once and not even to the representatives of the majority. The moment he began to talk about an "internal" solution, both we and the Americans ruled out such a solution, although many experts believe—I do not know whether they are right—that Bishop Muzorewa is the representative of the majority. What we and the Americans have been saying is "No deal except with the guerrillas".
Ambassador Young, when asked why he did not talk to Bishop Muzorewa, went so far as to say "Because he is not doing the fighting." The answer is that we are pressing Mr. Smith to hand over to Nkomo and Mugabe and the guerrillas—that is, to men of the caste of President Neto and President Machel. This would lead to the installation in Rhodesia not of a democratic, moderate party but of something which would leave the Ton Ton Macoute of President Duvalier looking like the Salvation Army—and something which would be Soviet-controlled. This cannot be in our interests. Neither does it accord with our principles.
I am left firmly with the impression, which I hope the Minister of State will deny, that the driving force behind British and American policy in Rhodesia today is the desire to avoid a confrontation with the Soviets in Southern Africa at any cost. We can sacrifice our interests, our democratic principles, everything, to avoid a confrontation. No one wants a confrontation. But if there has to be one, and usually it cannot be avoided by running away, I cannot think of a better place to have it. It is thousands of miles from the Soviet homeland, and the surrogate forces are much stronger, black and white, on our side. There are not only the South Africans and the Rhodesian whites but the black troops in Rhodesia, UNITA, the FNLA and the guerrillas who are still active in Mozambique.

279
In the Middle East the Americans refused to apply pressure to Israel until the Arab States abandoned the Soviet alliance. We, too, might take a leaf out of the American's book and make it plain to the Africans that, while we want to see social justice in Rhodesia and South Africa, we will not act as long as they are lined up with the Soviet Union. This is the case certainly in Angola and Mozambique, to a large extent in Tanzania and even, judging from the activities of Ambassador Solodovnikov, in Zambia.
I am sorry to have kept the House for so long. I come now to my conclusion. Soviet imperialism has been my theme. I do not underrate its importance but I ask the House not to exaggerate its power. The Soviets have their difficulties too. They are the heart of a double empire, an empire of the Warsaw Pact countries and of the minority nations in their own countries. Very few people realise that between the Urals and the Pacific there are 66 million Soviet citizens only 17 million of whom are Russian—what might be called a "South African" proportion of Europeans to Asians. The Soviets have their difficulties. If we stand firm, if we show strength, unity and resolve, I see no reason why the Soviet empire could not in due course be turned into a Soviet Commonwealth and the threat of Soviet imperialism lifted from us.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: No doubt the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who has apologised for taking so long, will be surprised to learn that he has taken longer than either of the two Front Bench speakers at the beginning of the debate.
7.45 p.m.
Mr. Robert Parry: We have covered many parts of the globe in today's debate. I want to deal with a small part of the world which is still under British rule, namely, the colony of Hong Kong. I have in my constituency the Liverpool "Chinatown", which is a large Chinese community consisting of Cantonese and also citizens born on the mainland of China in Canton, Shanghai and Peking. The majority are immigrants from the New Territories of Hong Kong.
From time to time I receive a number of complaints from these people about the
280
policies of the Hong Kong Government in the New Territories as they affect their families, their brothers, sisters, parents and in some instances their children. I refer the House to Earl-Day Motion No. 51, which stands in my name. This motion has been signed by 136 Labour Members, including 12 members of the National Executive and a number of ex-Ministers. There is also a counter motion. mainly inspired by Conservative Members, Early-Day Motion No. 68, which takes a completely opposite view to that expressed in my motion.
I visited Hong Kong last year during the Summer Recess, at my own expense. I spent a lot of time visiting the various pressures groups. Among those whom I visited at grass-root level were educationists, social workers, community leaders, housing and tenant groups, doctors, trade unionists and representatives from the villages and the New Territories.
These meetings showed clearly the inequalities in Hong Kong society, the exploitation of the workers that takes place, and the undemocratic face of the Hong Kong Government. That Government use any means to still the voices of those with social consciences. The Hong Kong Government threaten dissenters with dismissal from their jobs. If those who complain are employed by voluntary agencies, the Government even try to use pressure against them.
In a policy document submitted to last year's party conference the National Executive of the Labour Party was highly critical of the present system and society in Hong Kong. The document was adopted unanimously by the conference. The TUC has also shown a keen interest in the colony. I understand that at the request of the TUC the National Union of Tailors and Garment Workers has drawn up a document which has been presented to the international committee of the TUC. The union is obviously concerned about the effects of textile imports on the British industry. The document covers the economic and social factors in Hong Kong—
Mr. Rees-Davies: When he was in Hong Kong, did the hon. Gentleman have the opportunity of seeing the quite remarkable housing which has been erected, particularly in Kowloon, thanks

281
to the astonishing ability of the civil servants there? Alternatively, and more particularly, did the hon. Gentleman see any of the factories in which these garments are made, the expertise with which they are made, and the general social conditions in which the people work? They are very good, indeed.
Mr. Parry: I visited a number of housing estates. Although some newer ones are very good there are thousands of very bad properties. I shall deal with housing later. I have not visited any of the modern factories. I have seen some of the sweat-shops in Hong Kong. There is no minimum working week or minimum wage in the colony. There are poor health and safety conditions. A number of people work a six-day week. There are no paid holidays. There is a divided and weak trade union organisation and a high level of child labour.
This was highlighted recently by the Granada programme "World in Action". This showed that many youngsters of 10, 11 and 12 were working in factories. When the Granada team was in Hong Kong, its members were accused of being Communist agents in one or two newspapers. The team members have taken legal action and the case is now sub judice.
I have already described some of the intimidation the Hong Kong Government use. I was a victim of a smear campaign while I was out there. When I visited the pressure groups, the Government tried to stop me from saying what I wanted to say and from opening my mouth. One morning I witnessed the eviction of several very small shopkeepers by the forces of the Hong Kong Government. The brute force that those forces used had to be seen to be believed. Armed policemen went along to the premises of these small business men and cut down the shutters and doors and threw their belongings and goods into the street. I was present at that incident with Councillor Mrs. Elsie Elliot and I was ashamed that this could have occurred under a British flag.
Mr. Rees-Davies: But would not the hon. Member admit that Councillor Mrs. Elliot is regarded as a sort of sick joke in Hong Kong? For years her opinions have been regarded as totally unreliable and no one has any respect for what she
282
says. Why did not the hon. Member visit the Governor and why does he not recognise the immense strides that Hong Kong has made against the background of its enormous population? Does he think that the fact that the people work a six-day week and long hours is anything to be compared with the strains that the Chinese Communists undergo just across the road? Why is it that the Chinese from Communist China want to move into Hong Kong in their thousands?
Mr. Parry: I did, In fact, meet the Governor, and I discussed a number of matters with him and also with several senior members of the Hong Kong Government. I refute completely the allegations that the hon. and learned Member has made most unfairly against Mrs. Elliot. Mrs. Elliot worked for some years in China with her husband, who was a missionary there. She is an elected member of the urban council and for many years has been re-elected by her constituents—admittedly on a small franchise. This lady is the champion of the underdog in Hong Kong and is well respected by the people there for her compassion and sincerity. Also, Mrs. Elliot was awarded the Magsaysay Medal, which is the Asian equivalent of the Nobel Prize. She went to Manila to receive that award and it is amazing that when a country has awarded her that medal for her efforts on behalf of the downtrodden people of Hong Kong, the Hong Kong Government have not seen fit to appoint her to the Legislative Council.
The Government have a built-in majority on the Legislative Council, and the majority of unofficial members are, in fact, big business men who are supporters of the Government. Surely the Hong Kong Government could have one or two people on the Legislative Council who are prepared to disagree with them.
The New Territories, with between 750,000 and 1 million people, do not have a spokesman on the Legislative Council, and that makes the people feel that there is no real democracy in Hong Kong. One of the major topics in the New Territories concerns land and the Government's policy on developing land use in the New Territories. The Heung Yee Kuk, a consultative body representing the villagers in the New Territories,

283
for years has been battling with the Government on this matter. The way the Government compulsorily acquire land causes considerable feelings among members of the Kuk. They feel so concerned about the situation that I understand they intend to send a delegation over here next month to meet the Minister responsible for Hong Kong affairs in this country.
One example of the unfair land policy is that villagers may have land compulsorily acquired for 10 Hong Kong dollars—about £1—a square foot. This land can then be auctioned or tenders can be invited for it and it may be sold for 400 to 500 dollars per square toot. That is real exploitation of the people—it is their land.
Education in Hong Kong leaves much to be desired. I met some members of the education action group in the colony. Free and compulsory primary education was not introduced into Hong Kong until 1971, and it is not compulsory in the sense that we know it. It is estimated that there are at least 50,000 drop-outs a year from school, and this figure has never been refuted by the Government. Many of these children are not followed up as there is no school welfare system and they are led into child labour Others are led into juvenile delinquency or even prostitution. There is no compulsory secondary education in Hong Kong at this stage.
Housing conditions are a matter of great concern and the Governor himself admitted this. However, I appreciate that great strides have been made in recent years to improve the position. There are hundreds of thousands of squatters in Hong Kong, thousands living in settlement areas and thousands living on boats.
I quote an article that appeared in the Financial Times on 17th May last year:
"The background to the housing problem is one of grossly substandard living conditions and over crowding on what may be the biggest scale in any major city in the world. Hong Kong has a continuing floating squatter population of about 350,000 (some estimates put it higher) in the urban areas of the colony alone since refugees started flooding in from China in the mid-1950s. There are also squatters in the new territories but they are generally considered to be living more tolerable lives. Squatters in urban areas may live in wooden shanties on steep hillsides where they
284
are liable to be swept to their deaths in typhoons, or on the roofs of factory or tenement blocks in the built-up areas."
That report was not from a revolutionary anti-Hong Kong paper, it was not from the Tribune or the Morning Stre, but from the columns of the Financial Times.
I conclude by congratulating my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary on his appointment, and I hope that he will examine a number of these matters. I was recently pleased to hear my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister mention the ratification of ILO conventions. Hon. Members who take an interest in Hong Kong affairs are well aware that many of those conventions have been approved by the House but are awaiting ratification by the Hong Kong Government. I beg my right hon. Friend to examine the situation, and I hope that the ratification of those conventions will lead to a speedy and urgent improvement in social and democratic conditions in Hong Kong.
I conclude by reminding my right hon. Friend that over 320 hon. Members have signed two Early-Day Motions, expressing anxiety, as have the Labour Party and the TUC, that a Royal Commission be set up on Hong Kong. If that is found to be impracticable, will my right hon. Friend consider setting up a Select Committee to examine all the factors affecting the colony and so leading to an improvement in human and civil rights in Hong Kong?
8.2 p.m.
Mr. Peter Blaker: I know Hong Kong well, and the politest thing I can say about the speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Scotland Exchange (Mr. Parry) is that it was totally misleading. If conditions in Hong Kong are as bad as all that, why is it that so many people are still trying to get across into that territory from the mainland of China?
I shall not pursue that subject further, because I want to be brief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) remarked that we do not appear to be matching Russia's determination of purpose, and that is the theme I want to take up in my remarks. If I were in the position of the Russian Ambassador in London and seeking to assess the Government's policy to the Societ Union, I would describe it, with good reason, as boneless.

285
The first point I wish to make in substantiating that adjective is that the Labour Government have cut defence spending five times in a period of three years at a time when the Russians are increasing their defence expenditure. The second point, which the Russians would regard as significant, is that the Prime Minister refused to see Mr. Bukovsky and does not appear to have criticised the maltreatment of dissidents in the Soviet Union.
Mr. Greville Janner: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Prime Minister, in his capacity as Foreign Secretary at an earlier period and recently as Prime Minister, privately, in the House and abroad, has frequently criticised the behaviour of the Soviet Union towards dissident minorities, and particularly the Jewish minority? The hon. Gentleman should try to be fair.
Mr. Blaker: I am doing my best to be fair. The Prime Minister was asked about this matter last month by my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) and in an answer on 20th January listed five answers and speeches which he had given in the House or outside it. I have checked them. Although the right hon. Gentleman said that he was in favour of the proper implementation of the Helsinki Agreement, he did not criticise the Soviet maltreatment of dissidents. If he said that on some other occasion, it was surprising that he did not list that in the answer to which I have referred.
We have certainly not heard from the Prime Minister in recent days any criticism of Soviet treatment of Mr. Orlov or of Alexander Ginsberg, who are working for the implementation of the Helsinki Agreement inside the Soviet Union. I do not know why we have not heard such criticisms. We have certainly heard it from other countries in the Western world, and we have had criticism on that score from President Carter. I do not know whether the timorous attitude of the Prime Minister is due to his fear of offending. Moscow or his hon. Friends below the Labour Gangway, but whatever is the explanation it makes no difference from the Soviet point of view.
I hope that the Prime Minister, following the example of President Carter and Vice-President Mondale, will be prepared, if only as a gesture, to see Mr. Bukovsky
286
when he returns to this country, as, indeed, he is soon to do.
Another point to which I would have regard if I were the Soviet Ambassador as a significant pointer to the attitude of the United Kingdom Government involves the fawning way in which successive Prime Ministers have pressed the Russians to take up the £950 million credit arranged for them by the former Labour Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. Wilson), in 1975. That is a bad arrangement for Britain because, if that credit is fully taken up, it will cost our taxpayers more than £200 million. It means that we are helping the Russians to build factories with money on which they will pay only 7 per cent. or thereabouts when our own manufacturers have to pay 15 per cent. when they borrow money.
It is a good arrangement from the Soviet point of view because it helps the Russians to transfer resources into armaments and it relieves their serious debt problem. The Russians are openly contemptuous of the inability of Western capitalist countries, as they describe them, to regulate the competition between one another and of the way they fall over backwards in offering such generous help to the Soviet Union.
Perhaps the Prime Minister holds the fallacious belief that trade is a barrier to war. That is nonsense. If we want to go into history, we can find examples to show that war is more likely between countries which have a great deal of trade with each other. One has only to look at the position between Germany and the rest of Western Europe in 1939, and in 1941 between Japan and the United States, and the trade carried out between England and Spain in the 16th century.
If one can discern any coherent philosophy on the part of the British Government towards the Soviet Union, it seems to me that they believe it is right to treat the Soviet Union in the same way as Dr. Spock used to advise parents to treat a difficult child. The view he took was that a parent should not deny such a child anything and should not say "No" to him at any time or discipline him but should allow children to express themselves. Dr. Spock's view was that in due course those children

287
would grow up to be just like everybody else. However, there are two fallacies in that approach. The first is that Dr. Spock has recanted and no longer believes in that approach but believes instead in firmness on the part of parents. Secondly, the Russians are a fully mature successful people who for 60 years have governed their country, which has constantly expanded and which has enjoyed success after success abroad.
In the light of Soviet successes and the erosion of the position of the free world which has taken place in the past 10 years, I suggest that the time has come to review Western policy towards the Soviet Union. The time is suitable for such a review. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are about to meet President Carter, and that will give a good opportunity to look at these problems.
We should examine whether the policy of containment—a policy pursued by the West for 15 years—should be modified, because I believe that it has failed. It is bound to fail, because it does not involve any means of persuading the Soviet Union to drop its aggressive aims. It is time that we considered whether we should adopt a policy towards the Soviet Union that involves more firmness, more consistency and, in particular, the imposition of penalties on the Soviet Union for bad behaviour. Dr. Kissinger used to talk about a system of rewards and penalties vis-à-vis the Soviet Union, but in practice the penalties never seemed to be imposed.
What should be the elements of this new approach? I agree with Opposition spokesmen who have said that we must work together with our allies. The European Community has a rôle to play. It has had successes in the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe and had a success recently over fishing. I hope that it will rapidly develop the practice of working together right across the whole field of foreign policy. NATO must also intensify its political consultations, take a global outlook and get together with the Japanese.
The European Community should consider with them whether we should modify the ridiculous policy of offering credits and technology to the Soviet
288
Union. I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery), who said that we must continue to develop our links with China. We must support the Soviet dissidents. We should strengthen the activity of the BBC Overseas Service rather than cut down on it, and we should encourage our allies to do the same with their overseas broadcasting services. In particular, we must show the Soviet Union that the West has the will to defend itself, because will itself is a form of deterrent and the absence of will is a form of invitation to aggressive behaviour by one's opponents.
I refer to an answer that was given by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on 28th July to my hon. Friend the Member for St. Albans (Mr. Goodhew). My hon. Friend asked:
"How can credence be given to the good will of the Russian Government as long as the Berlin Wall and the death strip between East and West Germany remain?"
The Under-Secretary replied:
"I do not think that that kind of approach is particularly helpful."—[Official Report, 28th July 1975; Vol 916, c. 630.]
That will have been noted by the Soviet Ambassador and reported back to Moscow. In the eyes of the Russians, the Under-Secretary will be seen as a man of limited strength.
The message I want to leave with the House is that the best way of preserving our liberty and of preserving peace is to show that we have the will to defend ourselves.
8.13 p.m.
Mr. Alan Lee Williams: I always follow the argument put by the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker) with considerable interest, but I disagreed profoundly with his massive generalisation that Western containment of Communism has failed. I had hoped to hear him argue the case, but he did not do so this evening.
There is much that encourages me. I agree with some of the comments of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) in his analysis of the Soviet Union, but I do not accept his conclusions. There is much to encourage us and we ought to be more confident about the future and not so deeply pessimistic. But perhaps we ought to pursue that argument on another occasion.

289
I should like to say a few words to the Secretary of State. He made a competent and buoyant speech, and I was interested to hear his analysis of British foreign policy. I was particularly pleased to hear that he is to continue with the outward-looking approach that has always been the basis of British foreign policy in the past.
I was also interested to hear him apply the argument to the European Community because I am sure that he would not deny that since Britain became a member of the Community—and there has been the problem of the oil crisis and the world economic crisis—developments within the Community to some extent have stalemated. The outward-looking approach that one would have hoped for at the time of Britain's membership has not yet emerged.
I am pleased that the Foreign Secretary is to play a major rôle in looking at problems outside Europe. I ask him to bear in mind that he will receive a lot of advice from his officials. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun), who referred to this, was totally wrong in saying that the officials who give advice to the Foreign Secretary have a class bias. I am often staggered by what my hon. Friend says from time to time, but I was frankly amused by that remark, because the former head of the Foreign Office, Sir Thomas Brimelow, is now a Labour Peer. My impression is that some Foreign Office officials vote Conservative, some vote Labour and some are Liberals. I have never noticed a class bias in their attitude, so the Foreign Secretary should not be too frightened of their advice.
I hope that he will listen to the advice given by Sir John Killick, the Ambassador to NATO, whom I have known over the years. His analysis of the Soviet Union is always interesting to listen to and it is not in any way as pessimistic as that of some hon. Members opposite.
There is no question whatever that the West is faced with a great opportunity with the forthcoming conference in Belgrade. But the Secretary of State must resist the advice that, faced with this opportunity, we should put the Russians into the witness box and put the maximum pressure on them. The room for
290
pressure is great and I should like to see greater pressure applied, but it would be a profound mistake—and this is where the hon. Member for Blackpool, South is wrong—to create a political atmosphere so that when the conference meets in Belgrade it will be abortive. Some constructive things have arisen from the Helsinki conference upon which we can constructively build, and unlike some hon. Members opposite, I do not dismiss detente quite so easily. There is a strong case that one can argue for the Secretary of State to do some important and constructive things in Belgrade to strengthen the Western position and not to weaken it.
I wish to conclude with a final word of encouragement to the Foreign Secretary, because what pleased me about his speech was that he made no attempt to hide his strong European feelings. It is sometimes not uncommon for Ministers when they go into the Cabinet to speak from the Dispatch Box as if all their past had no meaning for them and to try to lean over backwards to be absolutely fair—and sometimes it has even been known for them to turn on their friends. I am encouraged by the Foreign Secretary's approach. I know that we can expect that from him and he will have my full support.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: If hon. Members follow the example of the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Williams) and give us five-minute speeches, there will be time for everyone who wants to speak.
8.18 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: I join with those who have congratulated the Secretary of State on his appointment, and I congratulate him on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box. The content of his speech was not as controversial as it might have been.
The House is beginning to notice that Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the House, and now the Foreign Secretary all have Welsh connections. In these circumstances one wonders whether the Government might not withdraw at least the Welsh part of the Scotland and Wales Bill, because devolution no longer seems as necessary

291
as it possibly was some time ago: Wales has the power already.
But in welcoming the Foreign Secretary I should like to be critical and in doing so to draw his attention to the ridiculous way in which we debate foreign affairs. Today is another example of what is and of what ought to be known as a scandal. The last general debate on foreign affairs took place over a year ago—in Government time in November 1975. On that occasion no more than 19 hon. Members spoke, of whom only 12 were Back Benchers. The time taken by the Back Benchers was substantially less than the time taken by those speaking from the Front Benches, by officers of party committees and by Privy Councillors—many of whom have fallen into the habit of using their privilege to speak frequently at great length without consideration for the Back Benchers.
During the course of today's debate we have had a tour d'horizon, with hon. Members going in depth into particular aspects of foreign policy totally unsuited to discussion in a major debate on the Floor of the House.
Will the Foreign Secretary consider with the Leader of the House arranging for foreign affairs to be discussed in a different way, either more frequently with shorter debates on fixed subjects or, preferably, by the establishment of a Select Committee on foreign affairs? It is impossible for hon. Members to have a sensible and informed dialogue with the Secretary of State in a broad-ranging general debate of this sort. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman's youth and common sense attitude will lead him to discuss this important subject with his right hon. Friends so that the quality of foreign affairs discussions can be improved.
The Foreign Secretary rightly referred to the increasing importance of foreign affairs now that so many aspects of foreign affairs have a direct impact on our domestic economy and policies. If he and the Government believe that, we ought to have a better way of discussing the subject.
For example, many of us would like a two-hour debate on the Falkland Islands, which have been mentioned today. If the Secretary of State wanted to be cynical, he could go away tonight knowing
292
that there will not be a general debate for another year and that as long as there were some published report of support for legislation to detach the Falkland Islands from their present status and attach them to Argentina, there might not be too much of a fuss in the House.
I do not believe that the right hon. Gentleman would be that cynical, but many of us see dangers in the Foreign Office cheerfully going its own way and the Foreign Secretary never coming here to discuss in depth problems that are causing us deep concern. We should like to have more informed debates and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will play his part in making that possible.
The forthcoming talks in Paris and Geneva, following the Seventh Special Session of UNCTAD and the Kingston talks, are concerned with an agreement to help stabilise commodity prices. The Government and the Secretary of State recognise the new inter-dependence of Britain in this matter, and I think that the right hon. Gentleman also recognises our particular vulnerability, as a major importer of raw materials, to rapid fluctuations in international commodity prices.
I hope that the Government will play a leading part in trying to reach international agreement. After the Nairobi talks, in which there was considerable agreement, the gap between our view and that of other countries seemed to have widened. I understand that the Government now support a comprehensive programme in line with the Kingston proposals, are reserved on the integrated programme and do not accept the proposals for a common fund because the distribution of funds may be regressive.
If this is so and the Government recognise the importance of managed markets for commodities, which is central to achieving stability in commodity prices, and they do not like the systems under discussion, it is up to Britain to give a far higher priority to devising and promoting our own system for stabilising commodities instead of just sitting back and reacting to everyone else's ideas. The Government could, for example, put forward the St. Clair Grondona proposal, which has been discussed for 20 years and which could be implemented by the United Kingdom unilaterally.

293
I do not say that it is the answer, but I invite the Government to play a more leading part instead of just sitting back and reacting and saying "No" to everyone else's ideas. This attitude is being criticised in the Third World and those of us who care about Britain playing a part in helping the Third World to develop—which would also be in our own interests—would like to see this country playing a more leading rôle.
There have been many references to Rhodesia and I wish to add a word or two of my own. In recent months we have not understood the complexity of the situation there. We have been too ready to assume that the struggle is simply a struggle between black and white. It is nothing of the sort. In addition to being a racial struggle, it is a struggle between rival black groups who are challenging white power and competing among themselves for the right to lead the country. Part of that struggle is the tribal element that is not as well understood in this country as it was before the union. One must accept that in Africa tribal considerations are of supreme importance in deciding the outcome of political rivalries.
There is also a struggle between political systems and those who feel that military rule is the right way in a developing African country and those who favour some form of parliamentary rule, albeit one-party parliamentary rule. This is a conflict between those who believe in African collective Socialism, which is as near Marxism as anything I know, but which does not necessarily imply a particularly close relationship with China or Russia, but is, nevertheless, an extreme form of Socialism, and those in countries such as Kenya who support what might be called the African mixed economy Socialist State.
Within this superficially simple conflict, there are three other intertwined conflicts and we must add to that the fear of the minorities, which hon. Members opposite have not understood. Not just the white minority, but the coloureds, the Asians and the smaller tribal groups fear what might happen after the transfer of power if there is no general agreement on the manner in which the country is to be governed There will be no
294
co-operation from the minorities unless they are assured that their future will be safeguarded. I believe that British responsibility for Rhodesia is recognised by the Americans, that they will back us and that that is the right way round.
The challenge for us in the United Kingdom, and specifically for Her Majesty's Government, is to evolve a policy that will have the full consent of the people who live in Rhodesia. The Government, in falling so rapidly behind the views of the front-line Presidents, are in my view doing nothing more than joining in the race to dump Rhodesia in a state of total chaos. That is what will happen if the front-line Presidents get their way and government in an independent Zimbabwe is handed over to a bunch of armed people who do not have the support of the black majority inside Rhodesia.
Surely the front-line Presidents were wrong to impose such leadership on the Rhodesian people. Her Majesty's Government should resist that view. If we make up our mind that a long-term solution to the Rhodesian problem is possible only with the support of all the racial groups inside the country, we shall begin to make progress. If we can only get broad-spread support for such proposals, I believe that the outcome is still far from gloomy.
Surely we must recognise the concession that was made by Mr. Smith in conceding the principle of majority rule as a result of the Kissinger initiative. We should not criticise Dr. Kissinger for leaving many loose ends, for that is the style of his diplomacy. Nor should we criticise Mr. Smith for asking some questions after the Kissinger proposal was put up.
The Government should now be calling for the interim government in Rhodesia to be decided as a result of a referendum or an election in which everyone may take part. The Commonwealth should provide guarantees for the police, military and political freedom of all people throughout the elections. I fervently believe that unless we have elections in Rhodesia prior to any transfer of power taking place, there is no chance of a multiracial society being established that will endure for longer than a few weeks or a few months.
8.31 p.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) is right to say that we could have an evening's debate or a day's debate on most of the individual topics that are covered in our so-called tour d'horizon. In fact, I would call it a quick canter. Those of us who are heavily involved in foreign affairs have a certain expertise in various areas and this is our chance to air our anxieties and worries. We must do so as best we can in the time that is available.
I echo the congratulations that have been offered to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I hope that he will have a long and useful tenure and that he will enjoy it. There is some peculiar view in the House and country that we are not meant to enjoy what we do. However, I think that my right hon. Friend should enjoy his visit to the Middle East. I think that he should go to India and experience the splendour, the anxiety, the history and the variety of that marvellous country.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will find it possible to go to Spain, a country that has not been mentioned so far. In Spain there is a young and courageous king who is very much under fire from extremists on both sides, but who, in my view, is desperately anxious to re-establish democracy and freedom in his country. I think that he deserves the full support of our House and Government.
My right hon. Friend was right when he said that we should transmit our love of freedom and that we cannot keep it out of our view of any area of foreign policy. It is on that theme that I shall take a little of the time of the House to refer briefly to a few areas.
First, we have talked about Belgrade, namely the review of Helsinki. This is a matter that concerns many of us intimately. I regret that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister did not see Mr. Bukovsky. I have seen him, some Conservative Members now in the House have seen him and President Carter is seeing him. Although my right hon. Friend did not see him, he was totally informed and he is totally of the same mind as we are.
296
I am concerned about Belgrade because we are going there to sup with the Devil. We need a long-handled spoon. It must be held with care and filled with information. The Russians are preparing for Belgrade. We know that they are assembling information. We know that they are assembling propaganda. We know that they care about Belgrade. We have seen some transcripts of the material that they have put out over their own television. We know about the vicious attacks on their dissidents. Some of us have read copies of Soviet News, which arrives on our desks free and unsolicited each week.
I read it with enormous interest. I regard it as being part of the fantasy of a comic strip world, but it should be read so that we know how others are thinking. I believe that we should not only read the Russians' publications, but talk to and meet them.
However difficult detente may be, it is necessary. The alternative is war. If we do not have detente and if Mr. Brezhnev goes, I believe that we shall face a disaster that will afflict not only us, but the entire world. We must somehow try to let the Russians understand that those who attack their policies are not their enemies. The ones hurt most by their policies are those who wish to have friendship with them and those who have not forgotten that once they were our allies.
There cannot be true detente while the Russians treat their dissidents as they have. I applaud President Carter for speaking as he did. I should like to record, if only because when the word goes out from this House it will help to save people's lives, the names of people whom I am not allowed to see and who are not allowed to see me, but with whom I have been in close touch. They are great and courageous people. Their names are: Professor Azbel, Professor Brailowsky, Professor Lerner, Academician Levich, Mrs. Ida Nudel, Dr. Sharansky and Vladimir Slepak. I consider those people to be among the bravest of those to whom I have spoken and with whom I have had the privilege of working, but who are not allowed to see me and whom I am not allowed to see.

297
I am making certain applications to go to Russia. I hope that I shall be allowed to go there. If not, we shall keep working from the outside. The Foreign Secretary was right when he said that we must seek freedom wherever we can find it and that we must help in any way that we can.
I have a similar view about Uganda. I do not consider that we can assess a person's Hitlerian tendencies by his colour or continent. A man is no more and no less a dictator if he is in Africa. A man is no more and no less a racist if he is black. A man is no more and no less a genocidal maniac because he happens to rule a country in the middle of Africa rather than in the middle of Europe.
The thought of President Amin being allowed to come to this country sends shudders down my spine and down the backs of my constituents, who on this issue are united. It is monstrous that we should say that there is a distinction between allowing him to come into this country to see Her Majesty the Queen for the Silver Jubilee and allowing him in for the purpose of attending the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. When he comes here—if he does—he will have diplomatic privilege. So presumably will the 250 people whom he intends to bring, including the dancing girls.
From time to time it may be funny to hear him invite Ted Heath and his band and to offer to pay them with goats. He thinks that is humorous. But he is a very cunning, shrewd and, in a peculiar way, intelligent man who is not to be under-estimated. That would be a grave error—a repeat of the Hitlerian era.
President Amin slaughtered nearly everyone who could replace him. He destroyed Mrs. Bloch and had her buried. He would not allow her body to be handed back to her family. He slaughtered everyone who saw the killing of Mrs. Bloch, including the person who photographed her body. He has massacred tribes which were not of his persuasion. That is genocide. He was responsible for the killing of the Anglican Archbishop Luwum and two Cabinet Ministers, two of his former supporters.
298
We are apparently considering allowing that man to come into this country. Surely we have the freedom to say that we shall not have him here. There may be objections from some Commonwealth countries. But is it not sad that African countries have not seen fit to proclaim that Amin does not represent their views, feelings or attitudes?
We should make it abundantly plain that in no circumstances will we allow President Amin to come into this country, whether it be to sit at the table of Her Majesty the Queen, which would be a disgusting arrangement, or to attend the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference. If we are able, through the Home Secretary, to keep out a pedlar of pornography from Denmark, as was rightly done a month ago, we certainly have the power to keep President Amin out of this country. As a lawyer, I believe that if we let him in, we shall not to be able to contain him whilst he is here, because he will have total immunity from our law. Amin would not be a welcome guest in London nor in any part of the city of Leicester.
I now turn to the area with which so many hon. Members have dealt—the Middle East. That also involves the question of freedom. I am sorry that those hon. Members who saw fit to attack the State of Israel have not had the stamina to stay for the rest of the debate. I sat and listened, in the main with patience, but I can not understand why some of my hon. Friends who claim to be Left wing can ally themselves with feudal dictatorships and regard them as being somehow more progressive than a democracy. How can they draw strength from the elections on the West Bank without saying that they commend an occupation which arranges and honours elections? How can they ignore the fact that no Government in Israel can possibly take action that is contrary to the wishes of the people because if they did they would be thrown out? The Israelis have freedom and democracy. They have a freedom which allows them to absorb immigrants from the Arab countries—people who have been thrown out of their own countries.
There is talk of the problems of the Palestinian refugees but we hear nothing of the fact that over half of the population of Israel consists of refugees from

299
Arab countries who have been made welcome and given homes in Israel. Israel should have freedom to trade, but Arab boycotts are becoming more severe. The primary boycott affects trade between Arab States and Israel. It even has chinks in it. The secondary boycott is of companies which deal with Israel. There is also a tertiary boycott. Such an unpleasant example involves the Metal Box Company. Certain companies in the United States say that they will not trade with Metal Box because of its connections with Israel. Our own Foreign Office is authenticating documents on behalf of the Arab boycott. I hope that that will cease.
A Foreign Secretary does not change his views when he becomes Foreign Secretary. The present holder of that office remains committed to the Common Market. He has unequivocally condemned the Arab boycott and he has said that he believes that it will not serve the purposes which it is expected to achieve. I hope that he will bear that in mind and that he will draw some strength from the Americans, who are in the course of passing legislation intended to deal with the interference of the freedom to trade.
We are living in a world from which, if we stand back and look at it, we can draw little satisfaction. We see dictatorships, whether of the Right or of the Left, gaining strength. The number of democracies is diminishing. Spain and Portugal are the only only exceptions and we can draw strength because they are also going our way.
We must preserve our own strength and freedom. I hope that a certain infection from our ability to speak our minds in this country will spread across the world so that although our power of muscle and might will be diminished, at least we shall have the power given by the decency and the freedom of a country which retains the respect and affection of all the free world and of the persecuted people on whose behalf so many of us have spoken today.
8.44 p.m.
Mr. Jim Spicer: By nature of the debate we range wide. I welcome the appointment of the Foreign Secretary to his new post because he
300
understands, more than many hon. Members in the House, that we are constrained in what we can do as a nation State in the future. He will work closely with our partners in the European Community to achieve that which we can through the Community but which we cannot achieve alone.
However, there is one area still left to us where we have not only an important rôle but a vital role and a duty. That lies in Africa and, in particular, in the area of the problems relating to Rhodesia. I have spent two years of my life in Africa, not living alongside a black African but being part of the black African's community and working with them within the King's African Rifles. I know only too well the truth of what was said just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) about the tribal problems in Africa. They are very difficult indeed to solve. The Turkana, Nandi, Kipsigis, Samburu and all the others instinctively have a fear of each other and a tribal relationship that is difficult for us to comprehend.
Sadly, the first fruits of independence for many of the newly emergent nations in Africa seem to be misery, famine and death. One can look around Africa and take Angola as a first stopping-off point. The people of southern Angola are at present being driven from their homes by Cuban-led bands who are establishing a zone of death and desolation along the southern border. The people are escaping in their thousands into both Zaire and South-West Africa or Namibia.
At this point I am delighted that the Minister of State is present this evening. Perhaps he will take up a point for me. On 21st February he replied to a supplementary question, saying,
"I can assure my hon. Friend that the British Government will continue to meet the humanitarian needs of refugees wherever they may be in the world and whenever that need arises."—[Official Report, 21st February 1977; Vol. 926, c. 1029.]
That is not happening at present. A clear distinction is being made by the United Nations Commission for Refugees in relation to those refugees who have fled from Angola into Zambia and those who have gone into Namibia, and it is not recognised that there are refugees in Namibia. I ask the Minister

301
of State to take that point on board. I have established it on my own by contacts in Geneva. It is quite obvious that this is so. I should welcome an assurance from the Minister that help is being given to these people.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Frank Judd): That was while I was Minister of State in another capacity, but I shall certainly draw that point to the attention of my colleague who has now succeeded me as Minister of State for Overseas Development.
Mr. Spicer: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman.
Of course, one could move on and talk about Uganda—many others have done so—and the horrors of Rhodesia. In war there are horrors on all sides, but in Rhodesia some recent events, such as the kidnapping of the children and the murder of the missionaries, are all too horrifying. However, horrifying as those events may have been up to the present. matters will be a thousand times more horrifying unless we can find some way out of the situation at which we have arrived. It is quite impossible for any of us to envisage that any solution can be found in Rhodesia unless the initiative comes from outside.
I turn to the point that we must take that initiative. It is very easy for many hon. Members to trumpet forth the call "one man, one vote. Democracy. Everyone must do his own thing." We all know quite well that in the present circumstances the only form of democracy that would arrive in Rhodesia would come out of the barrel of a rifle. That is not what the people of Rhodesia want or what we, with our responsibility in Rhodesia, should be prepared to accept.
There may be those who wish to see that come about and to see that country go down in chaos. They may see that as the beginning of the final assault on Southern Africa. They may take joy and delight in that fact. However, there is another matter to consider, and that is that when Rhodesia went, if it went, is it not possible that, instead of initially turning southwards, the forces that have overrun Rhodesia might turn northwards against Zaire and Zambia? Already both those countries, land-locked as they are, are being strangled and their com-
302
munications with the outside world are being slowly but surely cut off. If Rhodesia went and that were to happen, those countries, and all the mineral wealth contained therein, would fall out of the Western orbit and cease to be available to us and would come within the grasp of Marxist-controlled Governments in those countries dictated to from outside.
We come back to Rhodesia. What can we do there? Not so long ago we made an attempt in Rhodesia to establish what opinion was. Many times this afternoon hon. Members have asked what the genuine opinion in Rhodesia was, rather than the opinion of the men with the guns. Comment has also been made about the way in which the United States' ambassador has moved around and said that they are not doing the fighting. That sort of attitude does not help. It is the opinion of the vast majority of the black Africans living in Rhodesia that we really want.
I make one suggestion which I hope the Minister of State will pass on to his right hon. Friend. In 1972 the Pearce Commission was set up for a specific purpose. I wonder whether there is not now some way of breaking the deadlock by establishing a commission along the same lines.
We may talk about going back to Geneva, but in our heart of hearts we all know that that road is closed and can never be reopened. A commission along the lines of the Pearce Commission should be led by a statesman from this country. I believe that it should be someone of the calibre of the noble lord, Lord Thomson, who has just relinquished the post of Commissioner in Europe and who has a wide-ranging background of foreign and Commonwealth affairs. I believe such a person should have the support of members from the United States, the European Community and the United Nations.
It would be a brave man, either in the shoes that Mr. Smith now occupies or in the shoes of the moderate African leaders, who would not give a warm welcome to a Commission of that type in Rhodesia. Of course, by throwing this lifeline and by establishing more carefully what the opinion of the moderate leaders is, we then have a continuing commitment within Rhodesia from that

303
moment on. The report of the commission would be the beginning not the end.
From that time we should be committed to support for a genuine multiracial society in Rhodesia and we should give all that we could possibly give towards that end. We could reactivate the offer made at the time of the "Fearless" talks for £50 million to be devoted to the education of black Africans. Besides that, the comments that we heard earlier about taking 120 more students into this country seem very small beer indeed. It would stretch far beyond that. I believe that there would need to be a commitment on our side, if need be a military presence under the United Nations banner but containing a large contingent from the Commonwealth as well.
I hope that at least this suggestion is worth a thought. At the moment we are suffering from a dearth of ideas about how we can get out of this mess. If we do not get out of it quickly, events will overtake us in Southern Africa and we shall all be the poorer as a result.
8.53 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I ask six telescoped questions of which I have given notice to the Foreign Office. First, what is the Government's attitude towards the proposed European Export Bank? Will they lay before us within the next three months their view on the idea developed by Mrs. Liliana Archibald?
Secondly, I ask a question arising out of the work of the European Parliament. What is the attitude of the Government towards a coherent refinery policy based on the needs and requirements of the whole of Europe? It is known to Ministers that, on average, refineries are working at 60 per cent. or less of capacity. We have gone through this endlessly in our arguments about the Cromarty Firth Petroleum Company and what is happening in the Cromarty Firth. According to officials in Europe, if we are to have an energy policy at all we must have a refineries policy. At some time in the near future, can we be told the British Government's view on that?
Thirdly, with regard to the so-called malt and butter scandals, my view
304
is that it is easy to cry "Scandal" rather than be prepared to do something about it. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the reputation of the Community is being eroded by constant Press criticism. Clearly it is an unsatisfactory situation.
As one who works on the Budget Sub-Committee of the European Parliament, I know that it is easier to attack than to offer constructive views on these things. At some stage, however, the Government ought to come forward with a statement, because it is not good enough for my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture simply to say that it is up to Mr. Gundelach to solve the problem.
My fourth question concerns the issue in foreign affairs which has greatly concerned the European Commission, that of Lesotho and the Transkei. I know that my right hon. Friend has taken a personal interest in this, and at some time the British Government's attitude should be made clear.
The fifth matter to which I refer is one which, I hope, will have the personal interest of the new Foreign Secretary, namely, the view of Dr. John Kendrew, the Director of EMBL in Heidelberg, that we might turn the facilities at Porton into some kind of European anti-disease institution. At some time the Government should give their views on the future of Porton in a European context.
My last question is directed to my hon. Friend the Minister of State. When he was in the Falkland Islands, did he pursue, as the late Tony Crosland promised, the possibility of a link between the Falkland Islanders and not Buenos Aires as such but the Patagonian province or Argentine with which they have far more in common?
I refer finally, in all seriousness—I do not consider it a subject for merriment—to the issue of asking the Foreign Office whether it will prepare reasonably quickly a statement of the costs and the complications of separate Scottish representation in Paris, Bonn, Brussels, Luxembourg, The Hague, Rome, Dublin and Copenhagen, as the Scottish National Party has promised, also in Oslo, Stockholm, Helsinki and Reykjavik, and also in Ottawa, Canberra, Wellington, Delhi, Islamabad, Washington, Moscow and the

305
United Nations. Again without merriment and in all seriousness, because clearly, as a result of what has happened to the devolution Bill, we are dealing with the possibility of a separate Scottish State, we want to know the costs and complications of a high commission or embassy from Scotland here in London.
I must say that in my approaches to Foreign Office Ministers I have not got very far on this subject. But, of course, this is part of the trouble. Until now, people have refused to believe that a separate Scottish State was a realistic issue. But, after what happened to the devolution Bill, will not Ministers for once take a warning and do something about it fairly quickly? Both in respect of separate Scottish forces and in respect of separate Scottish representation abroad, this now becomes a major issue. It will not be beyond the recognition of Ministers that my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick and East Lothian (Mr. Mackintosh) today or yesterday made some great speech talking about "a Home Rule front". People who talk about this ought to be confronted with the facts of the situation.
I hope that all three Ministers will be active in producing some facts about small country representation in all the capitals that I have mentioned. I warn them that some of us will go on and on with Foreign Office Ministers and even with the Prime Minister until we have elicited those facts.
Time spent on the finding of facts in the Foreign Office is time better spent in present circumstances than on many of the duties performed by senior officials. I have never knowingly asked officials to do anything which was unreasonable and out of proportion in terms of work to the end to be achieved. This is now an important matter, and I trust that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take it seriously.
9.0 p.m.
Mr. Julian Critchley: We are two-thirds of the way through the first 100 days of President Carter, a process that we might describe as the "education of the President". Whether he passes the examination at the end of the 100 days remains to be seen. Mr. Carter is a moralist who believes that the world is inhabited exclusively by Southern Baptists. There has been a clear shift in the emphasis of America's African
306
policy, as envisaged by the views of Andrew Young, and there is now support for the front-line Presidents, who reflect, as it were, the more extreme Marxist nationalist groups within and around Rhodesia.
The wiser course for American and British foreign policy is to prompt Smith to come to terms with the Bishop just as soon as is humanly possible. Rhodesia is a situation which has been brought about by obstinacy, ambition and greed, and the consequence has been a problem which is apparently insoluble. In life there are more problems than solutions. All that one can hope for in this case is that history changes the agenda, but if history refuses to do so, and a racial war is the consequence in Rhodesia, a number of consequences will flow.
The first one may be a sad and serious effect on race relations in this country if every night we watch on the "box" yet another atrocity of black on white, because we cannot disguise the fact that the overwhelming majority of our people have sympathy with the white Rhodesians, rightly or wrongly, and are probably hostile to the ambitions of black nationalism. Thus, the first consequence will he to worsen race relations here. We should spare a thought for the black Rhodesians, caught between the anvil of white supremacy and the hammer of black nationalism. It is the black Rhodesians who have suffered and will suffer most from the situation in Rhodesia itself.
I, too, shall be as brief as other hon. Members have been, and therefore I turn to some thoughts about United States policy towards Europe, again in the light of the Carter Administration. We can only hope that rhetoric is not the best guide to the policy that the Carter Administration will be pursuing. Mr. Carter's advisers—he has 3,000 jobs at his disposal but only 33 relations—are questioning the value of the American strategy of minimal deterrence, the Schlesinger doctrine. That doctrine is the means whereby the United States might use strategic nuclear weapons first, either against a Soviet nuclear attack or against a Soviet conventional attack.
If the doctrine is to be downgraded or removed, this can only reopen the rift between the United States and Europe, because it places before the Europeans the choice either of rearming or of

307
acquiescing in the face of a Soviet threat. Over and above the question mark that this would place over the strategy of minimal deterrence, it is likely that Mr. Carter will open a debate on the precise rôle of theatre nuclear weapons in Europe, and if their rôle is clarified there is a danger that they will be deprived of their usefulness, because the more we talk about the circumstances in which we might use them the less likely are we ever to use them.
Is NATO preparing for a long or a short war? In recent weeks there has been a great deal of publicity on the part of those who have said that a short war is the only military option for NATO. I think that a Belgian general commanding an armoured division, Lord Chalfont, who mentioned the point recently in The Times, and Senator Sam Nunn—more importantly—have stressed that the Soviets are so strong up front while we are so weak up front that the chances of a Soviet sudden attack are very much greater than ever before. But if military logic says that we should be preparing for a short war, political necessity argues in favour of a long one. A short war in Europe would be a limited war in which hostilities would be restricted to the continent of Europe, and such an event clearly cannot be in the interests of Europe itself.
In conclusion, I fear that relations between the United States and Europe might well be in for rough weather. It may not be very long before the message "Come hack, Henry—all is forgiven" is flashed from the chancelleries of Europe to the night clubs of New York.
9.5 p.m.
Mr. Paul Channon: I shall not take long because I know that the winding-up speeches are about to begin. At this time of night one can speak only in shorthand, so to speak, so I hope that the Minister who replies will either answer now or be in touch at some later date.
First, I support what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) said about President Amin. Both sides of the House have taken the view that it would be intolerable if he was allowed into the country. Secondly, on the international convention on terror-
308
ism signed recently, I hope that the Minister will use his influence to get the Irish and French Governments to ratify this. The problem affects both of those countries and also affects us.
If parliamentary time is available, I hope that the Minister will at least use it to bring forward a non-controversial Bill. which would be extremely important in combating hijacking, kidnapping, attacks on ambassadors, and bombers. I hope that the Minister will seek to ratify this convention, which will require legislation, at the earliest opportunity.
On the subject of the follow-up to the Helsinki Conference, all of us know that progress since Helsinki has been disappointing. How much better progress could have been is a matter of opinion, but the message that has come from both sides of the House is surely clear. Hon. Members on both sides have said that it is ridiculous that by helping the Soviet Union with food, giving loans to help its industrial performance and capital to help develop its natural resources we are helping the Soviet Union to increase the arms race rather than to slow it down. This is a ridiculous position that the West cannot stand for long, for reasons that have already been outlined.
Finally, there is no way in which the Government can fudge the issue of direct elections to the European Parliament. They will in the end have to come clean and come forward with proposals for direct elections or else state that they will not do so. The Secretary of State rightly said today that the Government remain committed to producing their best endeavours. The right hon. Gentleman knows that there is widespread scepticism in Europe and in the House.
The best thing to do is to tell the truth. If the Government have withdrawn from that idea, they ought to face their European partners and tell them at the earliest opportunity. If they have not—and I hope they have not—they should come forward with a White Paper and a subsequent Bill as soon as possible. If they do not do so, the elections cannot be held on the proper date. If we were the one country to hold up the rest of the Community, the price that Britain would have to pay would be extremely unpleasant. It would be something for which the Secretary of State, with his well-known

309
European views, would be extremely reluctant to be responsible. We urge the Government to come clean on this issue. They can fudge it for only a few more weeks. It would be more honourable to the House and more honourable to our European partners if they came to a conclusion straight away.
9.9 p.m.
Mr. Peter Tapsell: I wish to join all those right hon. and hon. Members who have congratulated the Foreign Secretary on his appointment. I wish him every success in his work on behalf of our country. The fact that this debate has been held only eight days after he assumed office is certainly a good augury, because it is 15 months since we last had a full-scale foreign affairs debate, and in that time the rest of the world has not stood still.
In that time Mao Tse-tung and Chou En-lai have died. Francoism has ended in Spain. Mr. Carter has been elected President. The North-South dialogue has been institutionalised. Saudi Arabia has imposed its authority on OPEC. The Lebanon has been almost destroyed by civil war.
In Southern Africa, the area on which I wish mainly to concentrate my remarks, this period has seen, among other things, the Cuban intervention in Angola, the Soweto riots in South Africa, the South African declaration of independence of the Transkei, four-month-long talks between Mr. Smith and Mr. Nkomo, the escalation of guerrilla warfare, the Kissinger visits, Mr. Smith's acceptance of majority rule within two years, and the failure of Mr Ivor Richard's mission.
Yet while all this and much else of the greatest importance has been happening in the world, there has been until today no full day's debate in this House on the whole range of foreign affairs. Indeed, a distinguished ambassador to this country recently pointed out to me that the omission from the debates on the Loyal Address last autumn of any debate on foreign affairs must be almost without precedent in our parliamentary history. I regret to say that the reason for this stems largely from an unwarranted loss of confidence in our role in the world accompanied by
310
an inward-looking preoccupation with our domestic concerns.
In spite of our self-inflicted economic wounds, there is small justification for this. Because we are no longer a super Power, we must not think and behave as though we had no power at all. On the contrary, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) so fluently pointed out, we possess many exceptional advantages capable of giving us very great influence on the course of world events. I was much encouraged by the fact that the Secretary of State also began his remarks with that theme.
Certainly our membership of the EEC and of NATO brings the opportunity to develop a concerted Western foreign policy. Our special relationship with the United States enables us to act as a bridge across the Atlantic and as a confidant and friend of the world's greatest Power. The Commonwealth provides a uniquely intimate forum for resolving some of the tensions between the richer and poorer nations.
Our permanent seat on the Security Council, our fleet of nuclear submarines, the expert financial mechanisms of the City of London, the international prestige of our monarchy, our immensely skilled and professional Foreign Service, and, not least, the English language itself, which we should not forget is a greater and far more durable economic and political asset than North Sea oil will ever be, are all, along with many other assets, influential instruments at the disposal of an able and energetic Foreign Secretary, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will prove to be.
There are, of course, great countervailing dangers. The chief of these is the continuing thrust of the Soviet Union for world hegemony. Helsinki has been followed by the most overtly aggressive and provocative extension of Soviet expansion in areas far outside Russia's traditional spheres of influence since Mr. Khrushchev sent missiles to Cuba. Angola, as many of my hon. and right hon. Friends have pointed out, has been the worst and most blatant example of this.
As so often before, however, the Russians may have overplayed their hand.

311
Properly handled, there is an African and Western opportunity, enjoying the full moral support of China, to inflict a reverse on Russia in Southern Africa comparable almost with that it suffered over the Cuban missile crisis. So let us not always act defensively in these matters.
Angola could well become Russia's Vietnam. There are many analogies. Russia's lines of communication to Angola are extended and vulnerable. She has to operate through an incompetent, corrupt and unpopular local government over which she lacks effective control. She is publicly committed to one side of a genuine civil war which is as much tribal as ideological and can never truly be won, short of genocide. Her mercenary troops lack real stomach for the fight. World opinion is almost universally hostile to her intervention.
The longer the Cubans stay in Angola and the more African countries to which they are dispatched, the more difficult the Russian position will eventually become. She will be held responsible for their excesses, their failures, their growing unpopularity and their eventual ignominious withdrawal but she has not complete control over them. It is as if we had sent the Gurkhas to Malaya, deprived of their discipline, their gallantry and their British officers.
I should not like to be the head of the Angolan department in the Russian Foreign Ministry. He may soon become a considerable authority on Siberia. It is, however, a vital African, British and Western interest that Soviet imperialism should not be allowed to gain sway over Southern Africa or, what is probably her real aim, to create chaos there. In resisting this danger, let us not make our task harder by misreading the realities of the situation.
I believe that it would be a profound mistake to assume that most of the lead ing African politicians in Southern Africa—my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) made this point earlier—have become in any true sense Marxist puppets of either Moscow or any other Communist regime, or to think that what is happening in South Africa is simply a Communist conspiracy. What is happen-
312
ing in South Africa is something fundamentally different. It is a manifestation of African nationalism.
Nationalism, or racism, to use an uglier but perhaps truer word, is a much stronger force in the world, certainly in the Third World, than is Communism. That is why the Soviet Union has been so conspicuously unsuccessful outside Europe in country after country in the Third World. One thinks particularly of Egypt and Syria. The Russians have lavished treasure, technical skills and weaponry on other countries which were all badly needed by their own deprived people, only to find themselves first used, then hated and finally rejected. When, with or without their help, their friends temporarily achieve power, as in Cambodia or Ethiopia or perhaps even Uganda, their savage excesses help to discredit Communism everywhere.
Of course the Soviet Union will seek to exploit nationalism in South Africa, as it does everywhere else in the world, for its own ends. But Soviet Communism, as the Chinese never cease to remind us, is fundamentally anti-nationalist. The Africans want self-government. The Russians want to govern everything from Moscow. Even African Titos are not ultimately acceptable to Russia, as President Sekou Touré soon discovered in Guinea and President Machel already suspects in Mozambique. The Russians want to dominate.
One of the prime aims of British policy in South Africa, as elsewhere in the world, should therefore be to reveal the divergent and mutually hostile aims of Russian Communism and the forces of nationalism. Sensible nationalists can far better look to Britain and the West for constructive help, as President Carter's Administration seems determined to prove. We have long experience of these matters and can easily play a useful part.
When last month, along with most of the other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken in this debate, I attended the memorial service in West-minster Abbey for my former master, Anthony Eden, I found that I was sitting near to the statue of George Canning, who died exactly 150 years ago and to whom my right hon. Friend the Member for Pavilion referred. Reading the inscription on Canning's statue reminded

313
me that the situation in Africa since the Hitlerite war has been not dissimilar to the situation in South America faced by Canning after the Napoleonic War. To the traditionalist-minded European politicians of the day, the upsurge of nationalism in Southern America then seemed to be striking at the roots of order and stability and to threaten to cut Europe off from the vital mineral resources of that continent.
In George Canning this country had a Foreign Minister of a different stamp. He placed the full weight of Britain behind the nationalists to help them achieve self-determination without foreign interference. He encouraged the United States to promulgate the Monroe doctrine of "Hands off South America". By doing so, Canning won for Britain a century of primacy in trade and investment in South America. Indeed, the good will which Canning's foreign policy engendered for Britain throughout South America survives even to the present day. We should encourage the new American Administration to promulgate a Carter doctrine of "Hands off Southern Africa".
It was Chairman Mao who told us that all power comes from the barrel of a gun. The extraordinary thing about the Rhodesian situation is the slowness with which it has moved towards violence and the still limited extent of the violence, despite the horror of particular incidents. In almost any other part of the world, or with almost any other people, given a similar racial, social, political and historical situation, the whole area would long ago have been a battlefield. The fact that violence and tragedy have not yet fully overtaken Rhodesia is to some extent a reflection of the essential decency and moderation of most of her leaders, both black and white.
Even today Rhodesia, despite its Land Apportionment Act—which I might add I attacked in my maiden speech in this House 17 years ago—has better race relations than many other countries I know. We do a disservice to the cause of peace if we paint the undoubtedly grave situation in Rhodesia in over-lurid terms, particularly if we are too quick to call this white man a Fascist, or that black man a Marxist, or someone else a friend of murderers. In many cases it is not true.
314
If it is repeated often enough, that may help to make it true.
For many years I have known most of the leading political personalities in Central Africa. They are mostly, whether black or white, decent politicians with the usual human frailties and personal ambitions, some of them not over-gifted with political talent. Almost all of them have been somewhat cut off from the wider world during the past decade. Very few of them are bad men. They are all frightened men, because they are conscious of being caught up in a historical movement which is bigger than any of them and heading remorselessly towards tragedy. What they need most of all is help. It is our duty to seek to provide that help.
Dr. Kissinger certainly did his best. I am not one of those who now seek to denigrate him. The Kissinger plan announced by Mr. Smith in his broadcast on 24th September last year seemed to mark a great step forward. In particular, as has been pointed out, there was Mr. Smith's acceptance that he would agree to majority rule in two years provided that the transition could be made orderly. That seemed, at long last, to offer the hope of a peaceful solution to the Rhodesian problem.
It is tragic that this opportunity was not more urgently and constructively seized by all concerned. There is no point in seeking to apportion blame for the failure to translate the Kissinger initiative into an agreed settlement. Instead, we must address ourselves to the question whether any part of the Kissinger plan can be salvaged from the breakdown of the Geneva talks and the apparent failure of Mr. Ivor Richard's last African tour. Although the original impetus obtained by the Kissinger initiative has been lost, it is possible that some elements in the negotiations can be retained. There are some encouraging straws in the wind.
It is significant that, following the breakdown of the latest round of talks, Mr. Smith has not repudiated his earlier statement that he will agree to majority rule within two years. On the contrary he has recently repeated that pledge. That is a most important and encouraging factor in the situation. For many years

315
unimpeded progress towards majority rule has been quoted as the most important single factor for any settlement. Let us keep hold of that concept as a possible way forward.
A second encouraging sign is that Bishop Muzorewa has reaffirmed his wish to see a settlement reached without force, and that is to be welcomed. A third factor is the personality and position of Mr. Joshua Nkomo. He is not a new and untried figure on the Central African scene. He is well-known to many hon. Members on both sides of the House. I have known and liked him for 17 years and I remain convinced that, despite some of his recent statements, alliances and manoeuvres—and we all know the political pressures on him—Mr. Nkomo remains a man of peace, if a peaceable way forward can be found. No doubt he is making his contingency plans in case it cannot be found.
It is surely fair to ask ourselves how many of us, after 11 years in detention, some of them in conditions of considerable hardship, and with many disappointments and rebuffs culminating in the brave but fruitless attempt to reach agreement with Mr. Smith in negotiations stretching for four months, from December 1975 until March 1976—talks as a result of which he found himself temporarily in a weakened political situation—would have emerged from that prolonged ordeal in a conciliatory and entirely peaceable state of mind.
The danger of Mr. Smith's policies which he has pursued for so long with courage and skill, is that they seem hound—as I have always maintained—to end by pushing almost every moderate African into an extreme position. That is precisely what the Russians want. It is very much in their interests that Mr. Smith should fight it out to the last ditch.
One sadness of the present political situation and the real crux of politics in Rhodesia is the apparent inability of Mr. Nkomo and Bishop Muzorewa to sink their personal and tribal differences in the common purpose of creating a united and independent Zimbabwe. I do not think that we should despair of this eventually happening. Mr. Nkomo must know that time is not on his side in a personal sense, It is not on the side
316
of Bishop Muzorewa. It is certainly not on the side of Mr. Smith, in any sense. Time is on the side of bloodshed, chaos, guerrilla warfare, and ever-growing foreign interference from many quarters. If a peaceful evolution towards African majority rule is not soon achieved in Rhodesia, one thing is certain—that Mr. Nkomo, Bishop Muzorewa and Mr. Smith will all perish on the funeral pyre of their beautiful country.
No doubt it was with this thought in mind and after many years of unsuccessful effort to met Mr. Nkomo and the Bishop together which prompted the front line Presidents to seek a short cut by announcing support for one Rhodesian political party, the Patriotic Front. I understand and sympathise with the motives that led President Nyerere and President Kaunda to reach this decision, but I, along with many of my hon. Friends who have spoken today, hope that the Presidents will not regard this as their last word on the subject.
Personally, I have always regarded Mr. Nkomo as an African politician who is well fitted to lead his country, but no leadership imposed from outside on a future Zimbabwe—whether by African President, however well-intentioned, or by bands of guerrillas, or by the Soviet Union, or by Mr. Smith—is likely to prove acceptable in the long run. Indeed, Mr. Smith's suggestion of an internal solution of his own, based on the Kissinger principles, although it has some attractions, has already been rejected by the United States President and by the African Presidents on those grounds.
An orderly settlement can best be reached by the peoples of Rhodesia by virtue of a decision of a majority in free elections. That has been the policy of successive British Governments, and until recently it has been the declared aim of President Kaunda and President Nyerere. It must surely remain the basis of our policy.
All the indications are that the United States is not yet ready to take a major new initiative in Central Africa, but when it does—and it should be soon—I believe that the initiative should be based on three fundamentals. First, it should be based on the firm intention of a move towards majority rule within a reasonable time; secondly, the amount

317
of time required to be conditioned by the need to establish machinery which can provide for an orderly transfer of power; thirdly, there should be international co-operation to end guerrilla warfare so that genuine elections and an orderly transfer of power may take place.
Nobody who examines the situation in Rhodesia can take other than a sombre view of the prospects. The risks are real, but so are the prizes that could be won. We have a clear moral and historical responsibility to bring our imperial rôle in Africa to an orderly and constitutional conclusion. We have a pledge of self-determination to fulfil to the African people. We have an obligation of humanity and consanguinity to the Europeans in Rhodesia to provide them with an alternative of peaceful withdrawal with compensation, or continued residence in a Zimbabwe launched with constitutional propriety into democratic nationhood. These are the glittering prizes that we should be straining every nerve of our fibre to win.
9.34 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. Edward Rowlands): This has been a wide-ranging debate. In my previous incarnation at the Welsh Office I used to respond to debates on Welsh affairs by moving from the Menai Bridge to Monmouth, but in this foreign affairs debate we have grappled with much wider geographical subjects.
Obviously it will be impossible to respond to every point put by a large number of hon. Members in this debate. We have discussed the Middle East, detente, direct elections, human rights, the Falkland Islands and Hong Kong. My hon. Friend the Member for Salford, East (Mr. Allaun) even mentioned Joe Haines' book. It is impossible for me to respond in detail to all these specific points. We shall examine the debate tomorrow in the Official Report and follow up a large number of the points which have been mentioned.
Mr. Frank Allaun: Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Rowlands: No. My hon. Friend must realise that I have to respond to two major points.
Mr. Frank Allaun: If the Minister is not going to confirm or deny what Mr.
318
Haines said, I must assume that it is correct.
Mr. Rowlands: No such assumption should be made. Mr. Haines' book might be a mine of information, but it is also a minefield for any junior Minister to walk into.
I should like to concentrate on two issues, because most hon. Members have concentrated on issues as well as ranging widely. The first is the Falkland Islands, from which I have just returned. The islands have been mentioned by a number of hon. Members. I also want to respond to the speech of the Opposition spokesman about Southern Africa and Rhodesia. I shall deal with the Falkland Islands first because I have just returned from an exhausting and exhaustive range of consultations. I feel as if I was 6 ft. 2 in. tall when I went out there and I have been reduced in the process.
Just before he died, Tony Crosland asked me to go to the Falkland Islands and to Argentina. The reason for my visit was the statement he made on 2nd February, when he described the Government's attitude to the economic and political problems facing the 1,900 islanders. He spoke of the limited prospects that he saw for them without some form of political and economic co-operation with Argentina. He contrasted that with the considerable potential of the area that was identified in the Shackleton Report and that could be the salvation of the island.
The object of my visit was to discuss with the islanders and the Argentine Government whether a broad climate existed for discussing the future of the Falkland Islands. Mr. Crosland also said that any such discussions would inevitably raise the fundamental relationship between Britain, Argentina and the Falklands.
I had five days in the Falkland Islands and four days of full and close consultations with the Governor, the joint councils and people in all walks of life. In a score or so meetings I met and talked with as many islanders as I think it was physically possible for me to meet during the time available to me. Their numbers ran into several hundred. I talked to individual groups in their homes. I had meetings in the wool sheds and in the community halls and in the farmyards.

319
I do not think that anyone can challenge the claim that my consultations were unprecedented in the history of the colony and as comprehensive as is humanly and physically possible.
I put to everyone absolutely straight what Tony Crosland saw and the Government see as the main issue: the development of potential resources and the investment which could be severely inhibited if a hostile political climate and relations persisted, punctuated periodically by mini-crises that have been a feature of the situation not for just one or two years but over many years, as the Opposition spokesman explained.
I put forward that we should try to find a way forward to create a stable relationship that would encourage young islanders to stay—because they have been leaving—to see their future in and around the islands and not thousands of miles away and that would also ensure the continuation of a way of life which generations of kelpers have enjoyed. In all my meetings I made clear that any negotiations would have to include the issue of sovereignty, and that it would be a part of the negotiations on the twin themes of political and economic co-operation.
Anyone talking to the islanders—hon. Members on both sides know them well—both those in private life and those holding official positions in the islands, cannot fail to be impressed by their loyalty to the Crown and their desire to remain British. I am in no doubt about this. But the islanders also left me in no doubt that they were worried about their future. They have lived in proximity to Argentina for many years, and I found that many of them appreciate the practical realities which arise from their geographical location.
One major consideration to emerge from my talks is that many islanders, in considering their future, are looking not for a grand design or major projects—but for developments on their doorstep before the long-term development of offshore resources. The problems of internal communications, travel between Darwin and Port Stanley, small local industries, better schools and education and the problems of a few people trying to service a community are their main priorities.
320
I found a general acceptance among the islanders that I should go to Buenos Aires to talk to the Argentine Government to see whether terms of reference for formal negotiations could be established. At the conclusion of my tour, however, it was for the islands' councils to say finally whether, in the light of my discussions with them direct and how they viewed islander reaction to the meetings I held, I should try to have discussions to see whether we could set up negotiations with the Argentine.
The councils informed me that, in the light of all my consultations during my five days in Stanley and in the farm settlements, they could approve the Government's intention to try to establish a basis for negotiations with the Argentine. I should like to pay tribute to the spirit of realism and understanding and to the seriousness of approach to their problems which all those I met and who live and work on the islands have demonstrated.
I went to Buenos Aires and held two days of substantive talks with representatives of the Argentine Government. I gave an account of my visit to the islands and stressed the assurances given to the islanders by the Government that there would be full consultation throughout any negotiations and that any such negotiations would be conducted under the sovereignty umbrella.
My talks in Buenos Aires were solely intended to establish whether terms of reference could be agreed for subsequent negotiations. I believe that, as a result of the talks that I held, we shall be able to make progress towards a possible agreement on future negotiations. However, there is still some way to go before concrete terms of reference can be agreed.
It is essential that each side should be clear in its own mind from the outset how the other side is approaching the problem of negotiations. It is important to get the inter-relationship between the themes of economic and political cooperation absolutely right. We shall be exchanging further views with the Argentine Goverment on terms of reference through diplomatic channels and as a follow-up to my own talks.
A number of hon. Members have raised questions about sovereignty, particularly the Government's attitude to

321
bringing proposals to the House. The right hon. Member for Chipping Barnet (Mr. Maudling) asked for a specific assurance that the Government will not propose to Parliament a transfer of sovereignty without the full acceptance of the islanders. I can readily confirm that that is the Government's position, and I should like to emphasise that during any negotiations, as well as towards the end of the negotiations, there will be close and continual consultation with the islands' councils and their people.
As other hon. Members can testify, it was not a duty or a chore to visit the islands and carry out these consultations. It was a privilege. I can assure the islanders that, before any decisions are made as a result of any negotiations, a Minister will return to the islands. The islanders deserve a relationship that is better than the one we have created between them and ourselves. They deserve a better relationship with those here who have a say in their future and their destiny.
One cannot cull one's policy from objective assessments made several thousand miles away. We must go to the people themselves and talk to them. It is a criticism of successive Governments when I say that it is a shame that it has taken nine years for a Minister to visit the islanders and discuss their problems. It is nine years since a Minister last visited the islands. That transcends Ministers representing Governments of both parties. Before I went to the islands I cared objectively. I had come to understand and appreciate the problems. I now understand how one leaves at least half one's heart in the islands. I now have a subjective caring as well as an objective caring. I am sure that that has been the pleasure of hon. Members from both sides of the House who have had the pleasure of visiting the islands.
I have read a number of descriptions of our motives. They have described our discussions and possible negotiations. Some of the motives that have been described are not mine or the Government's. Neither I nor my right hon. Friend would be party to any sell-out of the islanders. I hope that I have been able to give the House a satisfactory account of my visit and of the problems and issues that still face us.
322
I turn to the second part of my remarks, which concern Southern Africa and the problems arising therefrom. There have been some interesting and constructive speeches. It has been said from both sides of the House that at present Southern Africa probably presents the international community with the greatest challenge in its efforts to solve not merely the great strategic problems that some hon. Members have spoken about but the fundamental conflicts of race, freedom and ideology. All those issues are boiling up in the crucible of Southern Africa. It is a challenge to the international community to try to solve the combination of the problems not by war or by the gun but by peaceful negotiation and discussion. That is at the heart of the issue and I challenge the remarks made by the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion (Mr. Amery) that were directed to what he considered to be our attitudes. Certainly I challenge his attitudes to the problem.
Our whole policy towards a settlement in Rhodesia and Namibia is based on the belief that freedom should be established by negotiation and not by the gun. That has been the direction and aim of British and many other international efforts in trying to solve the problems facing both Rhodesia and Namibia.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: If that is the case, why does the hon. Gentleman support free elections in Namibia and not in Rhodesia?
Mr. Rowlands: I shall tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what our attitude is to Rhodesia and Namibia. He will find that our attitudes to those countries are not in conflict. I was making the point that in Rhodesia and Namibia freedom should be established by negotiation and not by the gun and that the aspirations and wishes of the people of the two countries can be determined by democracy and not by dictation. That is exactly the policy that we have been trying to follow. What have the past nine years been all about in our negotiations with Rhodesia but to endeavour to achieve, first, an interim arrangement and then, hopefully, an independent settlement that will allow the democratic pressures and forces, if they can be so called, to reveal and demonstrate who genuinely represents African opinion and nationalist

323
opinion in Rhodesia as well as Namibia? I do not see any contradiction in the two approaches. They are extremely consistent. Indeed, they are part and parcel of a common approach and philosophy to the problems.
As has been said by hon. Members on both sides of the House, there are two stark alternatives in the solving of the problems. Previous British Governments have belatedly recognised the need to accept the rapid and orderly transfer of power from colonial systems to the leaders of new nations. In some cases that process has been carried out with a certain degree of violence but in many cases it has been carried out peacefully. The problem that the House faces, along with anyone who deals with Rhodesia or Namibia, is that increasingly the liberation struggle looks more likely to succeed than does the process of peaceful negotiation.
Young blacks—not necessary Marxists or those representing any other particular form of ideology—are looking to the gun not because that is their choice but because it seems the only alternative to the frustrations to their ambitions and feelings. I am sure that the House does not wish me to go into detail about the problems that have arisen in respect of a large number of young people or children in the past few weeks. That is why an increasing number of young people are crossing the border and joining liberation guerrilla movements. They now perceive that as the only way forward to what they believe are their aspirations and wishes.
Unless we can find a breakthrough by peaceful negotiation through international diplomacy and discussion, the alternative will appear more attractive. The liberation struggle will be more attractive to young blacks who at the moment feel that their aspirations and wishes for freedom are being suppressed. We must try to prove them wrong. I think that the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion was, broadly speaking, making much the same point. The international community and those Governments, including the British Government, who are and have been deeply involved in trying to resolve the issues, particularly in Rhodesia and Namibia,
324
must try to prove them wrong and that freedom can be obtained by peaceful negotiations.
Mr. Peter Temple-Morris: I should like to put to the Minister the two basic alternatives to prove them wrong. Could we have a positive response from him? Either à la Canning we back the guerrilla movements—for example, SWAPO in Namibia—and follow through as did Canning, as has been mentioned from the Opposition side of the House, or, together with the United States—much has been mentioned during the debate rather nebulously about the United States—we bring pressure, both economic and political, on South Africa so that, if successful, the West can make a common stand with her. These are the only two real alternatives. Without them we shall not get anywhere. What are the Government going to do?
Mr. Rowlands: That is interesting. I am trying to work out the hon. Gentleman's reference to Canning and the relationship between Britain and the liberation movements in Latin America and South America. I am trying to work out the implications of his remarks. In Latin America we are well thought of because of our historic rôle in nineteenth century terms in supporting independence movements.
When it comes to the question of Southern Africa and our relationship with South Africa, it is fatal for the West not to identify itself with the wishes and feelings of the overwhelming majority of Africans in Southern Africa. If we line ourselves up with South Africa and minorities in Southern Africa for some strategic Western ideological reason, we shall have no hope of identifying with and creating a peaceful change. That is where on previous occasions we have quarrelled with the views of the right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion. The greatest safeguard to the strategic issues in Southern Africa lies basically in trying to resolve the problems, allowing the wishes and feelings of the vast majority of Africans in Southern Africa to be expressed and helping them to achieve their aspirations through peaceful means. Otherwise, the alternatives will look more attractive to those people.
It is not the prerogative of a white minority or of any individual liberation

325
leader to dictate to the Zimbabwean people or to the Namibians the kind of political system that they want. That is where the danger lies. It is for the peoples of both countries to decide what kind of society they want.
In Rhodesia, as my right hon. Friend said, we have been trying since Mr. Smith's rejection of the British proposals on 24th January, to find a way forward. We are approaching the impasse with open minds. We have been in close consultation with and have the support of the new United States Administration, because any further moves will clearly be of vital importance.
Some hon. Members have talked about the internal options. The hon. Member for Horncastle (Mr. Tapsell) cast grave doubts on internal options. Our view is that partial solutions of the kind envisaged, excluding representative nationalist opinion in Rhodesia, cannot work or form the basis for a durable and peaceful settlement.
The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion suggested that our proposals were blatantly one-sided, favouring only one group within the Geneva delegations. I cannot believe that he read the proposals, which were a genuine attempt to bridge the gap and include all delegations at the Geneva Conference in any interim Government. If the right hon. Gentleman looked at the proposals again, he would find that many of his remarks today were unjustified. We are trying to do all we can to assist in carrying matters forward in the best way.
Hon. Members have asked questions about Rhodesia. I assure the House that there is no lack of will and no reluctance on our part to try to solve the problems of Rhodesia. We have not been reluctant and we are not reluctant to see whether we can achieve a settlement that ensures a rapid and early transfer of power to the majority. There is no substitute for a genuine agreement which is thrashed out in negotiations between Rhodesians, both black and white. The Government stand ready to assume whatever rôle and whatever responsibility we regard as necessary to achieve majority rule and independence.
Mr. Dalyell: Has my hon. Friend anything to say about the Lesotho and Transkei problem?
Mr. Rowlands: I did not hear my hon. Friend's remarks on that subject although I listened to almost every speech. I shall look at the problem. Our position on Lesotho and Transkei is clear. We have tried in the United Nations and by other means to resolve some of the problems that have arisen because of the non-recognition of the Transkei and the border incidents.
Some hon. Members have talked of the Government's disinvolvement in various world problems. The right hon. Member for Brighton, Pavilion talked as if we had refused to play a constructive rôle. I do not see how the right hon. Gentleman can justify that in view of our active involvement in the last nine months and because British Ministers have travelled 7,000 miles to talk to islanders about the problems between Argentina, the Falkland Islands and ourselves. I do not see how anyone can describe that as disinvolvement. We are involved. We are concerned about the wishes of 1,900 islanders in the Falkland Islands. We are concerned about majority rule in Southern Africa. We have been involved and we intend to continue to be involved.
My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary characterised the approach of the Government to these matters at the end of his speech when he said that we should champion and support in international diplomacy the values that we uphold ourselves nationally. We shall seek to support social justice and freedom. We shall uphold human rights wherever they are being challenged. We shall continue to be involved in international affairs on behalf of the British Government.
Mr. Donald Coleman (Lord Commissioner of the Treasury): I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT (MEMBERSHIP)
Ordered,
That Miss Betty Boothroyd, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Mr. Alexander Fletcher, Mr. William Molloy and Mr. Frank Tomney be discharged from membership of the European Parliament and that Mr. Ronald Brown, Mr. John Corrie, Mr. Robert Edwards, Mr. Charles Fletcher-Cooke, and Mr. Christopher Price be designated membes of the European Parliament:
Ordered,
That this Order be a Standing Order of the. House.—[Mr. Walter Harrison.]

TEACHER TRAINING COLLEGES (SCOTLAND)
Motion made and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
9.59 p.m.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: I raise this matter on the Adjournment to elicit answers to the questions put in the Scottish Grand Committee on 15th February about Craiglockhart, Dunfermline and Callendar Park Colleges and other colleges by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Cook) and myself. The questions are there seriatim. The Minister has about 28 minutes to give a considered answer. I shall content myself with two assertions.
First of all, some of us challenge the costing and alleged savings on which the decisions are based and challenge the political, economic and educational judgment of Scottish Office Ministers on all of the training colleges. Secondly, I am not the only one here who came into politics from school teaching—chiefly out of a deep-seated belief that only by political action could education be improved.
Craigie, Callendar Park, Craiglockhart and Dunfermline College all have good records and play a substantial rôle in Scottish education. By voice and by vote I shall resist their closure or merger unless some convincing hard facts are given tonight or later.
I have added two questions, of which I have given notice to the Scottish Office, about Callendar Park.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Coleman.]
Mr. Dalyell: The first question is in relation to the costs of closing down Callendar Park and the alternative use, and the second question is whether it is sensible to do this for a college that exists in one of Scotland's major growth areas.
I have here in my hands over 500 letters. They weigh together over four pounds. Many of my colleagues have exactly the same number of letters. This
328
is evidence of why we should have a full reply from the Minister in 29 minutes tonight.
10.1 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): Looking at the clock, I see that the time is fractionally after 10 p.m. I find myself in the unique position of having a full half hour, if that is the understanding of the Chair, in which to reply to the debate initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian (Mr. Dalyell). It is most unusual to have almost 30 minutes in which to reply. I shall make good use of the time, but making good use of it means that I cannot give way to Opposition Members. Hon. Members cannot have it both ways if they are here to listen to the economic arguments put forward or suggested. I hope that they will accept that my right hon. Friend's consultative document is based on educational arguments.
Therefore, I start, as is customary, by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian for initiating the debate and for his courtesy in supplying a number of questions to me in order that I may attempt to answer them. I hope that in setting the scene for this debate on the consultative document my hon. Friend will accept that I shall be answering his questions some time later in the debate.
First, however, if hon. Members will permit me, I should like to take a little time to remind them of the nature of the exercise in which we are engaged. The points that I wish to stress have already been made in the consultative paper and were reiterated by my right hon. Friend and myself when this matter was debated during two mornings in the Scottish Grand Committee, time being given by the Government. The contributions of hon. Members on that occasion have not convinced me that they fully understand my right hon. Friend's arguments. Therefore, I make no apology for trying to restate them this evening.
The consultative paper that we issued on 17th January was intended to initiate a genuine process of consultation about a problem which everyone accepts it would be irresponsible of us as a Government to ignore. The latest projections of pupils set out in the paper have not been seriously challenged. I think that that is one

329
point that no one present would challenge. They clearly indicate general changes in the pattern of demand for teachers in the years ahead which make it essential for us to review our teacher training system as a whole.
At present, as most hon. Members know from the debate and from questions put to me and to my right hon. Friend, we have 10 colleges of education in Scotland, which we estimate to be capable of taking a total of about 14,500 students. Just over 10,500 of these places are occupied this session. Even allowing—as we have—for the possible improvement of school staffing standards, the expansion of the colleges' contribution to in-service training for teachers and the range of work other than teacher training that they are likely to undertake, there will still be a substantial decline in the need for places over the next few years. Indeed, in 1979–80, for example, the number of places needed is likely to be not much more than 8,000.
In such a situation, therefore, there are two main courses of action open to us. Either we can retain all the colleges and reduce the student populations in all of them or we can reduce the number of colleges through closures or mergers. Clearly there are advantages and disadvantages in each of these possibilities, and there are many factors which must be considered before deciding what, in all the circumstances, is the best course of action.
The pattern of closures and mergers which has been suggested in the consultative paper is the one which we consider, on the information available to us, to be most worthy of examination by all the interests concerned. The whole purpose of the consultations on which we have embarked is to elicit views which will enable my right hon. Friend to make final decisions. Meantime, I assure hon. Members—I should like to make this a strong assurance—that no final decisions have been taken about the future of any college.
That should be noted because comments have been made to me privately which give indications other than that. I hope I have made that clear. No final decisions have been made by my right hon. Friend about the future of any of the 10 colleges.
330
However, let me deal with the specific questions which my hon. Friend asked about the possible merger of Dunfermline College with Dundee. My hon. Friend will remember that in the Scottish Grand Committee debate he described these as" "nuts and bolts" questions. I hope my hon. Friend will accept hi the nicest possible sense that at the moment we are not talking of nuts and bolts. We are trying to design a system of teacher training which will cope with known and expected demands between now and 1990.
My right hon. Friend's proposals were based on knowledge of the facilities at the colleges concerned and appeared to him to be reasonable propositions for further consultation and discussions. If my right hon. Friend decides to proceed with the proposals set out in his consultative paper, there will be need for further consideration of detailed logistical questions. I hope that will at least take care of the nuts and bolts point.
As I was saying, my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian advanced certain points in his speech on the first day of the two-day debate in the Scottish Grand Committee. The first pertinent question he asked was what consultation had taken place prior to 17th January when the document was first sent out to the various organisations. I should tell my hon. Friend, as he has been told before, that no consultations as such took place between my right hon. Friend and Craiglockhart. But my hon. Friend will be aware that this is a genuine consultative document.
I have seen the principal and some of the staff and students of Craiglockhart. Along with the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton) I saw the staff and some of the students from Dunfermline College. I also met an all-party delegation of hon. Members led by the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Younger) which included hon. Members from other parties, apart from the United Ulster Unionists, who do not seem to have any particular interest in this problem.
I have myself met the ETS, the STUC, and ALCES, as well as many hon. Members including my right hon. Friend the Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross) and my hon. Friend the Member for Central

331
Ayrshire (Mr. Lambie), on the particular problem of Craigie.
Mr. Malcolm Rifkind Mr. Malcolm Rifkind (Edinburgh, Pentlands)rose—
Mr. McElhone: I shall not give way. A number of eager young hon. Members on the Opposition Benches wish to make pertinent political points tonight, but the debate has been initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian and it would be most unfair to him if I were not to explain the points that he has put to me.
I appreciate the large attendance for the debate. I do not wish to name all those hon. Members who are present but if it is their desire to be on the record I am prepared to do so. [Interruption.] Hon. Members must not be intemperate. It is only nine minutes past 10 and there is a considerable time left in the debate. Opposition Members should not expect me to sit down after a brief period in order that they can engage in a political debate this evening. Hon. Members are here to listen to debates. If they content themselves with doing that on this occasion, they will learn a great deal. In saying that, I am sorry if I appear to be being rude to my hon. Friends as well as to Opposition Members. I do so in the interests of getting on the record a very clear exposition on the topic of this debate. If hon. Members will listen in silence, they will learn a great deal.
My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked what consultations took place about Craiglockhart. Without restating all the organisations which I mentioned just now, he will know that in addition I have discussed the matter with members of the hierarchy. I am very much aware of the feelings which have been expressed by the hierarchy and by the principal, staff and students of Craiglockhart. These have been conveyed to my right hon. Friend, and they will be considered seriously when he comes to make his decision.
I want to refer to one part of the document which has caused a great deal of controversy recently in the Press. Archbishop Winning expressed concern about it in The Scotsman of 25th February. It concerns the B.Ed. degree for secondary education in the colleges of Notre Dame and Craiglockhart.
332
In that article it was reported that the Archbishop had written to all the priests and teachers in his diocese expressing alarm about the proposal to discontinue the B.Ed. degree for secondary teaching. He pointed out that it was the only degree available at Notre Dame College of Education in Glasgow and that, as Craiglockhart College in Edinburgh had no B.Ed. course, the proposal would mean that no Roman Catholic college would be able to offer a degree to Catholic students, which would inflict considerable damage on Roman Catholic secondary education.
It is only fair that I explain this point because of the fairly substantial number of hon. Members who have expressed support for the Craiglockhart position. It has come from all parties in the House, and I understand that there was a large meeting recently in Edinburgh at which this proposal was referred to with some concern.
All the Scottish colleges of education except Craiglockhart and Callendar Park offer B.Ed. courses leading to a teaching qualification—secondary education—in conjunction with a university or with CNAA. These courses provide higher education in an "academic" subject or subjects concurrently with professional training, and have all been introduced since the mid–1960s to cater for school leavers who are committed to a career in teaching and who wish to be involved with professional studies throughout their degree course rather than taking a university degree followed by one year of teacher training. In three colleges—Aberdeen, Jordanhill and Moray House—students embark on the B.Ed. course from the outset. In the others students enrol initially for the primary diploma course and transfer to the B.Ed. course at the end of their second year.
The numbers on the B.Ed. courses increased steadily until 1972–73, but have since declined. Intake to the "direct entry" courses in 1972–73 was 384, but in succeeding years has been 352, 272, 262 and 138, respectively. The output from these courses has, therefore, made a comparatively minor contribution to the secondary teaching force, and the majority of B.Ed. students specialise in subjects in which there is no shortage of teachers. Intake to these courses is bound, therefore, to diminish even further as intake to

333
secondary courses of training generally is reduced and priority is given to applications in the shortage subjects. In consequence, teaching groups in some subjects, particularly in the smaller colleges, will become increasingly unviable and absorb a disproportionate amount of college resources. In these circumstances there is good reason to consider whether these courses should continue, and for this reason interested bodies have been asked for views on their future as part of the consultations on teacher training from 1977 onwards.
If the secondary B.Ed. course were discontinued, the only route into the teaching of academic subjects in secondary schools would be through a university degree and a one-year course of training at a college of education. All the colleges which offer a secondary B.Ed. also offer the one-year course, except Craigie. Most of the major bodies which have so far submitted comments have opposed the discontinuation of the secondary B.Ed. The GTC has stated that it would be happy to examine whether more could be done to produce, through the B.Ed. course, teachers for these sectors of secondary education whose supply is at present inadequate. These views will be taken into account by my right hon. Friend in deciding what the future of these secondary courses will be.
We have abolished part-time education, including in the West of Scotland, for the first time in 25 years. There are serious subject shortages in parts of Strathclyde, but not so much in other areas. There are, indeed, surpluses in some areas, such as the Grampians and Tayside, but there is in Strathclyde a shortage of teachers of mathematics. The fact is that teachers in the northern areas will not move down to teach in Strathclyde. We have been giving a great deal of time and thought to seeing how we can overcome the difficulty of subject shortages which remain on the maths side and in technical subjects, although we are, in addition, suffering from a shortage, albeit a minor one, in arts and music.
At the end of the day, we have to recognise that, even so, we have the best pupil-teacher ratio that we have ever had in the history of education in Scotland. I do not wish to get annoyed by the faces that the hon. Member for Ayr is making.
334
He should accept that I have been prepared to spend some time quoting his own White Paper, the only policy document that the Conservatives have put out on the subject of education in the last five or six years—indeed, the only one this century.
Mr. Dalyell: I am annoyed. Specific and precise questions were asked. For example, what are the savings in costs that my right hon. Friend hopes to make in his proposed drastic reorganisation of Craiglockhart? On Thursday, the request was for specific answers to specific questions. Can we stick seriatim to that.
Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian has always been patient and understanding.
Mr. Dalyell: Eighteen minutes have gone by. This is scandalous.
Mr. McElhone: We still have 12 minutes left, and many a long story has been told in this House in 12 minutes. I have plenty of time. I shall try to answer as many of my hon. Friend's questions as possible. I cannot answer all of them now, for very good reasons. Because of the unique way in which this debate started, I have plenty of time and I promise to answer as many as I can. At the same time, my hon. Friend will accept that I have a duty to place the facts on record because of the many points that have been raised by the Opposition. The hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has on more than one occasion put the argument that the only document of educational sense is the Tory document "Education in Scotland—a Statement of Policy".
Mr. Dalyell: I did not ask about Tory documents. I ask factual questions.
Mr. McElhone: Let me be absolutely fair to my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. I will guarantee, and I have already given an assurance, that I shall answer his questions.
Mr. Hector Monro: Get on with it.
Mr. McElhone: I have the right to take my own time and to make my own argument. It is no use Conservative Members making sedentary noises—
Mr. Monro: Then I shall stand up.
Mr. MeElhone: The hon. Gentleman looks even less attractive in that position. It is no use Conservative Members making all sorts of noises and accusations against my right hon. Friend and acting as if they had the panacea for this problem when they were in office. Their own document condemns them.
Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns)rose—
Mr. McElhone: I am sorry that I cannot give way. The only person to whom I shall give way is my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian who initiated the debate.
Let me put on record the fact that the Conservative Party was talking about reducing pupil-teacher ratios down to 25 to one in 1975–76 in primary education. The Conservatives said that this would be wonderful and that, once they achieved that, educational training for teachers should not expand. We already have a ratio of 22·4 to one in primary education.
Mrs. Margaret Bain Mrs. Margaret Bain (Dunbartonshire, East)rose—
Mr. McElhone: I want to make only one more point about the Conservative document. There is no point in the Opposition trying to deny their own document. Page 18 of the document says that by 1977–78 they hoped to reach a ratio of 15 to one in secondary education. We now have a ratio of 14·7 to one, yet the Conservatives talk about restriction.
Mrs. Bain Mrs. Bain rose—
Mr. McElhone: I do not wish to be discourteous to the hon. Lady, but I shall not give way.
I now come to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian. He asked what the savings were and he asked other questions about consultations. On the question of savings I shall be perfectly honest. My right hon. Friend and I are convinced that there will be savings—
Mr. Dalyell: How much?
Mr. McElhone: It is extremely difficult to quantify how much the savings will be
336
in each college because at the end of the day we are guaranteeing the Crombie code of conditions for teachers who may be made redundant. It depends on the number of years of service that a lecturer has had and his age. That will determine the amount of redundancy payment under the Crombie code. The number of students in any particular college also affects the cost of that college. Therefore, it is impossible to quantify the costs of any particular college until my right hon. Friend has made positive decisions on the future of colleges as a whole.
I come now to the answers to the third and fourth questions that my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian asked in his speech in the Scottish Grand Committee. My hon. Friend posed some pertinent questions and mentioned the Roman Catholic philosophy of education and the 1918 Act. I have put the case for the 1918 Act at the Dispatch Box and in the Scottish Grand Committee more often than I would have expected during the last seven or eight months, but because letters are coming to me and, no doubt, also to my right hon. Friend in large numbers, and because doubts have been expressed, not least by my hon. Friend the Member for West Lothian, I repeat, as I pointed out when I met the Craiglockhart contingent, that there is no danger at all to the 1913 Act from this Government.
I say again, as I have said in the past, that Roman Catholic schools will continue in Scotland as long as the Roman Catholic population wish them to continue. I hope that I have conveyed that as clearly as possible and that it is on the record as clearly as I have tried to express it, so that people who read reports of the debate or Press comment on it will realise that my right hon. Friend and I are convinced that the principles of the 1918 Act stand and that the Catholic schools are there and will continue to be there for as long as the Catholic population of Scotland wish them to remain. I cannot be any clearer than that.
My hon. Friend went on at some length about the philosophy of Catholic education. It is not my duty tonight to try to expound that philosophy. There have been meetings with the hierarchy and with 2,000 people present. At those meetings all sorts of noises were made

337
in support of that philosophy. Of course I entirely support the philosophy, and it is in no way in any danger from me or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
Paragraph 52 of the consultative document is quite explicit. It says that there will be a Roman Catholic teacher-training presence in the East of Scotland. I cannot any clearer than that. I am referring to the training presence and the philosophy, not necessarily to indvidual buildings. I am not here to put any specific comments about any building or any college. It is for my right hon. Friend to make decisions about the colleges, and he will make them in the light of all the submissions he receives from the colleges.
My right hon. Friend was asked for an extension from 28th February, and this he readily accepted in his speech on the first morning of the debate. Almost all the colleges have sent in their submissions. One is still outstanding, although it may have sent its submission in today. Late submissions, however, will be accepted.
My hon. Friend went on to put what he called two broad questions about Dunfermline. He asked about consultation. I can tell him that the inspectorate played a full part in all the consultation involving all the colleges. If there is one section of all those in the Department for which I have some responsibility
338
and which commands high regard from every Member who has been associated with it, it is the inspectorate of the SED.
Mr. Dalyell: Is it or is it not true that the physical education inspectors were consulted about the proposal to move Dunfermline College from Cramond to Dundee?
Mr. McElhone: It has never been the practice of Ministers to indicate to the House details of consultations with each departmental official. [Interruption.] The hon. Members for Glasgow, Cathcart (Mr. Taylor) and Dumfries, know this to be a fact.
Mr. Monro: No!
Mr. Teddy Taylor: Rubbish!
Mr. McElhone: They know that we never give details of individual discussions with individual advisers. The inspectorate is widely recognised as a proficient body in Scottish education. My hon. Friend will be the first to recognise that it is—
The Question having been proposed at Ten o'clock and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
Adjourned at half-past Ten o'clock.

  CBI
  CBI
  TUC
  TUC
  FRANCE (PRIME MINISTER)
  FRANCE (PRIME MINISTER)
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  UNEMPLOYMENT
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL
  LLANDUDNO JUNCTION
  LLANDUDNO JUNCTION
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  PRIME MINISTER (ENGAGEMENTS)
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
  TRADE FAIRS (ENGLISH LANGUAGE)
  TRADE FAIRS (ENGLISH LANGUAGE)
  MYTHOLMROYD, WEST YORKSHIRE
  MYTHOLMROYD, WEST YORKSHIRE
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
  NATIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OFFICE
  COPPULL
  COPPULL
  POLICE (AUXILIARY MANPOWER)
  POLICE (AUXILIARY MANPOWER)
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEGAL SERVICES
  ROYAL COMMISSION ON LEGAL SERVICES
  ARAB TRADE BOYCOTT
  ARAB TRADE BOYCOTT
  PRIME MINISTER (PRESS OFFICER)
  PRIME MINISTER (PRESS OFFICER)
  SILVER JUBILEE
  SILVER JUBILEE
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (DEFENCE AND TRADE)
  PARLIAMENTARY QUESTIONS (DEFENCE AND TRADE)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Land Ownership
  Land Ownership
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
  FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS (INQUIRY)
ENERGY
  Oil Production Platforms
  Oil Production Platforms
  Oil and Gas Royalties
  Oil and Gas Royalties
  North Sea Gas
  North Sea Gas
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  President Amin
  President Amin
  Helsinki Agreement (British Application)
  Helsinki Agreement (British Application)
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  Immigration (Indian Subcontinent)
  Social Security Frauds
  Social Security Frauds
  Murder and Manslaughter
  Murder and Manslaughter
HOUSE OF COMMONS
  Travel Expenses
  Travel Expenses
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Price Control
  Price Control
  Social Services (Training)
  Social Services (Training)
DEFENCE
  Destroyers
  Destroyers
  Royal Navy
  Royal Navy
  Recruits
  Recruits
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Expenditure
  Expenditure
  Personal Incomes
  Personal Incomes
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Dermatologists
  Dermatologists
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Supplementary Benefits Handbook
  Benefits (Non-Reciprocity)
  Benefits (Non-Reciprocity)
  Child Benefit
  Child Benefit
  Over–80 Pensioners
  Over–80 Pensioners
  Adoption Service (Northumberland)
  Adoption Service (Northumberland)
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  Invalid Vehicles
  Invalid Vehicles
  Salmonella
  Salmonella
  Health Authorities (Consultative Committees)
  Health Authorities (Consultative Committees)
  Vaccination and Vaccine Damage
  Vaccination and Vaccine Damage
CIVIL SERVICE
  British Museum (Refreshments)
  British Museum (Refreshments)
  Special Advisers
  Special Advisers
  Dispersal
  Dispersal
ENVIRONMENT
  Thermal Insulation
  Thermal Insulation
  Water (Purity)
  Water (Purity)
  River Pollution
  River Pollution
  Nitrates in Water
  Nitrates in Water
  Palace of Westminster (Window Cleaning)
  Palace of Westminster (Window Cleaning)
  Water Charges
  Water Charges
  Fluoride Emissions
  Fluoride Emissions
  House Building (Cornwall)
  House Building (Cornwall)
  Local Government (Staff)
  Local Government (Staff)
  Planning Appeal (S. Grudon (Waste) Ltd.)
  Planning Appeal (S. Grudon (Waste) Ltd.)
  Owner-Occupiers (Mortgage Interest Relief)
  Owner-Occupiers (Mortgage Interest Relief)
TRANSPORT
  Tolls (Estuaries)
  Tolls (Estuaries)
  A648 (Kegworth-Clifton)
  A648 (Kegworth-Clifton)
  Roads (Local Authority Grants)
  Roads (Local Authority Grants)
  Vehicles (Damage)
  Vehicles (Damage)
  Chemicals (Labelling of Vehicles)
  Chemicals (Labelling of Vehicles)
  South Yorkshire County Council (Grant)
  South Yorkshire County Council (Grant)
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Food Prices
  Food Prices
  Unit Pricing and Specified Quantities
  Unit Pricing and Specified Quantities
  Fireworks
  Fireworks
  Price Commission
  Price Commission
SCOTLAND
  Mortgages
  Mortgages
  Taxi Trade
  Taxi Trade
  Colleges of Education
  Colleges of Education
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
TRADE
  Imports and Exports
  Imports and Exports
  Exports (Quality Control)
  Exports (Quality Control)
  East African Airways
  East African Airways
  Thames Estuary (Smooth Water Limits)
  Thames Estuary (Smooth Water Limits)
  Aviation Security
  Aviation Security
  Catering Trades (Inquiry)
  Catering Trades (Inquiry)
  Insurance Companies (Assets)
  Insurance Companies (Assets)
  USSR
  USSR
  INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY)
  INDUSTRIAL DEMOCRACY (EUROPEAN COMMUNITY)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Illegitimacy
  Illegitimacy
  King's College, London
  King's College, London
  Student Grants (Parental Contributions)
  Student Grants (Parental Contributions)
  Sport and Recreation
  Sport and Recreation
  Avon Education Authority
  Avon Education Authority
WALES
  North Wales Coast Road
  North Wales Coast Road
  Dogs (Sheep Killing)
  Dogs (Sheep Killing)
  Births
  Births
  Dogs
  Dogs
NATIONAL FINANCE
  Royal Family
  Royal Family
  Tax Allowances
  Tax Allowances
  Income Tax (Scotland)
  Income Tax (Scotland)
  Income Tax
  Income Tax
  Banking Profits
  Banking Profits
  Manufactures
  Manufactures
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Mortgage Interest Relief
  Reserves and Debts
  Reserves and Debts
  Value Added Tax
  Value Added Tax
  Close Companies
  Close Companies
  Old People's Savings
  Old People's Savings
  Public Sector Debt
  Public Sector Debt
INDUSTRY
  Computers
  Computers
  Planning Agreements
  Planning Agreements
  Sowerby
  Sowerby
  Postal Revenues
  Postal Revenues
  North-East England
  North-East England
  Shipbuilding Order (Scott Lithgow Ltd.)
  Shipbuilding Order (Scott Lithgow Ltd.)
INDUSTRY
  Ship Repairing
  Ship Repairing
EMPLOYMENT
  Redundancies
  Redundancies
  Unemployed Persons
  Unemployed Persons
  European Community Social Fund
  European Community Social Fund
  Mitsubishi Corporation
  Mitsubishi Corporation
  Regional Employment Premium
  Regional Employment Premium
  Sutton
  Sutton
  Birmingham
  Birmingham
  Wales
  Wales
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Temporary Employment Subsidy
  Trade Unions
  Trade Unions
  School Leavers
  School Leavers
  Policy Effect
  Policy Effect
  Job Creation
  Job Creation
  Randolph Hotel, Oxford
  Randolph Hotel, Oxford
  Negroes
  Negroes
  Safety Representatives
  Safety Representatives
  Liverpool
  Liverpool
  Brighton
  Brighton
  Employment Protection Act (Implementation)
  Employment Protection Act (Implementation)
  Humberside
  Humberside
  Folkestone and Hythe
  Folkestone and Hythe
  North-East England
  North-East England
  Remploy
  Remploy
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Training Opportunities Scheme
  Jobcentres
  Jobcentres
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Professional and Executive Recruitment
  Computers
  Computers
  Cheshire
  Cheshire
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Work Experience Programme
  Work Experience Programme
  Small Businesses
  Small Businesses
  Wealth Creation
  Wealth Creation
  Kirklees
  Kirklees
  May Day Bank Holiday
  May Day Bank Holiday
  Skillcentres
  Skillcentres
  Labour Force
  Labour Force
  Public Services and Defence Employees
  Public Services and Defence Employees

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Derby.
The Viscount Alanbrooke—Sat first in Parliament after the death of his brother.

HELSINKI FINAL ACT: INDIVIDUAL MONITORING
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the names and addresses of individual Soviet citizens in Moscow who are monitoring the application by the Soviet Government of Basket Three of the Helsinki Final Act and whether they will instruct their diplomatic representatives in Moscow to make efforts to meet these individuals, in order to obtain the results of their work and bring it before the review conference of the Helsinki Final Act in Belgrade this summer.
The MINISTER of STATE, FOREIGN and COMMONWEALTH OFFICE (Lord Goronwy-Roberts): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government take a close and continuing interest in all aspects of the fulfilment of the provisions of the CSCE Final Act, both by the Soviet Union and by all other signatories of the Act. The work of individual citizens of the countries concerned makes an important contribution to this assessment. It is a normal and legitimate activity of Her Majesty's embassies to keep in touch with opinion in the countries to which they are accredited. Her Majesty's Embassy fulfils this function in Moscow as in other capitals.
Lord BETHELL: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that fairly reassuring reply. Is he aware that certain of the individuals in question have tried to meet members of our Embassy in Moscow in order to hand
496
over the results of their monitoring, and that they have not always met with a welcome reception at the Embassy? Will he give instructions so that those individuals who have a contribution to make to the monitoring of this agreement are received properly and courteously by the Embassy in Moscow and allowed to hand over the results of their work?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I should be surprised to be in a position to confirm that our Embassy in Moscow, or anywhere else, has not been properly courteous and co-operative in a legitimate way with people of the description which the noble Lord mentioned. I refer him once more to the fairly full and precise substantive Answer I gave to his Question. However, I take note of what he said although, I repeat, I should be very surprised if what he has heard to be the case is, in fact, borne out by the facts.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, in view of the barbaric treatment that is being meted out to those who have applied to leave the USSR, which has undoubtedly been communicated to my noble friend by the Embassy if not by other sources, is it not time that something definite was done to convince the USSR that people throughout the world will not stand for this kind of barbaric action on their part?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I repeat the assurance that I have given on a number of occasions to my noble friend that Her Majesty's Government, and in particular the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, lose no opportunity of making absolutely clear to other Governments their view of this kind of repression. We shall continue to follow that policy consistently and strongly.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is the Minister aware that when some of us have tried to telephone Academician Zakhorov to discuss the implementation of the Helsinki Agreements we were unable to get through on the telephone and that when complaints have been made to the chairman of the Post Office he has said that the Helsinki Agreements are a matter for Governments and not the Post Office? Therefore, what will the

497
Minister do to ensure freedom of communication between the citizens of this country and those in the Soviet Union who are concerned with the implementation of the Helsinki Agreements? Will he raise this matter at the Belgrade review meeting in the summer?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, I think that in the latter part of his contribution the noble Lord has answered his own Question, We are now actively engaged with our friends and partners, and indeed with other countries, in discussing the preparatory moves towards the Belgrade meeting—that is to say, the preparatory committee work that will be necessary in June in order to make the plenary conference in September a really worthwhile operation. The kind of case and circumstances that the noble Lord has mentioned will clearly come up for assessment and evaluation at the actual conference. He can be absolutely assured that we shall not in any way avoid raising such cases. Indeed, we are collating performance by all countries so that we can substantially and reasonably put forward our own assessment of progress at the September review meeting.
Baroness ELLES: My Lords, can the Minister say whether non-Governmental organisations will have some chance of being observers and taking part in the September conference? As the Minister will well know, human rights are the protection of the individual against Governments, and therefore it will surely be in the interests of both Governments and monitoring organisations at least to be able to make statements at the September conference.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, that is certainly a matter for consideration. As the noble Baroness knows, for some years now in both United Nations and other international connections the position of non-Governmental organisations has been subject to consideration and indeed implementation. It may be possible to arrange for an observing presence by certain organisations. I could not commit either my Government, or indeed any other Government, at this stage, but it is a valid point. I can give the assurance that it is being considered with other matters and will
498
continue to be considered. The best way in which to move forward will be a matter of consensus.

NAMIBIA: INTERIM GOVERNMENT
2.43 p.m.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have taken part in the warning given by other members of the European Community to the Govern-of the Republic of South Africa against the intention to set up an interim Government in Namibia (South West Africa).
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, the decision to make a démarche to the South African Government was taken jointly by all members of the Nine. Accordingly the British Ambassador in Cape Town, acting on behalf of the Nine, delivered it on 7th February. The Nine decided to make a démarche in the light of reports that an interim Government may soon be introduced in Namibia.
Lord BROCK WAY: My Lords, while welcoming that reply, may I ask the Minister whether it is not clear that this proposal for a sham independent Government in Namibia is an unholy alliance between the South African Government, salaried chiefs and multinational companies seeking to exploit the minerals there? Will Her Majesty's Government continue to oppose this proposal?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: My Lords, although I could not adopt my noble friend's interpretation of the situation in Namibia, he comes quite close to it. I would rest on the view of the Nine—which I am quite sure is shared outside the Nine—that in any case there are definite requirements, which emanate from decisions of the United Nations, to be observed before there could be international agreement to an emerging self-governing Assembly in Namibia. Those requirements are that there should be a single electoral process conducted over the whole territory under international supervision and that all political Parties,

499
including SWAPO, should be allowed to take full and free part in this process.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON:My Lords, would the Minister tell us whether our Ambassador was told, in diplomatic language of course, to mind his own business.
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: No, my Lords; in fact, while it is not for me to impart the content of diplomatic exchanges, I shall depart slightly from that rule to say that there is no foundation for what my noble friend has suggested.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, are there not other unholy alliances—for example, in Angola—which cast some doubts on the genuine independence of other territories in Southern Africa?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: In-dubitably, yes, my Lords. I regret to say this on a Holy Day; namely, St. David's Day.
Lord BRUCE of DONINGTON: My Lords, will my noble friend give an undertaking that he will pay particular attention to the remarks made by my noble friend Lord Brockway in the course of his supplementary question about the activities of multinational companies in that area? Is he aware that evidence is increasing of intense pressure from those companies?
Lord GORONWY-ROBERTS: Yes, my Lords; it is not only multinational companies but multinational alliances which may create difficulties not only in Namibia but for this country and other countries. The aim must surely be to arrange peacefully, and as democratically as possible, for the emergence of an independent successor State in Namibia which will deal with these matters in a fair and rational way. I would suggest that British interests are at least as worthy of consideration in this context as the interests of any other country.

SOCIAL SECURITY LEGISLATION AND PROCEDURES
2.47 p.m.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I
500
beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have seriously considered simplifying social benefit and allied legislation as a means of helping those whom it is intended to benefit and of decreasing the excessive Civil Service manpower now required to implement it.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are constantly aware of the need to ensure that social security legislation and procedures are as simple as possible, and all such procedures are kept under continuous review. The review of the supplementary benefits scheme which is currently being carried out has simplification as one of its main aims.
Viscount HANWORTH: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Would he agree that some of the important benefits most needed by poor people are taken up only to an extent of perhaps 30 per cent.? Does he remember the recent debate on one-parent families and what was said then about benefits? Does he remember further, a long time ago, the heartrending cases quoted by the noble Baroness, Lady Wootton of Abinger, showing how the benefit system was not operating successfully?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, we are very much aware of this, and it causes us some anxiety. We have no difficulty in diagnosing the various difficulties, but the cure is a different matter. The noble Lord will recall that the Supplementary Benefits Commission published its first report—a separate report from my Department—in September 1976, and drew attention to a number of matters that needed immediate consideration. As a result of that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State set up a review body, and that review body is reviewing these matters and those mentioned by the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth. We hope that in the not too distant future, although I cannot put a date on it, the review body will publish a Consultative Document not only setting out the difficulties which we know exist but, we hope, suggestions on how they can be dealt with.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord consider in the meanwhile drawing together the evidence which exists from a number of sources on the efficacy of combined assessment? This is the procedure whereby a person who applies for any one benefit is tested automatically for a number of others, and the appropriate benefit is conferred on him without him having to make an additional demand. Is the noble Lord aware that I have asked certain questions of the noble Lord, Lord Peart, and we have been in correspondence about this? It is a complex matter and it would be helpful if the Government could, in some way, make arrangements to lay the evidence in their possession before both Houses so that it could be properly evaluated.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I will certainly undertake to see that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is aware of what has been said by the noble Lord this afternoon.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that the officers who are responsible for the administration of the social services are operating from what is more or less an office of trust? Does he agree that those who are appointed to such offices, in which they are responsible for administering the social security and other arrangements, should to the best of their ability try to meet the needs and requirements of the applicants who come to them for assistance?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: I am grateful to my noble friend for making that contribution, my Lords. What he says is perfectly true; but as the noble Viscount, Lord Hanworth, pointed out, we are concerned for the large number of people who do not take up benefits but who are entitled to them and who we know are in need of them. This is a matter to which we want to give consideration.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, would not the best simplification be for the Government to look again at a tax credits scheme which would cover benefits and taxes?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: We have looked at that, my Lords, even though
502
we have not pronounced on it. However, I will certainly convey the noble Lord's view to my right honourable friend.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, while the Government are considering a possible simplification of social benefits, may I ask whether they would be prepared at the same time to consider the possible simplification of the rules of income tax, to such an extent that the ordinary Peer in the street can understand them?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in my present position, being in my present Department, I would never be called on to answer questions of that kind. This, as I understand it, raises a matter for another Department, but again I will see that it gets there.

BILL OF RIGHTS (NORTHERN IRELAND) BILL [H.L.]
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, I beg to introduce a Bill to establish fundamental rights of subjects in Northern Ireland. I beg to move that this Bill be now read a first time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 1a.—(Lord Brockway.)
On Question, Bill read 1a, and to be printed.

PROCEDURE OF THE HOUSE
2.53 p.m.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare)The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare) rose to move that the First Report by the Select Committee be agreed to.
The Committee's Report was as follows:
1. QUESTIONS ON MATTERS WITHIN THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CHURCH COMMISSIONERS
The Committee have considered in what circumstances, if any, it would be proper for questions on Church of England matters to be tabled in the House of Lords. The Committee were informed that this was a matter that had been considered on a number of occasions in the past but that no decision had been taken by the House either on the question of principle or on the appropriate procedure. The Committee recommend that questions on Church matters should not be admissible. In making this recommendation the Committee wish to make clear that it is not due to any pressure from the Church of

503
England, but rather to the procedural difficulties which might arise in connection with the tabling and answering of such questions.
2. APPLICATION OF THE ROTATION RULE TO MEMBERSHIP OF CERTAIN SELECT COMMITTEES
The Committee have reconsidered the exemption from the rules for retirement by rotation of members of the Hybrid Instruments Committee, the Joint Committee on Statutory Instruments and the European Communities Committee.
They recommend that the Hybrid Instruments Committee and the Statutory Instruments Committee should continue to be exempted from the operation of the rotation rule.
As far as the European Communities Committee is concerned the Committee recommend that, with effect from the beginning of the next Session:

(a) Members of the Select Committee should retire after three years, but be eligible for co-option to any of the Sub-Committees. These Lords would be eligible for re-appointment to the Select Committee after one year;

(b) Chairmen of Sub-Committees should be exempted from the rotation rule for three years after assuming the Chairmanship.

3. PROCEDURE FOR WITHDRAWING PUBLIC BILLS
The Committee have considered the procedure for withdrawing Public Bills. At present the Lord in charge of a Lords' Public Bill may seek to withdraw it at any time before it is passed by the House by asking the leave of the House to do so. This step is necessary even in those cases where the House has already given leave for the withdrawal of a Motion to advance a Bill by a stage—usually the Motion for Second Reading. However, a Lord sometimes forgets that he must withdraw both the Motion to advance his Bill by a stage and the Bill itself. In such a case, the Clerks have no authority to remove the Bill from the table of Bills in Progress in the Order Paper. This in turn may give the misleading impression that the Bill is to be further proceeded with.
The Committee, therefore, recommend that if a Lord wishes to withdraw his Bill, he should have the option of indicating his wish to the Clerks, who would be empowered to make a Minute Entry recording the withdrawal of the Bill.
4. STANDING ORDER 37(5)
The Committee have considered the terms of Standing Order 37(5). These provide that the order of notices relating to Public Bills, Measures and Affirmative Instruments may be varied on any day, if the convenience of the House so requires. It does not provide that the order of notices relating to Motions may be similarly varied. This has given rise to difficulty when two Lords have wished to reverse the order of their Motions and has required a Business of the House Motion to achieve such a change.
The Committee, while recognising certain advantages in greater flexibility in the arrangement of the Order Paper, believe that the present terms of the Standing Order safeguard in particular the interests of backbench members of the House, and, therefore, recommend no change in the Standing Order.
5. BRIEF GUIDE TO THE PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE OF THE HOUSE OF LORDS
The Committee were informed of the publication during the last Session of the Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House of Lords.
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move that the First Report by the Select Committee be agreed to. It might be helpful if I were to make a few brief remarks about the Report of the Procedure Committee. First of all, to avoid all doubt, on Section 3 I should make it quite clear that the second paragraph must be read in conjunction with the first so that the option for a Peer to withdraw his Bill merely by informing the Clerks is available only when he has already withdrawn the Motion for the Second Reading or whatever the stage of the Bill may be. More important, I would draw the attention of your Lordships to Section 5 and the new little red book entitled A Brief Guide to the Procedure and Practice of the House. It is a small but highly readable document full of valuable advice. It is given to all new Peers now when they take their seats, but I would hope that many of your Lordships will find it interesting, and it is available in the Printed Paper Office.
Moved, That the First Report by the Select Committee be agreed to.—(Lord Aberdare.)
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, the first section does not appear to be very clear. In that section the Committee recommend that Questions on Church of England matters should not be tabled. Are there no circumstances in which one can ask a Question of Her Majesty's Government about the Church of England?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I imagine that with the usual flexibility for which this House is well known, the Government might find ways of answering Questions addressed to them about the Church Commissioners, just as they do about the Post Office.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, may I on this auspicious day congratulate the Chairman of Committees on the beautiful flower in his buttonhole which is designed to celebrate the Feast of St. David?
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble and learned Lord, and I wish to express my gratitude to Miss Wilson.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS
Lord ABERDARE: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, on behalf of the Committee of Selection, That the Earl Cathcart be appointed a member of the Joint Committee in the place of the Duke of Atholl.—(Lord Aberdare.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

PASSENGER VEHICLES (EXPERIMENTAL AREAS) BILL [H.L.]
2.56 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Stedman.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The LORD ABERDARE in the Chair.]
Clause 1 [Public service vehicle licensing: designation of experimental areas]:
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 11, at end insert—
("(2A) After a period of 12 months from the first designation of an area under subsection (2) above, the area of a local authority may be designated by resolution of the local authority.").
The noble Earl said: With the permission of the Committee, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5, which are consequential. We hope by this series of Amendments to improve the Bill. They are in no way wrecking Amendments. We feel that if neighbouring local authorities, other than the original four which have designated areas, see after 12 months that satisfactory
506
progress has been made with the original four, they too should be entitled to apply to the Secretary of State to do the same in their areas by their own resolutions. This, we feel, would be the right line to take because we should be giving to those local authorities—who, let us face it, must know the conditions better than Whitehall do—the opportunity to do what they think is best for their own ratepayers. This is in accordance with Section 203(1) of the Local Government Act 1972, which says:
"Within each non-metropolitan county, it shall be the duty—

(a) of the county council, acting in consultation with persons providing bus services within the county and, so far as appropriate, with the Railways Board, to develop policies which will promote the provision of a co-ordinated and efficient system of public passenger transport to meet the needs of the county and, for that purpose, to take such steps to promote the co-ordination, amalgamation and re-organisation of road passenger transport undertakings in the county as appear to the county council to be desirable;

(b) of each of the district councils in the county who are carrying on a road passenger transport undertaking to operate that undertaking in accordance with the policies developed by the county council as mentioned in paragraph (a) above…".

Under the present system it is not, in practical terms, the duty of the local authority to do that; central Government still retain the power. I say again, therefore, that this is not a wrecking Amendment but one that seeks merely to bring into effect that which was intended by the 1972 Act.
On Second Reading of this Bill, on 15th February, the noble Lord, Lord de Clifford, said:
"…those areas which are not included in North Yorkshire, Devon, South Ayrshire and Dyfed will for the next two years be rather like Bisto kids wandering down the road on bare feet smelling the beautiful things that are happening next door to them."—[Official Report, 15/2/77; col. 1527.]
I must say that we agree with the noble Lord and think that, unless the Amendment can be agreed to, a ludicrous situation could arise in which one county council wanted to be an experimental area and could not because it had not got permission and another which, for its own local reasons, did not want to, had to because Whitehall had decided that it should be. So, if we are dealing with local transport, we feel that it should be a local decision.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: I should like first to congratulate the noble Earl on the ingenuity with which he has drafted the Amendment and his subsequent Amendments, most of which, as I think he will agree, depend on and follow from the first one. When I first read the Bill, it struck me, as I said on Second Reading, as a rather miserable little sprat of a measure which any fisherman would throw back into the water, not with any great hopes of its growing into anything worth while but simply because his self-respect would not allow him to keep it. Clearly, I did not reckon with the noble Earl. His Amendment is such a feat of Parliamentary drafting as almost to amount to prestidigitation. I should not have believed that it was possible to drive a coach and horses of this kind through a sprat, but that is what the noble Earl is trying to do with these Amendments.
I believe that we must consider whether the Bill is in fact suitable material for us to work on. We have to ask ourselves whether it is not such a poor thing to start off with that it would be more desirable to start from scratch, as it were, rather than to graft on to such an unworthy stock. I do not wish to hold the noble Baroness, Lady Stedman, herself responsible for this. Indeed, she has given the impression that she personally was very much more flexible than some of her right honourable friends in another place and much more willing to listen to representations on the problems of rural transport. In particular, I welcomed her assurance that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State would be willing to consider further experimental areas if he received a request from county councils to do so.
But, for all the noble Baroness's personal flexibility, all the evidence suggests that this Government have shamefully neglected their responsibilities as regards rural transport. This is the more deplorable, as I said before, in that, when they came into office in February 1974, a measure was ready as part of the Road Traffic Act 1973 and had completed several of its stages during the previous Parliament. Despite what has been said about it, this would have done a great deal to relieve the transport problems of country areas by exempting mini-buses and similar vehicles from the public service licensing regulations.
508
The Government not only dropped the relevant clauses from that Act but they subsequently totally failed to bring forward any alternative measure to deal with rural transport problems. There are many persons and bodies in rural areas who would be more than willing to provide a transport service—the garage owner with a mini-bus, the voluntary organisations, the WRVS and many others. In other words, there are in the country willing buyers of transport and willing sellers. All that is preventing them from coming together is the licensing system and this Government's shameful and rather cynical neglect. This is even more deplorable, in that whereas, with most transport problems, we are talking in terms of hundreds of millions of pounds and huge commitments of public expenditure, here, as regards rural transport, it is merely a matter of allowing the effective use of existing resources.
I know that the noble Earl shares my views on this matter and I should like to express my wholehearted support for his efforts to broaden the Bill. However, I should like to ask him to withdraw his Amendment so that we can consider this matter more fully on Report. There are two main reasons for this: first, I think that it would only be reasonable to invite representations from the county councils which would be given increased powers under the noble Earl's Amendments and perhaps to consider with them what further changes they might like to see in these proposals.
Secondly, I should like to consider with the noble Earl whether we should go even further down the road which he has charted for us and seek to extend the provisions of the Bill to other classes of vehicle. This would amount to the revival of our proposals in the 1973 Act. I should therefore like to ask the noble Earl whether he will reculer pour mieux sauter. I hope that this does not strike him as over-cautious, but I am sure that he will agree that, having given clear notice of his intentions, thus concentrating the minds of all those involved, he should delay pressing home his attack until they have had a chance to respond.
Lord TEVIOT: I should like to take a moderate view of the Amendment and to speak to the Amendment itself. I take it that the Amendment is to take the

509
responsibilities away from the Secretary of State and place them with the local authorities. That is absolutely fine, but I believe that there is one point that the noble Earl has missed although he showed his intention; he omitted the point that one route might cover more than one county council and that the county councils involved might have conflicting views or different needs. Although I am against bureacracy and red tape, I really think that the Secretary of State wants to cast a benevolent eye on the situation and assess the needs over all because, basically, one wants to see the Bill succeed. One wants to curb rural depopulation and to see those who are less fortunate and who do not have public transport services now to have them or to retain those that they have. But one wants a proper system devised after consultation. One does not want to see the wretched person waiting at the end of a lane expecting a scheduled service to come to pick him up. I know that in recent times certain bus companies with staff shortages have left people waiting and this seems to me to be a most deplorable state of affairs. Of late, the situation has been better, but there is a great need for improvement. This Bill must need improvement, but I am afraid that I cannot support the noble Earl's Amendment in this case.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, for accepting that I am sympathetic to the problems of rural transport and, indeed, I would go further and say so are some of my colleagues in another place who are also concerned with this Bill. We are concerned with the effect of rural depopulation and the effects of transport upon it.
This Amendment seems to be intended to provide that 12 months from the Secretary of State's first designation of an experimental area, the county council (which is the meaning of "local authority" in terms of the Bill) within whose area the experimental area is situated, may designate by resolution the remainder of the county as an experimental area. However, as drafted, the Amendment is ambiguous, and it could mean that, 12 months from the Secretary of State's first designation of an experimental area, any county council could designate by resolution the whole
510
of its territory as an experimental area. Whichever meaning was intended, however, the Amendment is unacceptable to the Government. It is almost certainly outside the Long Title of the Bill.
I thought that I had emphasised in the Second Reading debate on 15th February that the Bill was not to be regarded as a blueprint for general changes to the licensing system. It is, rather, a logical follow-through from the Minister for Transport's Statement on 3rd December 1975 that there was no general agreement on what measures might be most useful in improving rural transport, or, in particular, what changes, if any, were needed in the present public service vehicle licensing system. The Bill's purpose is to allow the value and effects of certain modifications to this system to be monitored and assessed under carefully controlled conditions in selected areas. In this way, hard evidence can be assembled which will assist in a general review of the licensing system.
The Amendment is incompatible with this limited, essentially exploratory, purpose of the Bill. It would apply the experimental modifications to the licensing system over a wide area, before there had been time for any comprehensive assessment to be made of their value, or of any possible effects on existing public transport.
As I said in the Second Reading debate, we are not trying to override the powers and the duties of local authorities, and anything that we do will be carried out in the fullest consultation with them. We will also, of course, be open to suggestions for additional experimental areas which will be aimed at the purposes I have just outlined. But I think that we shall learn far more from careful testing of selected schemes within a relatively limited area, than from dissipating our resources by trying to monitor schemes throughout the whole of a county. It is, of course, open to any local authority to set up transport experiments of its own within the present licensing law.
So acceptance of the Amendment would change the whole nature of the Bill and I would hope that on reflection the noble Earl might consider withdrawing it. As I have said, we would consider further experimental areas for the purpose of the Bill. I should like to remind your Lordships that all the counties that are to take

511
part in the experiment are volunteers; we are not dragooning anyone into them. The noble Earl referred to the fact that he was also speaking to Amendments Nos. 2, 3 and 5. These are consequential upon what happens to Amendment No. 1, which I hope the Committee will reject, or the noble Earl will withdraw.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: I thank the noble Baroness for her answers and comments. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that a little more time should be given so that representatives of county councils should be consulted, and also with a view to the point that the scheme could be extended to other vehicles, as the noble Lord said. I feel that there is some more homework to do on the Bill. As the noble Baroness said at Second Reading, it is not a blueprint and possibly more experimental areas could be included in the future. So I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.12 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 1, line 15, leave out ("not exceeding two") and insert ("continuing for a minimum of five").
The noble Earl said: With the permission of the Committee I should like to take Amendment No. 6 with Amendment No. 4, as it is consequential upon it. I mentioned this matter to the noble Baroness before we came into the Chamber. The Amendment seeks to extend the experimental period from two to five years, and if, after five years, it has been found to be working, that, if possible, it should be for the local authority, and not Whitehall, to say whether it is good or bad. Our reasons for suggesting this course are that one does not really want any experiments. However, while accepting the fact that the Government have set their minds on an experimental period of time, we believe that the period should be sufficiently long to give the project a chance of being a success. We do not believe that two years is long enough a period to see what is to happen, in particular to see whether the full benefit of relaxing certain traffic regulations is achieved. As I said on Second Reading,
512
no sensible businessman would consider risking possible capital and time for purely philanthropical reasons. We do not think that the degree of longevity of two years for the experiment is sufficient, because experiments have an unhappy habit of meeting with teething troubles. If by chance in one area the experiment was not going well, the unfortunate operator of the experiment may find himself stuck up a by-road with a flat tyre.
We envisage the operator probably being somebody in a sparsely populated area, operating the service for the scattered inhabitants. As I have already said, the service is not going to be operated out of love for one's fellow men. One hopes that it is to be carried out in order to run a profitable business. But at the same time in such circumstances the new transport system is to become an integral part of the life of the area, and in this country people take a long time to change their minds. If they have the opportunity of travelling in a mini bus instead of in their car quite a long time may pass before they decide to take that opportunity.
As I have said, capital and brains and time are not going to be wasted if, at the stroke of a pen at the end of two years, the whole idea may be obliterated. We think that the experiment will work and that it will be seen to work after a five-year period rather than after two years. We also believe firmly that after five years it should be up to the local authority to extend the time indefinitely, for the same reasons that I gave in relation to Amendment No. 1, and, first, to democratise transport decision-making away from nominated men to elected representatives. If the decision is taken by elected councillors and it is wrong, then they can be lobbied and can be voted against, and they alone can be held responsible for their decision. This decision would then not be irrevocable, whereas if it came centrally it may well be.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON:We on these benches find ourselves in a slight quandary in relation to this Amendment moved by the noble Earl. I regard this as an experimental Bill for an experimental time, as did the noble Baroness in introducing the Bill. In her Second Reading speech she said that she hoped that the provisions of the Bill could be applied on the ground by late summer of

513
this year and that the interim conclusions could be drawn by this time next year. That is all to the good.
If by that time conclusions are beginning to be drawn, then by the end of a second year (which is what the Bill envisages) one would hope that the Government would be able to consider widening the field for a larger measure of statutory provision—another Bill, dealing with a wider field. I am not against anything that the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, is trying to say here. We are all after the same purpose: a widening of provision in certain areas for more people. But there is the question of whether the noble Earl is going about this the right way. We are slightly at a loose end in this Committee stage with going back to consult between now and the Report stage as to whether we are going to try to enlarge the Bill and make it a more permanent measure, or whether it is to be, as the Government originally envisaged, a temporary measure, as a mere stop-gap before a more important measure to deal with problems that come along. For that reason, although I go along with most of what the noble Earl said, I personally should not like people to think that this Bill would continue being experimental for five years. To that extent I am not over-keen on the Amendment moved by the noble Earl.
Lord TRANMIRE: Coming from an area that will be affected by the Bill, I should like to ask the noble Baroness to consider whether one should not extend the period; I do not mean for quite so long as the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, wants, but for rather longer than a minimum of two years. After all, North Yorkshire is the largest county in England, and it takes time for Government Acts and regulations to be understood throughout the whole of that county, particularly in the hill areas. For myself, I should have thought that a period "not exceeding two years" was too short for this experiment.
I appreciate the point made by my noble friend Lord Mowbray in saying that this must be an experiment and that, as an experiment, it cannot be too long, but one has also to think of those who are going to operate the experiment. The small garage owners in the moorland
514
areas must have some assurance that if they try to operate this experiment there will not be a sudden switch so that they will suffer a large financial loss as a result of it. For myself, I should have thought there was a good case for saying "not exceeding five years", if you like, but I would not quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that it should be "a minimum of five years". After all, if the county council find the period of the authorisation too long, they have their own remedy because it is clearly laid down that they can revoke the authorisation themselves at any time which is convenient to them. I hope that before the Report stage the noble Baroness will have another look at this to see whether we cannot get some reasonable compromise upon this matter.
Baroness STEDMAN: At Second Reading I was berated by noble Lords opposite—by the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, that we were not allowing long enough, and by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that we had been a long time coming to it and were now being too long about it. It seems to me that we cannot satisfy everybody, but we have tried to do our best. So far as the noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, is concerned, the Bill in fact allows for the two years initially and for an extension of two years afterwards, so in a sense we have the compromise for which he has asked already written into the Bill.
We think that an initial minimum period of five years would be too long. We hope that the results of most of the experiments will be assessed within the two years; and, as I have said, there is provision for an extension in an area like North Yorkshire if we are not quite satisfied that we have the right answer. Perhaps, in the light of the remarks of the noble Earl, Lord Kimberley, in the Second Reading debate about the minimum period an entrepreneur would look for, I should emphasise again the modifications to licensing contained in the Bill. The vehicles involved in this Bill are private cars and mini-buses seating up to 12 passengers and commercial vehicles, such as hire cars, seating up to five passengers. In Clause 2(10) the Bill defines a private vehicle as one—
"not used for carrying passengers for hire or reward in the course of a passenger transport business".

515
The kind of experiments which we are envisaging would be, for example, social car schemes within the catchment area of a hospital, where the passengers contribute to the costs, or outings for blind or handicapped people. The only commercial vehicles coming within the scope of this Bill would be taxis and hire cars which could be used more flexibly under its provisions than is possible under the present law. These vehicles would usually already operate in an experimental area before it was even designated. The experiments involving modification of licensing would not, therefore, need capital outlay from entrepreneurs before they could get off the ground. In these circumstances, the timescale envisaged in the Amendment is, we think, much too long. We want to aim to reach a decision much before that, and I think the provision of an initial experimental period of two years which can be extended if necessary accords far better with the flavour of the sort of operation we are conducting than the Amendment, which I hope the noble Earl, on reflection, might consider withdrawing.
So far as the other, consequential Amendment, No. 6, is concerned, perhaps I may speak to that at the same time. The effect of this Amendment would be to remove the power of the Secretary of State to extend or further extend by order the period of the original designation by up to two years at a time. In its place, a local authority, after a period of live years from the passing of the Act, may extend by resolution a designation made either by order of the Secretary of State or by resolution of the local authority. We think that conferring on local authorities the power to extend by resolution the life of experimental areas indefinitely conflicts fundamentally with the whole purpose of this Bill; and, taken with other, related Amendments, it would effectively remove the Secretary of State's control over the experiments. I must stress yet again that the purpose of the experiments is to provide detailed evidence of the value and effect of the licensing modifications contained in this Bill, which can be used in considering whether there should be general changes in the licensing law; and, if I may say so once again, this Bill is not a blueprint for any such changes.
We also think that Amendment No. 6 would furthermore give to county councils
516
the power to operate a modified version of the public service vehicle licensing law, and this would clearly cause quite considerable confusion and uncertainty. I accept that the noble Earl is worried about this part of it, but I think there will be no problems with it when this Bill is on the Statute Book.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I wonder if there is not some difficulty about the original two-year period in which to try out the experiment, simply because if, as I understand the Bill, no further order is made then the experiment will lapse at the end of the two years. That means that the period of the experiment so far as its assessment is concerned must be less than two years. I wonder whether the noble Baroness could tell us how she envisages the assessments being made, because quite obviously the extension order must be made, as the Bill is drafted, before the first two-year period elapses. This seems to me to be rather tight, and I wonder whether the noble Baroness could look at this. It means that an experiment may be running for 18 months; there is then an assessment; it takes time; the order lapses, and there is no power to renew it.
Baroness STEDMAN: We are working through Working Parties in the four designated experimental areas at this point of time, in consultation with local authorities, with all the people who are operating public transport, and so on, in the areas; and, as I said during the Second Reading debate, we are hoping to come to some interim conclusions within a year of starting the experiment. I am sure that if, at the end of that year, there is no clear picture emerging, then advice from the Working Party would be taken as to whether my Secretary of State ought to be considering extending the period. I am sure it is not proposed that we should wait right until the end of the two years; and the fact that we are hoping to have some sort of interim report from these areas within a year, I should have thought safeguarded that. But I will certainly take it back and ask my Secretary of State to have a look at it.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: I am very grateful once again to the noble Baroness for her thoughts on these two Amendments. I do not particularly like what the

517
noble Lord, Lord Tranmire, said about five years perhaps being the maximum as opposed to two years being the minimum, and then the noble Baroness said that the period can always be extended for two years. Personally, I should be very happy if some form of compromise could be reached. It may be that the experimental period should be three years. As the noble Baroness has said that she will discuss this question further with the Secretary of State, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.29 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 2, line 10, at end insert—
("(5A) Before extending a period in accordance with subsection (4A) above, a local authority shall consult with such organisations as appear to be appropriate as representing persons providing or employed in the provision of public passenger transport services in the area.").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is a very short one, and I feel that most noble Lords will probably agree with it. It is merely to guarantee that a local authority will consult with all interested parties before coming to a decision, if it was allowed to, to extend the experimental period indefinitely, and that this consultation will be of the same order as that which the central Government go through when creating an experimental area in the first place. I beg to move.
Baroness STEDMANN: I think that the same points arise on Amendment No. 7 as on Amendment No. 6. For the same reasons, therefore, I am afraid it is unacceptable to the Government.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Clause 2 [Powers of local authorities in relation to experimental areas]:
3.30 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY The Earl of KIMBERLEY moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 3, line 6, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Earl said: In moving this Amendment, may I, at the same time, speak to Amendments Nos. 13, 14, 15, 17, 19 and 20 which are consequential? These Amendments are aimed at removing some of the powers of the Secretary of State to intervene in the decision-making of local authorities. The reasons have been spelt out and gone into previously. In view of the fact that I have not moved some of the previous Amendments, I may say that the only reason I move this one is that we still feel very strongly on these Benches that local knowledge should be in a position of authority on such matters as local routes and frequencies. We are worried that Whitehall may, for want of a better word, dictate, and cancel decisions which county halls and town halls, because they know what they are talking about, have made. The idea of these Amendments is simply to help guarantee a rational and serviceable transport system in the rural areas and perhaps in some way to help to curb or lessen this unfortunate bureaucratic desire of central Government to have their finger in every pie. We feel strongly that more power should be given to local authorities over matters like this; that the power of Whitehall is too great; and that it would be to everybody's benefit if it were slightly reduced.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOPURTON: I think this Amendment comes into somewhat the same category as the earlier ones which the noble Earl withdrew on the understanding that we should need further conversations with the local authorities concerned before proceeding further. I should like to have the certainty in my heart that they wanted this. After all, if everything is shoved back on to the local authorities, the responsibility for finance, too, may fall on their shoulders—and this they might not want. The Secretary of State is a useful whipping boy in that respect and he is also a person who is better positioned, speaking from the Government angle, to co-ordinate and view the whole spectrum which, I think, must be desirable. Although I agree that the local authorities know what is best for them, I still think there should be some form of general umbrella cover over the whole spectrum. I would hope that the noble Earl would withdraw this Amendment on the same grounds as the earlier ones pending a further discussion with the local authorities.
Baroness STEDMAN: May I reiterate what I said earlier? The local authorities who are concerned in these experiments are volunteers; they are not dragooned into doing it. They will be consulted and will give approval before anything takes effect in their areas.
So far as Amendment No. 9 is concerned, this subsection of the Bill is intended to ensure that experiments in designated areas involving the grant of authorisations are carried out under strictly controlled conditions so that any necessary safeguards can be built in and the most effective use made of the powers and resources available. We are going to try out different forms of experiment in different areas. This will assist in achieving the objective of collecting and assessing the maximum amount of evidence possible on the effect of the revised arrangements that we might want to make under the Bill. To remove these powers would defeat one of the fundamental objects of the Bill. I must stress again that the Bill is concerned with experiments only and is not a blueprint for general changes in the licensing laws.
Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 delete Paragraphs 6(1)(b) and 6(2) of the Schedule which provide that the local authority must vary any conditions attached to a special authorisation if so directed by the Secretary of State; and that the local authority must have the approval of the Secretary of State for all variations of conditions attached to special authorisations which they themselves wish to make. These provisions are intended to ensure that experimental arrangements are, as the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has said, properly controlled and monitored Without them the experiments would be less useful and it would be harder to obtain exactly the right permutation of conditions on authorisations.
On Amendments Nos. 13 and 14, the noble Earl said in the Second Reading debate that:
"Surely, once a decision has been taken on where the experimental area is to be located, the town hall must be allowed to deal with its own bus routes and local transport problems without Whitehall constantly looking over its shoulder".—[Official Report, 15/2/77; col. 1526.]
However, experiments under the Bill are intended to provide evidence that will assist in considering whether general changes should be made in the licensing
520
system. This is essentially the field for central Government and not local government. An experiment in one area may need to be handled differently from that in another to provide complementary of confirmatory information. Everything will be done in the fullest co-operation with the local authorities. Indeed, as I have said in reply to an earlier question, the programme of rural experiments is being run under the control of local working groups representing both tiers of local government together with both sides of the industry and a variety of voluntary bodies. But the experiments must take place on a controlled basis if they are to serve their purpose properly.
On Amendments Nos. 15 and 16, again these would negate the Secretary of State's control over the experiments. Abuse of authorisations, for instance, while not appearing to do much harm in local terms, could seriously falsify the conclusions which we could draw from a particular experiment.
Amendments Nos. 17, 19 and 20, are consequential on earlier ones moved by the noble Earl seeking to remove the powers of the Secretary of State to revoke authorisations. I am afraid that I am in danger of losing what appears to be my reputation for flexibility but if the noble Earl does not withdraw the Amendments I must urge the Committee to reject them.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: Once again I thank the noble Baroness for putting all her facts so lucidly and, if I may say so, very helpfully. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that we have time between now and the next stage for consultation with the local authorities. In view of the fact that it is an experimental scheme and not a permanent scheme and, as I should like to reiterate, in view of the helpful and sound statements made by the noble Baroness, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.40 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 10.
Page 4, line 14, at end insert—
("(11) Notwithstanding the provisions of subsection (9) of this section it shall be lawful for the authorities so empowered by section 138

521
of the Transport Act 1968, to make arrangements as therein provided for the granting of travel concessions with persons operating vehicles under the provisions of an authorisation granted under this section.").
The noble Lord said: The reason why my noble friend and I put down this Amendment is simply to ensure that these experimental transport services should, wherever possible, be treated on all fours with ordinary public transport. Therefore, if there are to be concessionary fares for the one, then there ought to be the same for the other. If this is not the case, it will, it seems to me, diminish the whole value of the experiment. The elderly are, perhaps, the largest single category who might be expected to use these transport services; and a transport service substantially designed for the elderly which does not make provision for the extension of a concessionary fare system available to the same elderly people on other services in the same county seems to be a nonsense. I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: I should like very strongly to support what my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton has said. Some noble Lords may feel that what we are discussing at the present time are trifles; but those who live in rural areas know that lack of rural transport is a very serious handicap indeed for those who are not fortunate enough to have cars. Most of these experimental areas are places of great natural beauty. Noble Lords may feel that those who live in them are extremely fortunate. I am not sure whether I have an interest to declare; I do not know whether I live in the part of Devon to be covered by the experimental area. I am not sure whether my noble friend who is in the Chair is fortunate enough to live in another area. Looking at the flower in his buttonhole today, I am sure that he lives in an area of great natural beauty. No doubt when he left his ancestral home he plucked his buttonhole from one of the rural hedges there, as I could have done this morning when I left my home. I want to make the point—it is probably unnecessary—that while these things may seem trifles, they can be important to the people who live in those areas.
It is difficult to feel wild enthusiasm for this Bill. It is something of a mouse of a Bill, after a good many consultations
522
of a rather desultory nature which have preceded it over the past few years. It is a small step in the right direction, and the local authorities which are to be entrusted with the authorisation probably feel that it is worth supporting so far as it goes. Apart from the Greater London Council, it is the county councils in England and Wales which will be the authorising authorities in the experimental areas designated by the Secretary of State.
County councils with large rural areas are desperately keen to bring into being whatever practical and economic means can be found of supplementing the ordinary licensed public services. They feel that while this is a small step in the right direction, there seem to be a few unnecessary restrictions in it. This Amendment and one other which my noble friend is going to bring forward later, suggest that there are two restrictions which could easily be removed, and it would seem a sensible step to do just that.
The object of this Amendment is to enable local authorities, if they so wish and think it would be appropriate to do so, to make the same travel concessions in the case of these supplementary services in the experimental areas as they already have the power to make with the licensed services. As the Bill is drafted, Clause 2(9) would preclude the granting of concessionary fares in the case of experimental area vehicles. In short, this would seem a pity as the need in appropriate cases for travel concessions would appear to be identical, whether in the case of supplementary services or of a licensed service.
If the Amendment is accepted, then it would not be prejudging any case because the decision whether or not to authorise the service, whether or not to grant concessionary powers, would remain under the control of the authorities. I hope that the noble Baroness will think that this is a sensible move in the direction of making workable various means which are at present unorthodox, and therefore it is entirely right that experiments should be carried out. I should have thought that the spirit of the proposal was that experiments should be carried out in an informal way, in order to bring a better service to those who need it so badly in very remote rural areas. I beg to support the Amendment which my noble friend has proposed.
Baroness STEDMAN: I do not come from an area of great natural beauty—at least, it is not classed as one. But I do come from the wide open spaces of the Fens and therefore I have first-hand experience of some of the transport problems of the people near to my home town. As I sought to emphasise on Second Reading, the Bill is concerned with experiments which are intended to provide evidence that can be used in considering whether there should be changes in general licensing law. The Government are sponsoring a series of rural transport experiments and experiments under this Bill will be included in that series. The Government would therefore normally expect themselves to be meeting any costs of this kind during the currency of the experiment.
It could be that a local authority, despite current financial stringency, would think it right to provide travel concessions on authorised journeys on the same footing as on the other services operating in their area. It would be for the local authority to decide whether such concessions should be offered. If they did, it might be possible for the concessions to be provided without this Amendment. That is a point we should like to look at, along with the detailed drafting if this Amendment is indeed necessary.
At the same time, we shall give further consideration to what has been said, and we shall look more widely at the powers of local authorities to continue support for a service under the Bill if they felt that to be necessary after the period of the Government experimental support was over. But at the moment I would rather that it was left as it is on the undertaking that we shall give it further consideration.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: How specific is the noble Baroness being? Is she saying that if she finds that what my noble friend desires with this Amendment can be done without it, then perhaps she could explain that to the Committee, and that will be that. Or is she saying that if she finds that this particular concession is not covered, she will accept the Amendment or something like it? How specific is she being? She seemed to me to be offering something which seemed rather loose.
Baroness STEDMAN: I am sorry if I gave that impression. I was attempting
524
to say that we do not think that this Amendment is necessary. We think that the Bill as it stands enables local authorities to extend their concessionary fares to cover these vehicles as well. If we find that our interpretation is wrong, we shall have to look at it again and come back with some redrafting at a later stage. But we expect that it covers the point raised by the noble Lord.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: It only remains for me to thank my noble friends Lord Amory and Lord Harmar-Nicholls. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls asked the question that I wanted to ask. I understand from the noble Baroness that the intention of the Government is to meet completely the spirit behind this Amendment and that if they find it deficient some form of Government Amendment will be put down at a later stage. I thank the Government very much and beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Short title, interpretation and extent]:
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 11:
Page 4, line 29, at end insert—
("(4) This Act shall cease to have effect at the expiration of a period of three years beginning with the date on which the Act shall come into force").
The noble Lord said: My original purpose in putting down this Amendment on the Marshalled List was to make statutory provision for concentrating the Secretary of State's mind. I wished to ensure that if this Bill reached the Statute Book it would not give the Government an open-ended excuse to continue indefinitely with the same delaying tactics which have, up to now, been employed. Also, this Amendment was by way of a self-denying ordinance. I am sure that all will agree with me when I say that long before the three years we shall have a change of Government, and expiration of the Act would have the effect of concentrating the mind of the next Conservative Government and inducing them to

525
hasten on legislation to put rural transport on a sound, permanent footing. However, in the light of Lord Kimberley's Amendments, I have clearly been too indulgent in the lavish time-scale that I have allowed the Government, in view of the noble Earl's injunction on the Government to concentrate their minds by the time of the Report stage in your Lordships' House. Therefore, at least for the time being, I will not move the Amendment.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Schedule [Authorisations under Section 2]:
3.50 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 6, leave out head (a).
The noble Lord said: There are two reasons for getting rid of this head from the Schedule. The first is, to say the least, that it is infelicitously drafted. If we were tamely to allow this particular example of jargonese to find its way on to the Statute Book, Sir Ernest Gowers will have lived in vain. Indeed, the very fact that such noxious, tortured prose should even be offered for your Lordships' approval suggests that Sir Ernest was less successful than one might have wished in his efforts to promote a clear meaning being expressed in clear language. I would submit that even if this head contained the most desirable imaginable legislative proposal, we should tell the noble Baroness to take it away and bring it back at Report stage, properly drafted.
My objection to this paragraph is not solely stylistic. Its content is well suited to its form: suspicious, mean-minded and curmudgeonly restrictive in crabbed, contorted prose. Given that all these experiments will be rigidly controlled by the county councils and by the Working Group under the Secretary of State, it is surely unnecessary to prevent the feeder services which these words would stifle. The purpose of new development in rural transport is to complement existing public transport. Therefore, co-operation between PSV licence-holders and voluntary groups should be encouraged and not restricted. Such co-operation would (a) improve the finances of local bus companies; (b) greatly further the provision of new transport; and, lastly,
526
enable the voluntary groups to use the maintenance and service facilities of the bus operators. These experiments, as I have said many times, were conceived in the most niggardly spirit and I would suggest that we could at least ensure that they are implemented in a reasonably generous manner. I beg to move.
Viscount AMORY: Again, I should like to support my noble friend Lord Mowbray and Stourton in what he has said. This Amendment refers to feeder services authorised in experimental areas to supplement existing licensed passenger vehicle services or new licensed passenger vehicle services. But I understand that the subsection as drafted would preclude such feeder services from being authorised if they involve vehicles belonging to a licence holder to supplement his own licensed service. I do not know whether that preclusion is because the idea is not liked that the licence holder might make some additional profit from running feeder services for his own services; but I would suggest that if that is the objection it is irrelevant, because what we are really out for is additional supplementary services. Provided the price is economical for those who use the service, it does not seem to me to matter very much whether or not that results in additional profit to somebody. Therefore, as drafted, this subsection would seem to be rather out of line with the spirit and the objects of the Bill.
Any risk that a licence holder might avoid the necessity of licensing a feeder service, which otherwise he might be willing to run as a licensed service, I should have thought would be amply covered by the fact that the control is firmly in the hands of the county councils. They decide, on the advice they are given from their Working Parties, whether, in the light of all the circumstances, to authorise such an additional feeder service. No doubt all applications for such services would be carefully scrutinised. I ventured to look inquiringly at the noble Baroness before we came into the Chamber, asking her, with a twinkle in my eye, whether she was going to be nice to me. She assured me she was going to be very kind but was not going to give me anything. I would only say that I am very susceptible to kindness, but I am still more susceptible, having an acquisitive

527
spirit, to being given something. I hope that this Amendment will seem to the noble Baroness to be fully in accordance with the spirit and intentions of the Bill, and that she will accept the Amendment put forward by my noble friend.
Lord DE CLIFFORD: Before the noble Baroness replies may I join with my noble friends in supporting this Bill. I agree with my noble friend Lord Mowbray that this is a most niggardly part of the Schedule. I was under the impression that at last we had a little light starting over something which ought to have been hatched years ago. It has now been hatched, and what do we find?—the one set of people who could really help if difficulties arose within an area are specifically precluded. I should have thought it was to the advantage of the county councils and of public transport to have feeder services organised. If we cannot do it one way, why flatly forbid it to be done in any way at all? I hope the noble Baroness will make some concession on this matter.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: On reading the Bill, I am rather reminded of what happens in one's own business. You take a decision to do something which is practical and commonsensical, and then invariably you pass the matter to your lawyer to put into words the general proposition that you, as a businessman, had thought of. It invariably comes back to you with one or two pedantic little points which, in theory, may have something in them, but which really cut across the effect of the general proposition you had decided upon. Head (a) which my noble friend wants removed comes into that category. It is completely contrary to the spirit of the Bill. I should have thought that if this experiment is to produce successful and satisfactory results, it ought to have all the freedom we can give it, without cutting across the general principle. This head that my noble friend wants to remove really does cut across the general spirit of the Bill in a pedantic manner. I would say it is a little bit that has been written by a lawyer and that he is a particularly pedantic sort of lawyer. If I am correct in my interpretation, I think it would be in the interests of everybody if the noble
528
Baroness could recommend her colleagues to withdraw it from the Bill. That would leave the Bill much more practical in its effect.
Lord TRANMIRE: Before the noble Baroness replies, I wonder whether she would look at this aspect of the matter. If an operator provided a school bus service and is paid by the county education authority for it, would this head (a) preclude the vehicle which is used for a school bus service being used during another part of the day to provide the kind of travel facilities envisaged by the Bill in the experimental period? If so, then surely it would be highly undesirable to retain this part in the Schedule. We want, if we can, these bus services to be permitted to take passengers. That is one way of dealing with some of the problems in rural areas, where people want to go into the market town at about the same time as the school bus goes. I would ask the noble Baroness to look very carefully at this wording, which is really quite unnecessary. If we want something like that there need be no general authorisation: the local authority and the Minister can together provide a special authorisation in a particular instance.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: I should like briefly to put a point here because I think it is important. Having once represented an area of nearly 1,000 square miles with 3,000 farms in it and school services, I think there is something here that may have been forgotten. This head states:
"a journey…must not be made…if the vehicle is owned by,…the holder of the licence or any person who receives any remuneration…".
That could eliminate somebody who did not own a bus. But if, at a farmyard, I said to a bus owner: "Look, you can leave your bus here until the school finishes at half-past three in the winter. I will charge you ten shillings a week and guarantee that the bus will not be interfered with in this farmyard, so that you can go to the village school when school is over", and I decided that this might be a good job to get into and bought a 12-seater bus, I would be prevented from doing that under this Bill and thus would be modifying the experiment, and not working towards its success in a country area. It is as simple as that.
Baroness STEDMAN: This condition was included because it was considered that, like the others, it would provide reassurance to the bus industry on the question of abuse of the authorisation system. The effect of this Amendment would be to remove one of the safeguards against misuse of the provisions about general authorisations. Sub-paragraph (a) of paragraph 1 of the Schedule provides that a vehicle operating under a general authorisation must not be used to extend a service provided under a road service licence, if the authorised vehicle is owned, or made available, by the holder of the road service licence.
The reason for its inclusion is to prevent licensed operators from using general authorisations, covering their own private vehicles, to operate feeder services to their licensed services. Operators should have no difficulty in going through the normal licensing channels if they see a need for extension of their services in this way. The wording——
Viscount AMORY: I am so sorry. I interrupted the Baroness in the middle of a sentence, and I did not mean to do that.
Baroness STEDMAN: The wording of the sub-paragraph reflects that in paragraph 6 of the Twelfth Schedule to the Road Traffic Act 1960. This is appropriate, because that part of the Twelfth Schedule is dealing with the conditions under which small vehicles may carry passengers at separate fares without becoming liable to PSV licensing. The purpose of the general authorisation under this Bill is to extend the existing exemption so as to allow lift-giving against payment to take place regularly, where it is of an informal, over-the-fence variety. Under the existing exemption, the giving of lifts in this way must not occur frequently or as a matter of routine, which is a severe restriction on the sharing of cars on a good neighbour basis. If the noble Viscount will let me finish, I shall probably satisfy him in the end. The conditions that attach to a general authorisation——
Viscount AMORY: I hasten to leave the Chamber. I will do anything, if the noble Baroness can assure me of that.
Baroness STEDMAN: The noble Viscount makes me blush. The conditions
530
that attach to a general authorisation by virtue of paragraph 1 of the Schedule are designed to delineate the extent of the additional flexibility, which the general authorisation will give to people who are not commercial operators, and who could not by any reasonable stretch of the imagination be expected to go through the PSV licensing system to get authority to accept a contribution to their petrol costs from friends and neighbours. But any commercial operator knows what the licensing system is all about and conducts his day-to-day business within it. He ought not to be given the opportunity of keeping a vehicle aside, as a private vehicle, to use under a general authorisation to feed passengers into his licensed services, and this is a possibility which would be opened up by this Amendment.
There is no reason why a licensed operator should not be joined with private people in applications for special authorisations, but paragraph 1 of the Schedule to which this Amendment is attached applies only to general authorisations. As regards the question whether we are preventing school buses from being used, the answer is: No, we are not preventing school buses from being used. They can get a Section 30 permit now under the existing laws, and we hope that where it is possible more and more will be used in that way. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: The noble Baroness has given some com-fort and, if it can be done under special authorisation, that is something. But I should like very much to take this back and look at it. Of course county councils, as local authorities, will have to be consulted in any event, so the abuse would be apparent. I should like to read carefully what she has said. I should also like to say to the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, how pleased I am to see a further advent of daffodils, including those behind him on the Benches opposite. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.5 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 7, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) Not Jess than twenty one days before

531
passing such a resolution the local authority shall give notice of its intention to consider a resolution under this paragraph in one or more local newspapers circulating in the experimental area to which, or to one or more parts of which, the authorisation applies or would apply as the case may be and before so resolving shall take into account any representations received from any such organisations or bodies as are referred to in section 1(5)").
The noble Lord said: The purpose of this Amendment is to ensure that, if they do take place, these experiments are conducted in as generous and effective a manner as possible. Surely, the more publicity they get in the local areas the better. This is probably a consideration which escaped the Department of Transport. They seem only too ready to forget that they are dealing with human beings, who have to be informed of what is happening, and not with laboratory animals. The Department also seem to have ignored the possibility that some of those living in the experimental areas might have some positive proposals to make as to how these experiments should be conducted, amd might even have some good ideas which had escaped the Department's omniscience. This Amendment makes explicit provision for those directly affected by the experiments to be both informed and consulted. I beg to move.
Lord TEVIOT: I agree with my noble friend, and hope that the noble Baroness will accept this Amendment. The Bill will be enhanced if it includes this provision, and people should be given the chance of having these 21 days which are very necessary.
Baroness STEDMAN: The point of this Amendment is not one which was raised during the wide consultation that preceded the Bill. The general authorisation does have, as it were, a blanket effect, and there may be a case for advance publicity of the kind that seems to be envisaged by the Amendment. I would be reluctant to see additional procedures that might delay the introduction of experiments, but I do not think there should be any great risk of that in the noble Lord's proposal.
The drafting of this present Amendment may not be entirely satisfactory from a technical standpoint, but there should be no insuperable drafting problem if the principle is clearly understood and agreed. The Government would be prepared to
532
consider bringing forward an Amendment if that is what is wanted. Before deciding whether to table such an Amendment, however, the Government would wish to know the views of all the interests concerned. These might most conveniently be sought at a forthcoming meeting, towards the end of this month, of the steering committee which is overseeing the series of sponsored experiments, and on which all interests concerned are represented. On the basis of that assurance, I would invite the noble Lord to withdraw his Amendment.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: May I interrupt for one moment? Would it not be possible to follow up the suggestion in the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray, by putting notices in existing public transport so that people who already travel on it will know that it is happening, even if they do not read newspapers?
Baroness STEDMAN: I should not like to commit myself completely at this stage, but I should be happy to take it back and consult with the Steering Committee as to how we could best deal with this point.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: Although we are in the season of Lent, I think I should say, Hallelujah, Hallelujah, because I am most grateful for what the noble Baroness has said. I gladly welcome her offer and all I would say is this. She has said that there is to be consultation with the people concerned, but I would point out that the people who will not be consulted are the elderly and infirm in their houses. It must be remembered that they are the ones whom we are trying to help, and it is very difficult if they can never be consulted. The only drawback that I can see, from the county council's point of view, is that there will be an infinitesimal amount of advertising in local newspapers but, although I know that local newspapers tend to hold local authorities slightly to ransom over charges, by and large, that would be a small price to pay. Again, I thank the noble Baroness and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported without amendment; Report received.

SEX DISCRIMINATION ACT 1975 (AMENDMENT OF SECTION 43) ORDER 1977
4.10 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL Lord WELLS-PESTELL rose to move, That the draft Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment of Section 43) Order 1977, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move the draft Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment of Section 43) Order 1977. The proposed order will make a technical amendment to Section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to ensure that the Act affects charities in Scotland to the same extent as it affects charities in England and Wales. Section 43 excepts from the Act discrimination which is required by a term in a charitable instrument conferring benefits on persons of one sex only.
The definition of "charitable instrument" currently used in the Act is satisfactory in relation to English-based charities but it has emerged that the Scottish definition is more restrictive. Because of the inclusion of the word "established" in the penultimate line of Section 4, it would cover only an instrument made by or on behalf of a charity. It would not cover a Scottish instrument, for example in a will setting up a charity. Moreover, Section 43 does not define "charitable purposes" I in Scotland, and that might lead to other differences between Scottish and English applications of the legislation.
The order will overcome these difficulties by substituting for subsections (3) and (4) of Section 43 a subsection which defines a charitable instrument for Scotland and for England and Wales as one which was passed or made for charitable purposes. That is, it can be an instrument either setting up a charity or relating to a charity which was set up before the making or passing of the instrument. The new subsection also deals with the difficulty of defining "charitable purposes". It includes in the definition of a charitable instrument both the governing instrument of an endowment, as defined by Section 135(1) of the Education (Scotland) Act 1962, and any other instrument made for the purposes of such an endowment. Section 135(1) of the Act defines "endowment" by reference to the term "charitable purposes" and gives "charitable purposes" the same meaning as it has in
534
England and Wales. The effect is that the Scottish instruments relating to charities will be given exactly the same degree of exemption from the provisions of the Act as is given to English and Welsh instruments.
The same definition as is to be found in Section 43(3) and (4) of the Sex Discrimination Act was included in the charities exception, Section 34, of the Race Relations Act and it was introduced, as your Lordships know, last Session. When the defect in Section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act came to light the Government, as your Lordships will remember, moved an Amendment to Section 34 of the Race Relations Act to achieve the same effect on that section as this order and, if approved, it will have that effect on Section 43 of the Sex Discrimination Act. My Lords, I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Sex Discrimination Act 1975 (Amendment of Section 43) Order 1977, laid before the House on 3rd February, be approved.—(Lord Wells-Pestell.)
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, this sounds very reasonable.
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CALF SUBSIDIES (UNITED KINGDOM) SCHEME 1977
4.15 p.m.
Lord STRABOLGI Lord STRABOLGI rose to move. That the draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1977, laid before the House on 8th February, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move that the Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1977 be approved.
The object of this scheme, which was laid before this House on 8th February, is to provide for the continuation of calf subsidies after the present scheme expires at the end of March this year. Provision is made for subsidies to be paid for a further period to include calves born up to and including 30th April 1977, and for carcases presented between 1st April 1977 and 30th June 1978. The rates of subsidy will continue to be £8.50 in the case of male calves or carcases and £6.50 in the case of heifer calves or carcases.
The decision to extend this scheme for six months to include calves born up to 30th April 1977 was announced following the 1976 Annual Review, but it was pointed out at the time that we could not continue to make this aid available to United Kingdom farmers after the end of the transitional period when they would be receiving the benefit of the final steps towards Community support prices. Although the transitional period, which was settled prior to our entry to the EEC, ends on 31st December this year, payments will, as I will explain later, be continued beyond that date to provide farmers with eligible calves born before 30th April this year with a reasonable opportunity to collect the subsidy.
As the terms of this scheme are, in the main, identical with those of the existing one, I do not think the House will wish me to give more than a very brief description. Part I of the scheme provides for the payment of subsidy on live calves born during the period beginning with 30th October 1976 and ending with 30th April 1977. Part II provides for payments on carcases presented for certification between 1st April 1977 and 30th June 1978.
These two ways of paying subsidy are generally known as "Stage A" and "Stage B". Stage A continues the provision contained in earlier schemes for paying subsidy on any male or heifer calf of suitable beef potential except heifers of the four main dairy breeds. In general, only calves over eight months old are accepted for certification but, in the hills, we accept spring-born calves at six months so that the farmer can sell them away before he faces a shortage of winter feed. Applications for subsidy under Stage A will continue to be accepted up to and including 1st May 1978. By this time the last eligible calves under the scheme will be 12 months old. This closing date should not cause producers any real difficulty, since, even when considerably longer time was available, we have found that the majority of calves are certified by the time they are a year old. The House will be interested to know that under Stage A about 3 million calves receive subsidy each year.
Stage B continues the facility to make payments on carcases of any home-bred cattle which have not received subsidy
536
as calves, which are not imported and which conform to the qualifying standards set out in the Schedule to the order. This stage enables subsidy to be paid on heifers of the dairy breeds which cannot be eligible while they are still alive because of the likelihood that they will subsequently be used for milk rather than beef production. Under Stage B, less than 200,000 animals—a distinct minority—qualify for subsidy each year.
The Scheme provides for the period during which animals may be presented for certification at Stage B to be extended to cover the period from 1st April 1977 to 30th June 1978. By this time we shall have completed our transitional steps up to EEC prices and United Kingdom producers in both the milk and beef sectors can look forward to higher support prices than they have now.
The only other change I think I need mention is that the Schedule to this scheme which sets out the standards for certification at Stage B is now in metric terms. It is, of course, always difficult to end a long-standing payment such as the calf subsidy, but the factors applying when the scheme was originally decided upon were very different from those which now apply. The outlook for beef production is good and prospective returns from the market, backed up by the higher support levels, should provide adequate incentives to those already involved in this enterprise and those also who may consider moving into beef production in the future. I recommend the approval of this scheme to your Lordships' House. I beg to move.
Moved, That the draft Calf Subsidies (United Kingdom) Scheme 1977, laid before the House on 8th February, be approved.—(Lord Strabolgi.)
4.21 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, for introducing this draft Instrument. It is of course the case that this scheme supersedes the calf subsidy scheme of 1974. Your Lordships will be grateful to the noble Lord for going into such detail about it, but there are a number of questions I should like to ask the Government, of which I have given prior notice.
First, in regard to the question of support, we should like to know why

537
there is no increase in the subsidy. Production costs have increased over the last 12 months by a factor of probably no less than 20 per cent., and we feel this is a relevant question to ask at this stage. Secondly, why is a closing date fixed which does not allow the eligible live calves to continue to qualify for subsidy until they cut their incisor teeth? I hope the Government will be able to satisfy us on that technical issue.
Thirdly, is the subsidy to be phased out in 1978 because of EEC rules or because of some other factor? Fourthly, why has the final date for Stage B presentation to be fixed as early as 30th June 1978? Of course we realise that the transitional provisions are due to terminate on 31st December 1977, but nevertheless this is a very important factor. Fifthly, will not the termination of the subsidy have the tendency to lower the amount of beef production? I wonder whether the noble Lord can give some answers to those five questions.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sandys, for the welcome he has given this order and I will do my best to answer the various important questions that he has raised. I am grateful to him also for giving me prior notice of these questions. He asked why a closing date is fixed which does not allow eligible live calves to continue to qualify for subsidy until they cut their incisor teeth. In fixing the Stage A closing date we face the need to strike a balance between allowing time for farmers to present calves born before 30th April of this year for certification and not allowing certification to continue long enough to draw in calves born after that date. Normally we have accepted calves for certification until they have cut their first incisor teeth, but any final date fixed to cover this contingency would incur the risk of calves born after 30th April 1977 being certified for subsidy as there is no sure way of accurately knowing the age of a calf.
The noble Lord also asked why the final date for Stage B presentation had been fixed as early as 30th June next year. In the previous schemes the terminal date for the presentation of carcases for certification has been six months after the last
538
date by which calves must be born to be eligible for subsidy when certified live. The date in the final scheme is 14 months after the final birth date for calves qualifying under Stage A. Moreover, any later date for Stage B could enable calves born after 30th April 1977 to obtain subsidy to which they would not have been entitled under Stage A—or perhaps I should say to which their owners would not have been entitled.
The noble Lord also asked, very properly, whether the subsidy is being abolished because of EEC rules. Under the EEC rules on State aids the Commission generally disapprove of national aids like our calf subsidy. This was of course a factor in our decision, but the main factor was that, given the completion this year of our transition to full EEC prices, it did not seem justifiable, especially with the importance of containing public expenditure, to continue the subsidy beyond the summer of 1978. The noble Lord asked why there has been no increase in the rate of subsidy. The decision to continue this subsidy at the same rate as previously for this further period was made following the 1976 Annual Review, and there seemed to us to be no compelling reason to alter it during the final stages.
Finally, the noble Lord asked whether the termination of the subsidy would lead to an ever greater fall in beef production. Home production of beef last year was lower than the record levels of 1975 and seems likely to decline again during this year. This follows from the earlier decline in the breeding herd. Encouraged by recent and prospective firm market prices and higher support levels and the improvement in the dairy herd, from which nearly 70 per cent, of our home production comes, we expect to see beef production pick up in 1978. The decline in production has occurred while the subsidy has still been payable, and since the subsidy is now small in relation to total return:; its removal seems unlikely to have any significant effect on overall production. I hope that has answered fully the various points raised by the noble Lord.
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House adjourned during pleasure and resumed by the Lord Chancellor.

PUBLIC LENDING RIGHT BILL [H.L.]
Lord WILLIS: My Lords, I understand that no Amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript Amendment or to speak in Committee. Therefore, unless any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the Order of Commitment be discharged.
Moved, That the Order of Commitment be discharged.—(Lord Willis.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CRIMINAL LAW BILL [H.L.]
4.29 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The offence of conspiracy]:
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE moved Amendment No. 1: Page 1, line 8, after first ("person") insert ("knowingly").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in rising to move this Amendment, I suggest that it might be convenient to group this with Amendments Nos. 2 and 3. I understand that this will be agreeable for discussion by the Government because I have received a message from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor to that effect.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I have not been approached on this, but it is certainly agreeable to me.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I hope that with that weighty support it will now be agreeable to the House. I rise to move this Amendment, which is in fact very closely linked with the subsequent Amendments, with a serious purpose in mind and with the idea of making a serious contribution to an important debate. I was privileged to receive from the Lord Chancellor copies of a correspondence which had passed between him and my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne about the debate which we held on the same subject at the Committee stage of the Bill. We were both allowed to see the comments on that
540
debate made by the Parliamentary draftsmen who had had to do with the drafting of the Bill, and I expect with the drafting of the Amendment which stands in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich.
The debate arose in this way. In every important criminal offence there are two separate factors: there is the prohibited act—in the case of conspiracy the agreement—which is, I think, unfortunately, with their usual contempt for the Latin language, labelled by lawyers the actus reus; and there is the guilty state of mind, more appropriately labelled by lawyers the mens rea, the guilty state of mind with which the offence has to be committed before a verdict of guilty is supported. The purpose of Clause 1 is, as one supposes, to give effect to the recommendation of the Law Commission that the guilty act, the prohibited act in conspiracy, should in the main for the future, and subject to Clause 5, be an agreement to commit what is a criminal offence. This presents few difficulties where the criminal offence is one which intrinsically carries a guilty intention with it. For instance, if I agree with somebody to sell on his behalf the contents of a van, that is a perfectly innocent act, unless I happen to know that the contents of the van are stolen goods, in which case, quite obviously, under Clause 1, I should be guilty of conspiracy. The difficulty arises, as I see it, when the offence which constitutes the subject matter of the agreement is one which contains, as many modern offences do, no guilty intention at all. For instance, supposing I agree with the noble and learned Lord, Lord Gardiner, that he should drive my motor car, this is a perfectly innocent agreement on my part, but, of course, if he has no licence or no insurance policy or is disqualified from driving, then he is guilty of an absolute offence under the criminal law for which he can be subjected to penalties.
Various cases had arisen until the case of Churchill v. Walton, which gave rise to the discussion in Committee, in which the Court of Appeal, or its predecessor the Court of Criminal Appeal, had given the impression that where there was an agreement between two parties which had the effect of breaching regulations or breaching the criminal law, under a Statute which provided for no guilty intent as a necessary ingredient of the

541
offence, a perfectly innocent party to that agreement might be guilty of conspiracy notwithstanding that he did not know the facts relevant to the circumstances which would have given rise to the illegality of what was proposed. In a case called Churchill v. Walton my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne delivered a judgment of the House in its Judicial capacity which got rid of this heresy, if I may so call it, on the part of the Court of Appeal, I am going to read a passage of the judgment in a moment. If I may say so ; it was a very valuable contribution to ,' criminal jurisprudence in this rather limited field and enabled people to form perfectly innocent agreements provided that they did not know the facts which gave rise to criminality in the other party to the agreement.
The difficulty is purely a question of draftsmanship, and it seems to me to involve nothing else at all. It does seem to me that the draftsmen of the Bill, both in the form in which the Bill was originally presented to the House and in the form which subsequently appears as an Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, have been over-elaborate in the draftsmanship lo the point of being obscure. I think, with great respect, that this is a mistake. We do tend nowadays—and this is a criticism of our modern school of Parliamentary draftsmanship—to leave too little to the common sense of judges, and to try to set out in advance a sort of code of practices for judges which will cover every possible eventuality, rather than telling them in plain and unambiguous language that which Parliament really means them to do and then allowing them to sum up to juries—who, after all, are simply voters taken straight off the voting rolls—in language which jurors can understand.
I venture to say to the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack and to the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, that one has only to read the correspondence which has passed between the various parties to this discussion after the Committee stage to set oneself the following problem. Let us, having borne in mind the various thoughts which passed through the Parliamentary draftsman's mind, which we now know, try to translate that into a paragraph for a model summing up to a jury which will satisfy each of two simple
542
tests. The first test is that the jury should understand what on earth the judge is talking about when he delivers the paragraph. Secondly, it should pass the test of the Court of Appeal, Criminal Division, when they come to compare the paragraph with what Parliament intends. I venture, with respect, to think that it is very difficult, either in the original form in which the subsections are drafted or in the form which is now proposed, to say what the learned judge should tell the jury in a form on which they can give a reliable verdict easily, and a form in which the Court of Appeal can endorse what the judge has said.
I want to read the actual words of my noble and learned friend Lord Dilhorne in the case of Churchill v. Walton. As he is a very modest man, I know he would not have ventured to read them himself. They seem to be a model of clarity which could form the basis of any summing up to a jury. He is dealing with offences of absolute liability. He said:
"In cases of this kind it is desirable to avoid the use of the phrase 'mens rea', which is capable of different meanings, and to concentrate on the terms or effect of the agreement made by the alleged conspirators. The question is what did they agree to do. If what they agreed to do was on the facts known to them an unlawful act, they are guilty of conspiracy, cannot excuse themselves by saying that owing to their ignorance of the law they did not realise that such an act was a crime. If on the facts known to them what they agreed to do was lawful, they are not rendered artificially guilty by the existence of other facts not known to them giving a different and criminal quality to the act agreed upon."
Compare the clarity and lucidity of that statement with the two alternative texts which we are now being asked to discuss. It seems to me that we are being asked to compare a perfectly rational and obviously sensible piece of English prose which any juryman could understand with something which could only be described as legal jargon.
I venture to say that it would be perfectly all right if those words, translated into the right number of third persons, were inserted into the Bill. However, in my first Amendment I have chosen instead simply to insert the word "knowingly" in front of the word "agrees" in Clause 1(1). This may seem to be a fantastic over-simplification, but I ask the House to consider whether that is really so. Of course, there is a sense in which any agreement is entered into knowingly

543
if the word "knowingly" qualifies the word "agrees", but one has to go on reading the sentence before one gets to that absurd over-simplification.
If one gives the judges credit for having read the Law Reports in the last 10 years, if they read the word "knowingly" in subsection (1) they will immediately know that the draftsman and Parliament had in mind the decision in Churchill v. Walton. They will go to those two lucid paragraphs of my noble and learned friend and without more ado direct the jury in an intelligible way which will stand up to criticism. It is for that reason that I have tabled my first Amendment. There may be better alternatives, but at this time we need to pause for a moment in our legal discussions and ask ourselves whether the art of Parliamentary draftsmanship is not becoming over-elaborate. I beg to move.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I should like to begin by thanking the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, for his very kind observations. I hope that they were justified. I agree completely with a great deal of what he has said and shall endeavour not to repeat it.
I should like to start by thanking the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor for sending me the very long letter of 11 pages from the Parliamentary draftsman—perhaps I should say drafts-woman—explaining why the new clause that we are now considering is so drafted. I shall not venture to read that letter to your Lordships, fascinating though it is, although I must admit that I found some parts of it very difficult of comprehension. I am sure that that is my fault. The noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor suggested that when I and others had considered the letter we should have a meeting. He indicated that it might not be possible to table this Amendment on Report because we might not be able to have a meeting before the Report stage. The circumstances have not made that possible. I make no complaint about that but use it simply to lay the basis for what I am about to say. Great benefit would have been derived by all of us from a meeting on the drafting of this provision rather than having to discuss the draft now before us, because I should have hoped—I still hope—that
544
it might be possible to reach agreement about the form that the Amendment should take. I say that because I do not think there is much difference between what any of us wish to achieve.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, said that this was entirely a matter of draftsmanship. It is a little more than that because part of the trouble lies in the different interpretations which have been put upon the Law Commission's Report. I shall venture to suggest—and establish if I can—that the interpretation put upon that report, which has led to this new subsection begin formulated, is wrong and not warranted by the report. In my view it is not entirely a matter of draftsmanship.
I am attracted by the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, that the word "knowingly" should be inserted in subsection (1). However, I am not satisfied that that will go quite far enough. It certainly would be a great improvement upon the present subsection. The noble and learned Lord has dealt fully and with great clarity with the problem with which we have to contend—a conspiracy to commit an absolute offence or an offence of strict liability, as we call it. It was an offence of strict liability in Churchill v. Walton. I believe that the decision in that case fitted in with the concept that no one should be found guilty of a criminal offence without proof that he intended to do the things which constituted an offence and he knew what those things were.
First—and I hope I shall be forgiven for dealing with this in some little detail—I should like to consider this subsection in relation to offences of strict liability. The first few words of subsection (2) of Amendment No. 3 read:
"Where in the case of any offence—
(a) liability for the offence is strict"—
and I ask your Lordships to mark these words—
"in relation to any fact or circumstance which is an element of the offence."
I find some difficulty in understanding what is meant by:
"fact or circumstance which is an element of the offence."
The elements of an offence are usually defined in a Statute or regulation—they are contained in its definition. Facts are

545
facts; one proves facts at a trial. The proof of the facts may show that an offence was committed. What is the significance of the insertion of the word "circumstance"? Why is that added? Whatever "fact" is supposed to mean, what does "circumstance" mean? What circumstance is an element of an offence? I fear that there has been a failure to distinguish between the facts on the one hand and the ingredients of an offence on the other. Of course, Churchill v. Walton was concerned with facts.
Might I suggest that it would be better if, in relation to offences of strict liability, the subsection began as follows:
"Where in the case of any offence—
(a) liability for the offence is strict in relation to the elements of the offence."
I am inclined to think that it would be better still simply to say, "where liability is strict", for that, I am sure, would be understood by judges and all those practising at the criminal Bar. However, I should not mind the addition of the words:
"in relation to the elements of the offence".
But the clause, as drawn, does not say that. It refers to "an element". I understand that the words "an element" are included in the subsection to deal with the kind of case mentioned in paragraph (iv) on page 19 of the Law Commission's Report. There the Law Commission points out that if A and B agree to take an unmarried girl out of the possession of her parent, believing her to be over the age of 16, there would be no conspiracy unless they knew that she was under 16 years old. I entirely agree with that. They then go on to say:
"This of course is the present law on the authority of Churchill v. Walton".
So it is.
So I venture to suggest that there is no need to make special provision for that type of case provided you have in the Statute something which correctly embodies what was said in Churchill v. Walton. That can easily be done by deleting the last three lines of the subsection; namely:
"unless he intends or knows that that fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place."
This purports to give effect to paragraph 1.39 of the Law Commission Report. That is the paragraph which
546
contains the recommendations of the Law Commission. It is those recommendations that I should like to see carried into effect. It begins with the statement:
"We think that the law should require full intention and knowledge before a conspiracy can be established. What the prosecution ought to have to prove is that the defendant agreed with another person that a course of conduct should be pursued which would result, if completed, in the commission of a criminal offence."
That part of their recommendation is fully covered by subsection (1) of the clause. Then they say:
"And further that they both knew any facts which they would need to know to make them aware that the agreed course of conduct would result in the commission of the offence."
It is that further part which we are now trying to deal with, and it is enough, I should have thought, to make it clear what type of conspiracy you are dealing with, to provide for that. I think that can be simply done. But, as I said, this new subsection goes beyond dealing with offences of strict liability.
Now may I turn to paragraph (b) of this new clause. It reads as follows:
"Where in the case of any offence—
(b) a person may be liable for the offence by virtue of any fault on his part which does not amount to knowledge of the existence of any such fact or circumstance (as, for example, where it is sufficient to make him liable if he is reckless as to its existence or merely negligent in not realising that it exists);
a person shall nevertheless not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (1) above as agreeing to the commission of that offence unless he intends or knows that that fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place."
When I read that I simply did not understand it. I was not alone in that, for I received a letter from a distinguished judge with long experience in criminal law. He said that the Clause 1(2)(b) completely defeated him. But I now know, in the light of the information given to me, what it was intended to achieve. The draftsman was concerned with cases where something less than knowledge had to be proved to constitute the commission of the substantive crime; something where it sufficed to prove, for instance, that the accused had reasonable cause to suspect, and, instead of proving knowledge, prove he has reasonable grounds on which he ought to have known. Where that suffices knowledge is imputed, but there is no question of a fault on the

547
part of the accused, and fault in this paragraph (b) in that context is a wrong use of language.
Turning to offences of recklessness and and negligence, to which it particularly refers, I would say first of all that I myself have never known, nor have I ever heard, of a conspiracy to commit an offence which involves recklessness or negligence. I should like to ask whether there ever has been one. If there has not, I cannot see any need for making provision for a situation which is never likely to arise. I think that the only common law offence involving recklessness is manslaughter. A conspiracy to commit manslaughter is just a nonsense. Nor can I see any prosecutor ever charging a conspiracy recklessly to make false or misleading statements.
Paragraph 1.41 of the Law Commission Report refers to the Working Party's proposals, and says that the Working Party framed their proposals in terms of intention and recklessness as to circumstances and consequences. That, I fear, is the cause of the reference in more than one place in this subsection to "circumstances". That formulation was rejected by the Commission, and rightly, but it has reared its head again in paragraph (b). The Commission went on to give instances of how their formula would operate—namely, that you should provide that the accused should know the facts which they would need to know to make them aware that the agreed course of conduct would result in the commission of the offence.
May I remind the House of what they were, because they are extremely relevant in relation to this subsection, and in particular to paragraph (b) If one turns to page 19 (ii), this is the formulation of the Working Party, being the definition of an offence to deal with circumstances as shown at the beginning of paragraph 1.43:
"This formula may require that the defendant is reckless as to circumstance, for example, making a false statement recklessly. An agreement to make a statement will not be an offence unless the defendants know that it is false. An agreement to make a statement which the defendants do not know is false is not an agreement to pursue a course of conduct which on the facts known to them will constitute an offence. If all they know is that there is a risk that the statement is false, then they will not be agreeing to pursue a course of conduct which on the facts known to them will necessarily result in the commission of
548
a criminal offence. Of course, if they proceed to make the statement and it is false they will be guilty of the substantive offence."
Therefore, there is no need at all, in the view of the Law Commission, to make a special provision in the Bill in relation to cases involving recklessness, provided that their recommendation in the last part of paragraph 1.39 is carried into effect.
Look at the next paragraph:
"The formulation may be required"—
this is the formulation of an offence in relation to circumstances—
"that the belief in the non-existence of a circumstance shall not be sufficient unless it is held on reasonable grounds. This can be framed either as a defence with the burden on the defendant or as part of the definition of the mental element. For example, it is an offence to sell a firearm to a person under the age of 17. It is a defence to prove that the person charged with the offence believed the other person to be of or over the age and had reasonable grounds for the belief."
It then says:
"If A and B agree to sell a firearm to a person under 17 and believe but on unreasonable grounds that he is not over 17, they will not be guilty of conspiracy. They must know that the person to whom they intend to sell the firearm is under 17."
That again indicates that in the view of the Law Commission there is no need at all to make special provision for that category of case. It is all covered by the words at the end of paragraph 139.
One finds the same thing in sub-paragraphs (i) and (ii) of paragraph 142. Paragraph 142(i) deals with prohibited consequences, wounding and so on, and says:
"Where an offence is so formulated, the requirement that there should be agreement to indulge in the prohibited conduct necessarily involves an intention to bring about the prohibited conduct necessarily involves an intention to bring about the prohibited consequence. Offences so framed can require in a defendant a mental element of either intention or risk-taking, but conspiracy will require nothing less than intention. It ought not to be a conspiracy to commit an offence under Section 20 of the Offences Against the Person Act to agree to throw a heavy object from a window into a crowded street, although if the object were thrown and it wounded someone the offence itself would have been committed. There has been no agreement that a course of conduct should be pursued which will necessarily result in the commission of a criminal offence."
Paragraph 142 (ii) says the same thing with regard to offences which require a specified intention:
"In such cases an agreement to do the act will only be criminal if there is the intention thereby to bring about the prohibited consequence. To have that intention one must know the facts."

549
I therefore suggest to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that the Commission have themselves clearly stated and suggested that all that it is necessary to provide is that a person shall not be guilty of conspiracy unless he knew any facts which he would need to know to make him aware that the agreed course of conduct would result in the commission of the offence. I do not see any reason why those words should not be taken out of paragraph 139 of the Law Commission Report and put in this Bill: they are easily understood; they will not lead to any confusion or give rise to any doubt. As I see it, the particular subsection which we are considering goes far beyond the Law Commission's recommendation. I will not make any other observations on its language except to say that it seems to me to be extremely vague and obscure.
What are we to do? We have this subsection before us and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, has made some very well-founded criticisms of it. I hope that mine are not unfounded. It is terribly important that we should try to get this right. I tabled an Amendment to leave out the subsection in the Bill, and the first part of the Amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is also designed to leave out that subsection, so for once we find ourselves in agreement; that subsection had better go out.
Should we not put in this subsection? I hope the Lord Chancellor will think that possibly we had better not do so tonight. I say that because if it is put in the Bill it might make subsequent amendment more difficult and more complicated. I hope that between now and Third Reading it might be possible to have a meeting at which we can discuss and debate these matters far more freely and fully than we can in the course of speeches in this Chamber, and I would hope that that would lead to acceptance of a formula effective to carry out that which is, I think, the common intention on all sides.
I said earlier that I thought it would be better perhaps, if one could not get Churchill v. Walton properly embodied in the Bill, not to try to tackle it at all. However, I think that as we are in subsection (1) putting in a statutory definition
550
of "conspiracy", it is necessary to find a formula, if one can, which deals with the position of offences of strict liability, and I cannot suggest any improvement on the wording of the Law Commission. I think that one error in this drafting has beer to try to merge too much together, instead of seeking to attempt to define—and that is not easy—what is an offence of strict liability; personally I think it would be enough just to say that. We have this reference to facts, circumstances and elements in sub-paragraph (a) which is picked up again in a somewhat confusing way at the end of the subsection. I hope I have said enough to make my reasons clear to the Lord Chancellor for thinking that the clause will not do. I have not had time to give him advance notice of all these grounds, and therefore I shall not be in the least disappointed if he is unable to give me a detailed answer this evening; we have both been engaged throughout the day on other matters.
5.6 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I am grateful to the noble and learned Lords who have assisted us with their own thinking and suggestions on what is admittedly a difficult problem; namely, the setting out in statutory form of a new concept of the law of conspiracy. No one has suggested that it is an easy task and I do not come to the Committee to say, "We have a solution. Take it or leave it." Indeed, I readily respond to the suggestion just made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, that we should give further thought to this matter, as I shall indicate, and certainly I shall not be pressing Amendment No. 3.
The starling point for discussion of subsection (2), as was emphasised in Committee, was the decision in Churchill v. Walton. As noble Lords will remember, the decision in that case required that before he could be guilty of conspiracy, a person should have full knowledge of any facts necessary for the commission of the substantive offence, even though the offence; were one of strict liability. That policy has been endorsed by the Law Commission and, in introducing the Bill, it is certainly endorsed by the Government; and, so far as I am aware, no one has ever attacked the decision in Churchill v. Walton. Indeed, it supplies a policy for

551
offences of strict liability which has not been challenged and to which we adhere.
But in a Statute which seeks to codify the law there must, so far as it is possible to achieve it, be a consistent policy to cover every type of offence, from offences of strict liability to offences requiring full mens rea. It seems to the Government, as I think it clearly seemed to the Law Commission, that the only reasonable policy following Churchill v. Walton is that, before a man can be convicted of conspiracy, it should be necessary to prove that he knew of any fact or circumstance which is an element of the substantive offence, whatever the mental element required for the substantive offence itself.
The Law Commission considered this and we have already been referred by the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, to the passages in the Law Commission Report. The examples which were cited from paragraph 143 of the Law Commission's Report were introduced by the words in paragraph 141:
"We think it will be helpful if we give some examples of the way in which our formulation of the offence of conspiracy will operate in practice."
Their formulation is included in what is now Clause 1(2) as well as in subsection (1); that is, it includes the requirement of knowledge of facts and the other matters that follow.
Two examples may be helpful to illustrate the importance of following up the policy that is adumbrated in Churchill v. Walton in other circumstances as well. There is, for instance, the situation of the offence of making a false statement reckless as to whether it is true or false. An example of that might be an agreement to issue a false prospectus reckless as to whether or not it was true, and that agreement might come to light before the prospectus has been issued. Then, another situation that ought to be coped with is the offence of taking an unmarried girl under 16 out of the possession of her parent against his will, where it is no defence to prove that one believed, on reasonable grounds, that the girl was 16 or over. In this latter case, Churchill v. Walton means that the accused can be convicted of conspiracy to commit the offence only if he can be shown to have known that the girl was under 16. In the former case, it follows that before the
552
accused can be convicted of conspiracy it should be necessary to show that the statement was false and was not merely reckless as to whether it was true or false.
I have endeavoured to explain this difficult field of the policy which I and the Government think it is necessary to deal with, and we believe that something on the lines of subsection (2) is required. In earlier discussion, it has been said that it would be unusual to have a case where the policy in subsection (2) was needed and that, where a case does arise, the courts can be left to arrive at a sensible answer and to rely on the decision in Churchill v. Walton. But the difficulty we should be in if we were to take that course is that I believe that the effect of subsection (1) without subsection (2) is to reverse Churchill v. Walton. Subsection (1) as it now stands requires intention that the actual action or omission involved in the actus reus should be performed, intention to cause any result required for the completion of the actus reus and the presence of any mens rea or other fault required for the substantive offence. In the context that we are now discussing, the last point—proof of fault required for the substantive offence—is the important one.
Using the examples I have already mentioned, it would only be necessary to prove that a girl was under 16 without regard to the state of mind of the accused in the one case and in the other case it would only be necessary to prove that the accused was reckless as to whether the statement was true or false, and that would not meet the Churchill v. Walton situation.
So I fear that we do not think that the prima facie attractive remedy of getting rid of this difficult subsection would really meet the needs of the situation, though we are by no means wedded to the words in the Bill as amended in Committee or in the draft put forward for your Lordships' consideration today. It is clear from the massive and lengthy correspondence that has passed on this matter that there are criticisms—and, if I may say so, criticisms of substance—about what has been attempted. As I have already indicated, I certainly do not propose to press Amendment No. 3 today, though I thought it useful to put it down in order to provide a focus for the discussion of the matter.

553
I have, of course, considered with care the suggestion of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, to resolve the matter by the insertion of the word, "knowingly" in line 8 of page 1. But I am afraid that that is not enough to express the policy that I believe we have to deal with. I am extremely doubtful whether the insertion of "knowingly" in that part of Clause 1 has the effect of requiring proof of knowledge of any fact or circumstance which is an element of the actus reus. Furthermore, I am not very happy about trying to deal with this problem in subsection (1) because I think that it would complicate it a great deal and I should prefer that the subsection remained as clear a statement of the general principle as is possible without being encumbered, as this addition would encumber it, with a refinement of principle. That, at any rate, is my present view of the matter.
With regard to the suggestions that the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has put forward today, I shall of course consider them with care and it may well be that a discussion of the matter between those concerned may prove helpful. I have been giving thought to yet another attempt to deal with this matter which I may perhaps be permitted to read out today and your Lordships can consider when the text appears in the Official Report tomorrow morning whether this is more satisfactory from the point of view of what we are seeking to achieve. If it were thought acceptable, I should be prepared to put it, or any suitable alteration or amendment of it that might be acceptable, forward at Third Reading. It will be on these lines:
"Where liability for any offence may be incurred without knowledge on the part of the person committing it of any particular fact or circumstance which is an element of the offence, a person shall nevertheless not be guilty of conspiracy in relation to that offence by virtue of subsection (1) above unless he and at least one other party to the agreement intend or know that that fact or circumstance shall or will exist at the time when the conduct constituting the offence is to take place."
I do not think for a moment that there will be an immediate response—though I hope that there will not be a rejection—to those words, but they seem to me to get pretty near to what all noble Lords have been saying. Perhaps, as the use of the words "circumstance" and "fact" has been commented upon, I should endeavour
554
to explain the various words used in the proposed redraft. The use of the word "element" of an offence in the draft is merely another expression for "ingredient". "Circumstance" is, I think, a slightly wider word than "fact", and it could, for instance, be apt to cover a matter which is to some extent a matter of law; for example, status as a British subject, or the status of being married. It may be that we will not need both "fact" and "circumstance", but if one is to go I think that the word "fact" should be eliminated rather than "circumstance", which is the wider word.
However, these are refinements of detail, but I submit that alternative possibility with, if I may say so, complete modesty because it may be that it will not fully meet the needs of the situation, although I think it will point a way forward. Perhaps I need not formally at this stage ask leave to withdraw the Amendment in case there are other observations to be made. In any event, I think that we are discussing Amendment No. 1, and so I must correct myself, because the matter of withdrawing the Amendment does not lie in my hands.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, as we are discussing Amendment No. 1, and as it is my intention in a moment or two to ask leave to withdraw it, I should like to say a few words by way of comment on the discussion that has taken place. In the first place, I should like to thank both noble and learned Lords who have taken part in the discussion for the part they have played, and even more so the number of noble Lords who are perhaps not quite so learned who have listened so patiently to what must have been an almost intolerably technical discussion on a subject of extreme intellectual difficulty.
I certainly accept the criticisms of my own rather simplistic draft, and at this stage I certainly shall not press it further, but I should like to make a comment on the Lord Chancellor's speech. I now appreciate what is in the Government's mind a good deal more plainly than I did when I rose to move the Amendment. But I respectfully suggest to the noble and learned Lord that perhaps the Government are trying to take a steam hammer to crush a nut. A conspiracy of course is an agreement, and the crime is complete

555
at the time the agreement is made, whether or not it is subsequently carried into effect. But the cases where the conspiracy is complete and prosecuted at the time when it is an inchoate agreement unexecuted by any of the parties to it are, and must be, in the nature of things extremely rare.
So we are dealing in theory with a very rare set of circumstances, in so far as we are regarding the matter as a crime which can be prosecuted before the commission of the substantive offence in question. It becomes even more rare if one makes this reflection. Let us suppose that one takes the case of the abduction of a girl under the age of 16 which has in it an element of strict liability in the sense explained by the noble and learned Lord. In those circumstances I should have thought that in 19 cases out of 20 (and probably more) provided the actual abduction takes place, the other party to the abduction will be guilty of aiding and abetting the principal offence, whether or not he is charged with a conspiracy to commit it. In other words, once the agreement is carried out he will not escape liability on any purely technical ground; if he has the degree of criminality which is required of the substantive offender, he will be guilty of aiding and abetting, of procuring or inciting the commission of the substantive offence.
It is only when one wants to get in a statement by one of the conspirators after the execution of the offence, or when one is prosecuting an agreement, no part of which has been carried out, that the extremely rarefied atmosphere that we are now exploring becomes a matter of practical politics at all, so far as I can see. For this reason I wonder whether the Government are taking a steam hammer to crush a nut, and whether the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, has the right approach when he goes back to the terms of the Law Commission's Report and insists that before one prosecutes a conspiracy of this kind as a conspiracy, there must be actual knowledge of the facts necessary to make up the offence of absolute liability.
It seems to me that he may be right about that. Although I recognise the philosophical point, which was made very lucidly by the Lord Chancellor, we are after all
556
legislating for juries and we are legislating for judges who have to sum up to juries. I wonder whether the extremely rarefied point which the Government have in mind to catch by the formulations which they have suggested successfully is not becoming too elaborate and too philosophical for the actual hard "nitty gritty" of the common law as it has to be carried into effect. With those words, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment which is in my name.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 6, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, it is perhaps fortunate that we are not in Committee, because if we were in Committee discussion on the last Amendment might have been continued for a very considerable time, to the great delight no doubt of all of those who were listening. That is what has kept me silent, but perhaps I can say this without being out of order. I was greatly attracted by the suggested redraft of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, and I undertake to look at it very carefully. The closer we stick to the recommendations in paragraph 139, the better. I think that if that is done it will cover all the cases he has mentioned. I say no more about that, and now I say merely that I beg to move this Amendment, that subsection (2), as it now stands, should be omitted from the Bill; and I think there is universal agreement that this should happen.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 1A:
Page 2, line 2, leave out from ("offences") to ("he") in line 4.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for inflicting upon your Lordships a short supplementary list of Amendments. They are intended to be suggestions as to possible ways in which various parts of the Bill might be tidied up, and they arise out of discussions that I had at the very end of last week with some of my colleagues at the Bar who are rather more conversant than I am with the niceties of the law of conspiracy.

557
The first Amendment, No. 1A, involves looking again at Clause 1(1) to see whether there are included in it two lines which are unnecessary and rather unhelpful.
As at present drafted, the clause reads that a person shall be guilty of conspiracy,
"…if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions…".
As it stands the wording appears to suggest that a person is thus guilty of the offence of conspiracy only if the agreement is that the offence shall be committed by one or more of the parties to the agreement. That would appear not be entirely appropriate in certain situations which arise. One is where the agreement is that the offence might be committed by a person who is to join the agreement in the future, and who is therefore not a party to the agreement at the time; the second is where the agreement is that the offence is to be committed by an innocent agent; and the third situation is where the agreement is that the offence is to be committed by a person who may be exempt from liability by virtue of various other clauses in the Bill.
In all those situations, the wording would not appear to be entirely happy, and one therefore looks again to see whether anything is in fact added to the clause by the inclusion of the words from line 2 to line 4,
"by one or more of the parties to the agreement if the agreement is carried out in accordance with their intentions".
I would invite the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack to look again at the clause to see whether it is not quite sufficient, and much simpler, merely to say:
"…if a person agrees with any other person or persons that a course of conduct shall be pursued which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of any offence or offences he is guilty of conspiracy…".
It is in the hope of simplifying that matter in that small way that I venture to move this Amendment. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I confess that, having had notice of this Amendment this morning, there has not been a great deal of time for its consideration, but may I say this?
558
The words which are sought to be left out limit conspiracy to an agreement that one or more of the parties to an agreement should commit a criminal offence, and that seems to us to be a reasonable and proper limitation on conspiracy. Secondly, they limit conspiracy to an agreement which will necessarily lead to an offence if the agreement is carried out in accordance with the intentions of the parties to the agreement. So, frankly, as at present advised I feel that the words in the sub-section serve a necessary purpose. If, having heard what I have said in justification of them, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, still feels disposed to press the matter, I will certainly undertake to look at it again between now and Third Reading. I am not being dogmatic about it, but, frankly, I feel that the words should be included in subsection (1).
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I am certainly not disposed to press the matter. I am entirely satisfied with the observation of the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack that he may perhaps reflect for a very brief moment between now and Third Reading as to whether there is not, perhaps, a little substance in the argument I have put forward. In those circumstances, with your Lordships' leave, I seek to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 23, leave out subsections (4) and (5) and insert—
("(4) In this Part of this Act "offence" means an offence triable in England and Wales, except that it includes murder notwithstanding that the murder in question would not be so triable if committed in accordance with the intentions of the parties to the agreement.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a drafting Amendment which was prepared in response to the criticism made by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, of subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 1 as they appear in the present print. Since then, I have seen the letter from the noble and learned Viscount in which he approves, with apparent enthusiasm, of the new draft that is proposed. It really has no effect on the provisions of the Bill, but I think it is a most helpful redraft. I beg to move.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, I should just like to say "Thank you" to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and to those who have assisted him in making this substantial improvement in the drafting of the Bill, and to say that I am always very keen to encourage such progress.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
5.35 p.m.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST moved Amendment No. 5:
Page 2, line 33, at end insert—
("(6) For the removal of doubt it is hereby declared that a conspiracy to prevent, obstruct, pervert or defeat the course of justice constitutes a conspiracy coming within subsection (1)")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, in the course of discussions in your Lordships' House on this Bill many of your Lordships, and I among them, have expressed the view that it is desirable to have as much clarity as possible. We have of course also expressed the view that we should not have anything superfluous, and there may be some contest between those two points of view arising out of the Amendment that I move. When lawyers read this Bill and saw in Clause 5 that there was a preservation of the common law conspiracy to cheat and defraud, and a preservation, also, of the common law conspiracy in regard to outraging public morals, and so on, I think many of them raised the question "Why is the offence of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice not preserved?".
I raised this matter on Second Reading. I asked whether it was preserved, and I said that I rather assumed that it was because Clause 1 was believed to preserve it because it was thought that a substantive offence does exist. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, very courteously and kindly said he entirely agreed; and, indeed, one has only to look at the report of the Law Commission, on page 11, paragraph 1.19, to see that it is their view that this offence continues. At the Committee stage, when dealing with an Amendment with regard to Clause 3, I referred again to this matter and raised the question whether it might not be desirable to make it clear in the Bill, and in the words of the Bill, that this offence was preserved.
560
I did that for the reason I have already indicated: that, rightly or wrongly, many lawyers have always associated this offence with a conspiracy. In future the report of the Law Commission will not be readily referred to; nor, indeed, will debates in your Lordships' House. May it therefore not be a good thing to have it clear on the face of the Bill?
As recently as 1968 there was a case—the name is Grimes, and it is referred to in the Law Commission Report in the passage to which I have referred—where there were two charges and where the submission was made that there is not a common law offence of attempting to defeat the course of justice; namely, an offence lacking the element of agreement or combination, which is the element of conspiracy. It was said that it would be strange that conspiracy should often have been charged if the offence lacking the element of agreement existed at common law. The learned judge, Judge Kilner Brown, later Mr. Justice Kilner Brown, for whose opinion I have the highest respect, ruled against that submission, and in doing so said that it was true that it is customary to contemplate this type of conduct as a branch of the law concerning conspiracy as usually it involves the agreement of two or more persons, but the fact that it was not charged as conspiracy to pervert the course of justice did not invalidate the indictment.
If one researches into this matter one finds that there is a reference in our standard book, Archbold, at page 1474, to "many cases", which I think shows that there is a common law offence of perverting the course of justice. Many of the cases have really been akin to contempt; many of them have involved interference with a witness or the like conduct. But I readily acknowledge that if this matter were tested, I think there is plenty of authority supporting the view that there is a common law offence. Therefore, it might be said that it is unnecessary to put any provision to that effect in the Bill, In one sense, I am agreeing that it is unnecessary because on looking up the point I think it would be found that there is a common law offence and therefore the result of Clause (1) of the Bill is that the matter is fully preserved. So I raise this point merely in the interests of securing clarity without having anything that is unduly superfluous in the

561
Bill; I raise it for your Lordships' consideration. Would it be a good thing so that anyone reading this Bill should at once see that conspiracy to pervert the course of justice is preserved as an offence?
It may be said by the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack or by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, that this is quite unnecessary and, in one sense, I am conceding that. But is it desirable in the interests of clarity so that there may be no misunderstanding from the start? It is in that spirit that I submit the matter for your Lordships' consideration. I beg to move.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I observe with anxiety the movement of the hand on the clock. I know of the desire of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, to celebrate his Saint's Day in another place before very long. I shall not detain him for much longer or, indeed, if I may say so, myself. We have given thought to this Amendment, but I think it is unnecessary and undesirable to clutter up the Statute Book with a superfluous, If I thought there was any real doubt, as I said in an earlier stage in the proceedings of the Bill, whether there exists at common law an offence of perverting the course of justice, of course, I should have had no hesitation in bringing forward an Amendment on the lines that are proposed; but I do not think that there is any real doubt. Listening to the speech of the noble and, learned Lord, as he was illustrating the cases it became more and more apparent that there is no doubt about the matter.
The Law Commission considered it in its Working Paper No. 62. They referred to the case of The Queen v. Grimes, to which the noble and learned Lord referred, where Mr. Justice Kilner Brown held that "an attempt to defeat the due course of justice" was an offence known to the law even where there was no element of conspiracy. That was approved by the Court of Appeal in The Queen v. Panayiotou in 1973. In the case of The Queen v. Andrews in 1973, the Court of Appeal held that to produce false evidence in order to mislead a court and to "pervert the course of public justice" was a substantive offence and that incitement so to act could properly be charged in appropriate circumstances. I think it is clear, as the noble and learned Lord has
562
said, that the effect of the cases is to establish at common law a general offence of perverting the course of justice, so making it unnecessary to charge either a conspiracy or a more particular offence such as tampering with evidence.
I think that a useful purpose has been served in our considering this Amendment because it will undoubtedly identify the fact that the offence of perverting the course of justice is an offence, as would be a conspiracy to commit it. Accordingly, in the light of what I may say with respect he, himself, has hinted at and what I ventured to submit, the noble and learned Lord may not be disposed to press this Amendment.
Lord MORRIS of BORTH-Y-GEST: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord, the Lord Chancellor for dealing with the matter so fully. I think it has been apparent that there is really nothing between us in regard to the law. I thought that the matter was just worthy of consideration; that it might serve a useful purpose to raise the matter and perhaps make it abundantly clear to the profession if any doubt still exists among those who have not looked up the point. I think that it has become abundantly clear; so, while thanking the noble and learned Lord for the way in which he has dealt with the matter, may I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.46 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 2, line 35, leave out from ("any") to end of line 44 and insert ("offence if he is an intended victim of that offence").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, during the discussion on Amendments Nos. 7 and 8 which the noble Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, moved during the first day in Committee, I agreed that the Government would look again at the whole of subsection (1) of Clause 2. The first Amendment leaves out the whole of subsection (1) of Clause 2 except for the provision relating to an intended victim. The second Amendment, Amendment No. 7, is merely a consequential tidying-up of subsection 2(c). I hope to deal with these Amendments briefly as I think that they will be generally welcomed; and I am

563
glad to see that the noble and learned Lord indicates his assent.
As your Lordships will recall from the discussion in Committee the Law Commission's Report mentions the case of R. v. Whitchurch where a woman was found guilty of conspiring to procure her own abortion, although not pregnant. This was a remarkable state of affairs, as noble Baronesses are indicating by their reaction to what I have said. In the case I have referred to, a woman was found guilty of conspiring to procure her own abortion although not pregnant. Then there was the case of a man conspiring with a mother that he should remove her child from the custody of its lawful guardian. Subsection (1) was intended to give effect to the general principle that a person should not be guilty of conspiracy if the agreement was that an offence should be committed which he could not by law commit or for which he was exempt from prosecution. As the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, pointed out in the debate, the subsection has no effect where the agreement is for the exempt person to do the act which, but for the exemption, would be an offence. Under the terms of subsection (1) of Clause 1, that could not be a conspiracy because it would not be an agreement to pursue a course of conduct which will necessarily amount to or involve the commission of an offence.
In the interval between the publication of the report and the introduction of the Bill into this House we took the view that subsection (1) was too wide. For example, a boy of 13 cannot be charged with rape but he can agree with a youth of 18 on a course of action involving rape by the youth. Another example is provided by an agreement between a United Kingdom citizen and a person who does not owe allegiance to the Crown to commit treason. We have also reconsidered the policy in relation to the examples of the non-pregnant woman and the mother agreeing to her child being stolen. For example, in a case where an irresponsible mother agrees to co-operate with a man for the man to abduct the child for some purpose other than to restore it to the mother's custody it would seem wrong for either party not to be liable to a charge of conspiracy. That leaves the question of the non-pregnant woman which is
564
largely theoretical—indeed, it was somewhat fanciful as we look back upon the case—because it is not the practice to prosecute a non-pregnant woman for offences of abortion, which would seem to be a simple statement of the obvious. Our conclusion here is that the policy in issue should properly be regarded as a matter of the law of abortion. In the circumstances, we now think that it is inappropriate for this Bill to be used to reverse Whitchurch with all the elaboration that that would produce in the draft. Therefore, this process of simplification will meet one of the reproaches which was made earlier in the debate that this Bill is guilty of over-elaboration. I beg to move.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, the speech of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor has indicated into what fields the law of conspiracy can trespass and into what unlikely areas it can come. I am grateful again to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor. I will not take up time by saying more than "Thank you" and that I think it is a great improvement to the Bill.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 3, line 7, leave out paragraph (c) and insert—
("(c) an intended victim of that offence or of each of those offences.")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I have already spoken to this Amendment and therefore formally move it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 5 [Abolitions, savings, consequential amendment and repeals]:
5.53 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 5, line 7, leave out subsection (1) and insert—
("(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, the offence of conspiracy at common law is hereby abolished.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 8. It may be for the convenience of the House if we took Amendment No. 12 at the same

565
time. These Amendments contain transitional provisions for Part I of the Bill. The main difficulties which the provisions are designed to overcome are that conspiracy is a continuing offence so that some of them will straddle the commencement date and that the prosecution are sometimes uncertain about the timing of a conspiracy. The solution in the Amendments is that once Part I comes into force, the statutory offence of conspiracy is to be charged irrespective of when it is alleged that the offence was committed. This makes Part I have retrospective effect but, except in one respect, this will work entirely to the advantage of the accused person; for example, by limiting the penalties or requiring the Director of Public Prosecutions' consent for a prosecution in certain cases. The one exception is conspiracy to murder where the penalty is increased from 10 years to life. Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3B) take care of this by preserving 10 years where the agreement was entered into before Part I came into force.
Subsection (3A)(b) provides for a case where some parties to a conspiracy are charged under the common law before commencement but the identity of others comes to light afterwards. It makes it possible to charge all the parties under the common law. Subsection (3A) (c) is directed at conspiracy to trespass. Clause 9 (trespassing on the premises of foreign missions et cetera) fills the gap left by the abolition of conspiracy to trespass but without subsection (3A)(c) there could be a problem in a case where an embassy was invaded and the trespass ended before Parts I and II came into force but charges could not be made before that date. This provision allows the common law to be charged notwithstanding the fact that in general it will by then have been abolished. To ensure that this does not work to the disadvantage of the accused, the penalty in such cases is limited to one year's imprisonment, as in the case of Clause 9, rather than being left at large as it is at present. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 8A:
Page 5, line 12, leave out ("cheat and").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it will come as no surprise if I ask leave to speak to Amendments Nos. 8A and 8B. The position, as I understand it, is that the common law offence of cheating has been abolished. For those who are erudite, I would say that I think it was abolished by the False Pretences Act of 1757, but most of us would agree that it was undoubtedly abolished, except for revenue offences, by the Theft Act of 1968. The case in 1974 of Scott v. the Metropolitan Commissioner made it perfectly clear that the appropriate way to charge people now was not by means of conspiracy to cheat and defraud, but simply conspiracy to defraud. This is the practice which is now invariably followed, and it seems undesirable to take a backward step by reintroducing the offence of conspiracy to cheat and. defraud, as is done in Clause 5 of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, these Amendments, as the noble Lord will recognise, only appeared today and so, unhappily, we have not had a great deal of opportunity to study them. But I will certainly ensure that the point the noble Lord has raised is carefully gone into before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord WIGODER: In those circumstances, my Lords, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Lord Amherst of Hackney): My Lords, if Amendment No. 9 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 10 and 11.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY moved Amendment No. 9:
age 5, line 16, leave out subsection (3).
The noble Lord said: I have brought this Amendment back in the same form as I produced it at Committee stage because after studying carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, had to say at that stage, I must confess that I am not the slightest bit satisfied that he made out any kind of case whatsoever. I know that is putting it very strongly, but I hope to be able to sustain that point of view. I begin from the supposition that in the last resort we all want to abolish these two offences of

567
conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decency where they do not refer to a substantive criminal offence, and that the only difference between most of us is whether we should do it now or after another committee has sat and at the same time as other laws may be brought in.
The noble Lord, Lord Harris, in his speech produced three points—two subsidiary and one absolutely essential and substantive. I will deal with the subsidiary points first. The first was that it was better that this should be dealt with by a departmental committee dealing with the whole range of the laws of obscenity and indecency, and that these particular offences belonged in that stable. I pointed out at the time that I saw no reason why they did not belong in the general stable of offences of conspiracy rather than in that particular one. I have come across at least one possible snag in what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was saying; that is, whether the departmental committee's brief goes so wide that it can deal with these matters.
I understand that, in correspondence, the Home Office have referred to the committee as "a committee on obscenity and film censorship", and the question of corrupting public morals goes a great deal wider than that. So I should like to ask the noble Lord, first, whether he is absolutely sure that the committee's terms of reference cover everything that would be covered by these offences and, therefore, by this Amendment. Secondly, I should like to ask the noble Lord what the proposed timetable is for bringing in further legislation. I realise that anything he says must not be held against him because, as we have seen quite often during the last few months, legislative timetables are not necessarily even within the Government's control. Nevertheless, I think we should have some assurance that if we put off dealing with this matter now, it will be dealt with within a reasonable time.
The second point I wish to raise is one made already by the noble Lord, Lord Harris, as to whether substantive offences to corrupt public morals and outrage public decency exist. I do not think that that really affects my Amendment. I agree that there is probably some uncertainty about this, although some people
568
say there is not. My own view is that the uncertainty exists. If the substantive offences do exist, then my Amendment does no harm; if they do not exist, it seems to me that it does a great deal of good in achieving what most people want to achieve, either in the long or the short-term.
I turn now to the substantive point made by the noble Lord. He said that I was trying to put down an Amendment to take away an area of the law without putting in something needful in its place. He cited only two examples of that, and I have been unable to find any others. The two cited by the noble Lord were the showing of pornographic films and the presentation of live sex shows. He said that it was in those cases that the conspiracy clause had been used mostly in the past and where it might be necessary in the future, because it was doubtful whether any other law caught it.
I do not think that is now the case. On the 25th January, 1977, in a test case decision of the Central Criminal Court, it was stated that cinema clubs showing pornographic films to their members are breaking the law. The proprietress and two doormen at the Albatross Cinema Club at Plashet Grove were found guilty of being concerned in keeping a disorderly house. That is the law which has now been shown to catch these cases and, if it catches pornographic films, I am sure that it catches to an even greater extent live sex shows. In that case, I suggest that there is no gap in the law covering these offences, and in that case I think the Government have no reason at all to resist this Amendment. I beg to move.
6.5 p.m.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE: My Lords, I can well understand that the noble Lord wanted to put down this Amendment again, and I can very well understand that he wanted to raise the questions that he did in speaking to it. Nevertheless, I hope that the Amendment will not be accepted as it stands. There seem to me to be two main reasons which could be urged against it. The first is the one I mentioned when your Lordships were in Committee; namely, that the matter ought to be considered anew by the proposed committee because conspiracy to outrage public decency has never

569
been sufficiently differentiated from conspiracy to outrage public morals. Indeed, the two offences have been habitually treated as though they raised the same issues. In fact, they raise very widely differing issues: social, ethical and legal.
I do not want to go into the merits of either offence because they turn on two decisions—in one case I was the counsel and in the other a Member of the Appellate Committee of your Lordships' House—but conspiracy to outrage public decency raises an issue that is not at all the same as that raised in a conspiracy to corrupt public morals: in other words, the issue whether the law should protect the right of a person to go out in public without certain minimum and reasonable standards of decency being outraged. It is because that issue merits separate consideration, which I think it would be true to say that it will receive for the first time, that I personally very much welcome the Government's proposal to set up the committee.
That was a matter I mentioned during the Committee stage of the Bill, but I did not mention the second reason why it seems to me that this Amendment should not be accepted; namely, that it will not do, so far as I can see, what the noble Lord intends it to do. That is because Clause 1 of the Bill retains as a criminal conspiracy an agreement to do what would be a crime in an individual. I think the balance of authority is that there is a crime in an individual both to outrage public decency and to corrupt public morals.
Certainly the law is such that there would be very considerable doubt. I say that for this reason: in the case of the Director of Public Prosecutions v. Shaw, the Court of Criminal Appeal reached their decision by holding that there was an offence in an individual to corrupt public morals, and therefore an agreement to corrupt public morals was a criminal conspiracy. When the matter came to be considered by your Lordships' House, they preferred to uphold the decision of the Court of Criminal Appeal on the ground of conspiracy, but it was expressly made quite clear in the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Tucker, giving the Opinion of the majority, that he did not reject the approach of the Court of Criminal Appeal.
570
Then for the offence in an individual to outrage public decency, there is a decision by the Court of Appeal in Mayling, holding that such an offence exists. In the Knuller case, my noble and learned friend Lord Kilbrandon and I held expressly that there was such a crime in an individual, and I think that my noble and learned friend Lord Morris of Borth-y-Gest, in approving Mayling, in that case took the same view. My noble and learned friend Lord Reid in Shaw, had taken the same view, but by the time of Knuller he had come to think differently. But, on the balance of authority, it seems to me that there is an offence in an individual both to outrage public decency and to corrupt public morals; in other words, if the Amendment is carried and subsection (3) is removed from the Bill, the offences mentioned would, I think, still be offences by reason of Clause 1. For that reason as well, I trust that the Amendment will not be accepted.
But I should like to take the opportunity to ask certain questions, of which I gave notice to the other Minister of State at the Home Office and of which I know the noble Lord. Lord Harris, is cognisant. When the decision in Shaw was reached, it may have been implicit in it that it could have been used in such a way as to outflank the defence given by Section 2(4) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959. Your Lordships will remember that that was the defence available to a person accused of an obscene publication—in other words, something likely to deprave or corrupt those into whose hands it might fall—to show that, notwithstanding that tendency, the work should be published on the ground that it had literary, artistic, scientific or suchlike merit. As I say, the decision in Shaw could have been used to outflank that defence. An assurance was given that Shaw would not be used in such a way, and that was repeated again in 64 by the Solicitor-General in another place. But nothing was said as to its application to a conspiracy to outrage public decency.
In the Knuller case, my noble and learned friend Lord Reid thought that the assurance did not extend to that conspiracy, because it was not explicitly said to do so. I thought that it did, because it seemed to me that the assurances given in another place extended in spirit to that other conspiracy to outrage

571
public decency. But the matter is in sufficient doubt, in my respectful submission, that it ought to be cleared up. I know that the Home Office is not a prosecuting authority, but I hope that the noble Lord will be able to give an assurance, although I shall well understand if he says that it should be left to a law officer in another place. It struck me, too, that it is just possible that the decisions in Shaw and Knuller could be used to outflank the defence in the Obscene Publications Act, if it was ever sought to raise that defence in connection with a crime by an individual to corrupt public morals or to outrage public decency. I do not see at the moment how that could arise, but if it could I should be grateful if the noble Lord could give an assurance as to that matter, too.
6.15 p.m.
Lord GARDINER: My Lords, I expressed my view on this question both on the Second Reading of the Bill and again in Committee, and I therefore have no intention of taking up time by expressing it now for a third time. But although I remain of the same opinion, I should like, if I may, to raise a question about the committee. I gathered from what my noble friend Lord Harris of Greenwich said on Second Reading in December last year that we might at any moment hear the names of the chairman and members of the committee. Does he think that there is any prospect of such a committee reporting in the lifetime of this Parliament, and is rumour right in saying that the right honourable gentleman the Home Secretary has found it very difficult indeed to find anybody who is prepared to take on the chairman ship of this committee?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, certainly, it is true that many harsh words have been spoken about the offences which this Amendment seeks to abolish, not least by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, who has spoken today and during the Committee stage. Some of these words might indeed be justified, and I would not want the attitude which the Government have taken, and must continue to take, towards this part of the law to be in any way misunderstood. We do not take the view that this is a sphere in which the law is wholly effective
572
and leaves nothing to be desired. But we do regard it as rather more complex than some noble Lords have so far recognised.
If the Law Commission was correct, this Amendment would not abolish the offence of conspiracy to corrupt public morals, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, pointed out. The Law Commission's view, based on the judicial authorities, was that there existed an offence at common law of corrupting public morals, and under Clause 1 of the Bill it will continue to be an offence to conspire to commit any criminal offence. But the existence of the substantive offences is a matter of some doubt, and if the law on conspiracy had to rely on Clause 1 alone the doubt would attach itself also to the existence of the conspiracy offences. The merit of the Bill as drafted is that it makes it clear that, as at present, conspiracy to corrupt public morals and conspiracy to outrage public decency are offences, regardless of the doubts about the existence of the substantive offences; to delete subsection (3), which this Amendment seeks to achieve, can only import great uncertainty as to what the law is.
The Law Commission found it necessary, in looking at these particular conspiracy offences, to extend their review to the various substantive offences in the field of public morals and decency. The scope of these offences is often doubtful, and for this reason it is not readily possible to say exactly what gaps would be left in the law if particular offences did not exist. Taking together the offences of conspiracy to corrupt public morals and to outrage public decency, and those of obscene libel, indecent public exhibition, keeping a disorderly house and indecent exposure, the Law Commission proposed to substitute: first, the widening of the Obscene Publications Acts to cover the exhibition of films, whether in public or in private: secondly, a new offence of presenting an obscene live performance; and, thirdly, a new offence of engaging in offensive sexual behaviour in public view. It is really not possible to look at these proposals other than as a complete package and that is the Government's position on this matter. As we have made clear, our conclusion is that before the obscenity laws are widened as the Law Commission proposed, they ought themselves to be examined with considerable care by the

573
proposed new committee. To deal with the specific question which was addressed to me by the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, when he moved the Amendment, certainly the Committee will be able to discuss the matters which are the subject of these Amendments. So far as the Government are concerned, there is no possible doubt about that.
My noble and learned friend raised the question of timing. I am afraid that I am not in a position to give an indication of whether the Committee will be able to report in the lifetime of this Parliament without knowing what the lifetime of this Parliament will be—which I am quite sure that my noble and learned friend and I would very much like to know! Therefore I cannot answer his question. However, my right honourable friend the Home Secretary is pushing ahead quite vigorously with the matter and certainly it is our hope to announce the name of the chairman as soon as possible.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, raised a question at the end of his speech to which I should now like to give a fairly considered reply. The assurance as to the use of conspiracy charges which is most frequently cited is that given on 3rd June, 1964 by the then Solicitor General, Sir Peter Rawlinson, in the context of the Obscene Publications Bill when he said:
"… that a conspiracy to corrupt public morals would not be charged so as to circumvent the statutory defence in Section 4"—[Official Report, Commons, 3/6/64; col. 1212.]
The Solicitor General made it clear then that he was repeating assurances already given by the Attorney General, and in due course, during the Report stage of the Bill on 7th July 1964, he repeated it yet again. On that occasion, however, he expressed the assurance in a wider form, saying that:
"…no proceedings would be brought for a common law offence so as to attempt to evade the statutory defence of public good which is set out in the 1959 Act."—[Official Report, Commons, 7/7/64; col. 316.]
It is that second assurance which the noble and learned Lord is seeking.
To remove any doubt my right honourable and learned friend the Attorney General has authorised me to say that he agrees that conspiracies to outrage public decency or the correlative offences committed by individuals are within the spirit
574
of the original undertaking; namely that offences of this kind would not be charged in order to prevent an accused person from raising the defence of public good which would be open to him on the same facts under the Obscene Publications Act.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I do not want to detain the House but, lest there should be any doubt, may I say that we on this side of the house again support the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, pursues this particular hare with an enthusiasm and a persistence which is in inverse proportion to the complexity of the subject. I can only endorse what the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, has just said. It is clean contrary to the report of the Law Commission whose recommendations we are seeking to enact in this part of the Bill.
The noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, introduced two points which were new to this stage of the Bill. The first was a kind of Morton's Fork dilemma which he sought to impose upon the Government: either that the proposed Amendment of deletion would make no difference, because there remained an offence to corrupt public morals at common law independent of conspiracy, or that it would do a great deal of good by removing any possibility that anyone could be prosecuted for such an offence. I am bound to say that I do not rind the dilemma altogether convincing. However, what the noble Lord would achieve by the deletion, as the noble and learned Lord, Lord Simon of Glaisdale, and the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, have both pointed out, is uncertainty as to whether or not a person could be so prosecuted.
I do not know whether the object of the Liberal Party is to create obscurity in the law, but if so they will pursue this matter to a Division. On the other hand, I prefer certainty and I think that the Government's undertaking that the matter will be considered in relation to the other proposals of the Law Commission is the right way to set about things. The second point which the noble Lord, Lord Beaumont of Whitley, introduced was that there had recently been a case at the Old Bailey. I think he said that a "blue" cinema, or something of the kind, had been found to be an offence, independently

575
of the law of conspiracy. That may be so, but until the matter has been taken to appeal, at least to the stage of the Court of Appeal and possibly on certificate to your Lordships' House, I think that it would be unwise to regard the law as finally settled. Therefore I support the Government.
Lord BEAUMONT of WHITLEY: My Lords, if my enthusiasm and persistence, which amount to having made only two speeches on the subject, are in inverse proportion to the complexity of the matter, either I have less enthusiasm than I think or the matter is not complex at all. It seems to me that the matter is extremely complex, and I admit as much.
I have made out a reasonable case for showing that there is no real area which would be left uncovered, where the Commonwealth would be harmed if these Amendments were passed. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, was reduced from the specific points that he made at the last stage to the area of generalisations.
A very serious point is being raised about the uncertainty in the law relating to substantive offences. It is extremely difficult to deal with law revision in your,
Lordships' House when even the most learned of noble Lords are not clear what is the law. However, I go back to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, said was my Morton's Fork. If there are substantive offences, this Amendment will have achieved nothing, but at least it will have achieved no harm. If there are no substantive offences, as indeed I hope that there are not, and it is unclear whether there are any, the Amendment will have done some good.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, asks whether it is the policy of the Liberal Party to create uncertainty in the law. No, my Lords, it is not. However, the uncertainty surrounding these substantive offences has been with us for a very long time. I do not see any particular reason why we should necessarily bring that point to an end in this Bill if we can do some good by not doing so. It is for that reason that I feel bound to divide the House.
6.28 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 9) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 16; Not-Contents, 104.

CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Hale, L.

St. Davids, V.

Beaumont of Whitley, L. [Teller.]

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Seear, B.

Brockway, L.

McNair, L.

Thurso, V.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Monson, L.

Wade, L.

Foot, L. [Teller.]

Norwich, V.

Wigoder, L.

Grey, E.

NOT-CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

de Clifford, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Allen of Abbeydale, L.

Denham, L.

Ilchester, E.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Derby, Bp.

Inglewood, L.

Amory, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Jacques, L.

Ampthill, L.

Dormer, L.

Janner, L.

Atholl, D.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Kagan, L.

Auckland, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Berkeley, B.

Duncan-Sandys, L.

Killearn, L.

Beswick, L.

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

Kintore, E.

Blyton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Faithfull, B.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Falkland, V.

Long, V.

Champion, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gainford, L.

Lyell, L.

Collison, L.

Gaitskell, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Colville of Culross, V.

Glenamara, L.

Maelor, L.

Crook, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone,

Mansfield, E.

Cudlipp, L.

L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Daventry, V.

Halsbury, E.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Davies of Leek, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Merrivale, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Morris, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Sudeley, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Rusholme, L.

Suffield, L.

Moyne, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Northchurch, B.

St. Just, L.

Thorneycroft, L.

Northfield, L.

Sandys, L.

Trefgarne, L.

O'Brien of Lothbury, L.

Shannon, E.

Vivian, L.

Onslow, E.

Shepherd, L.

Wakefield of Kendal, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Phillips, B.

Somers, L.

Walston, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Popplewell, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Weidenfeld, L.

Raglan, L.

Stone, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Winterbottom, L.

Rhodes, L.

Strang, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

6.38 p.m.
The LORD CHANCELLOR: My Lords, I crave the indulgence of the House to make a brief statement which I intended to make after we had considered Amendments Nos. 6 and 7. It is in response to a request that I received at the Committee stage to say something about the joinder of conspiracy counts and related substantive counts. It was pointed out at the Committee stage that too much joinder of conspiracy with substantive counts was taking place and complicated proceedings unnecessarily and I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, whether something could be done about it.
I have given urgent consideration to this matter and the conclusion that we have come to is that it would not be possible to deal with the problem as was suggested by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, by an Amendment to the indictment rules. I expressed doubt about that suggestion at the Committee stage because in my view indictment rules are not appropriate since they are not directed at trial procedure. A statutory provision, which was what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, originally had in mind, I think would formalise the matter unduly and it seemed right that in a procedural matter we should aim at the greater flexibility of a practice direction.
Now, a practice direction cannot be prepared and issued between the stages of a Bill in your Lordships' House, but I understand that the Lord Chief Justice is considering the possibility of a practice direction sympathetically. It is not for the Government to make a firm commitment about practice directions, but I can assure the House and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, that we are satisfied that, although there is a problem here, it is
578
unnecessary to seek to remedy it in the Bill and I hope indeed that a practice direction will be forthcoming. I am most grateful to your Lordships for allowing this slightly irregular intervention.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may I, with equal irregularity, thank the noble and learned Lord on the Woolsack for the consideration given to the discussion at Committee stage, and say that I have no doubt that the indication that a practice direction will in due course appear will be very warmly welcomed.
Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE Lord SIMON of GLAISDALE moved Amendments Nos. 10 and 11:
Page 5, line 19, leave out ("undermine or otherwise injure");
Page 5, line 20, leave out ("affronts or").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with your Lordships' permission, I will move Amendments Nos. 10 and 11 at the same time. These were Amendments which I put down at the Committee stage. It seemed to me that the words which I seek to leave out in these two Amendments might widen the conspiracy offences at common law as they had been confined by the decision of your Lordships' House in Knuller v. Director of Public Prosecutions. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, very courteously said that he would like to consider the arguments between the Committee stage and the Report stage, and I have since heard from his colleague, the other Minister of State, that the Government are prepared to accept the Amendments. In those circumstances I would not be justified in detaining your Lordships by repeating the arguments I used on the last occasion. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, we accept at once that the Government's intention can be met by the simple

579
wording which is proffered by the noble and learned Lord, and accordingly we recommend to the House that these Amendments should be accepted. In doing this, I should like to express on behalf of the Government our gratitude to the noble and learned Lord for having raised this matter with us and for his energy in pursuing it in correspondence.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 5, line 23, at end insert—
("(3A) Subsection (1) above shall not affect—

(a) any proceedings commenced before the time when this Part of this Act comes into into force;

(b) any proceedings commenced after that time against a person charged with the same conspiracy as that in issue in any proceedings commenced before that time; or

(c) any proceedings commenced after that time in respect of a trespass committed before that time;

but a person convicted of conspiracy to trespass in any proceedings brought by virtue of paragraph (c) above shall not in respect of that conviction be liable to imprisonment for a term exceeding one year.
(3B) Sections 1 and 2 above shall apply to things done before as well to things done after the time when this Part of this Act comes into force, but in the application of section 3 above to a case where the agreement in question was entered into before that time—

(a) subsection (2) shall be read without the reference to murder in paragraph (a); and

(b) any murder intended under the agreement shall be treated as an indictable offence for which a maximum term of imprisonment on conviction on indictment of ten years is provided.").

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12. We have already discussed this in relation to Amendment No. 8.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 12A:
Page 5, line 35, after ("ground") insert ("of itself").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12A and, with your Lordships' leave, to speak at the same time to Amendment No. 12B. I do so in response to the invitation of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham,
580
that noble Lords on these Benches should seek wherever possible to remove any possible obscurity in the drafting of this Bill. This is substantially a drafting Amendment.
Clause 5(5) deals with the situation where, for example, two defendants are charged with conspiring with each other and one is acquitted and the other convicted. The issue has arisen in the past when the courts have felt obliged to quash the conviction of the one who has been convicted, however strong the evidence might have been—indeed he might have made a full and complete confession as to his part in the conspiracy. What is said in Clause 5(5), as your Lordships will see. at line 34 onwards is that the fact that there has been an acquittal of one of two conspirators in these circumstances shall not be a ground for quashing the conviction unless under all the circumstances of the case his conviction is inconsistent with the acquittal of the other person or persons in question.
What these Amendments propose is that instead that should simply read:
"shall not be a ground of itself for quashing his conviction"
—and that the remaining words should be omitted. That would not only simplify the subsection; it would also remove from the subsection the last three lines, which impose a wholly unnecessary test for the Court of Appeal to consider when they are dealing with appeals of this nature. Under the terms of the Criminal Appeal Act they will in fact want to consider whether the verdict is unsafe or unsatisfactory, and there does not appear to be any virtue in imposing upon the Court of Appeal a further statutory duty to consider a particular application in a particular way. I would, therefore, have thought it might be that these simple Amendments do simplify this particular subsection. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, has said, this appears to be a straight question of drafting. I will gladly consider the noble Lord's point and look into it before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, in those circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 6 [Violence for securing entry]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 6, line 8, at end insert ("against the person or against property").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, it may be convenient if with Amendment No. 13 we also discussed Amendments Nos. 14, 15, 17, 18 and 19. I am reinforced so far as this contention is concerned by the fact that I have had a few words with the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Although in many cases it is undesirable to mix up the clauses, perhaps it will be convenient and make for a better debate if we lump all these Amendments together.
Your Lordships may recollect that we had a number of good debates on these two clauses when the House was in Committee. Clauses 6 and 7, perhaps I should have said, relate to squatting; I suppose they may be called the squatting provisions.
I certainly do not want to go over the ground again; still less do I want to rehearse all the same arguments and points which we went over on the last occasion. Nevertheless, I believe that the Committee was agreed that there were a number of unsatisfactory features of these clauses, although I do not think it became at all plain how they could be remedied; and indeed, being honest, they have not become much plainer to me in the intervening weeks. I think that a number of very difficult matters come up as a result of these new clauses, and the answers perhaps are quite wide, in the sense that I think that Parliament and indeed the community has to decide what its attitude is going to be to persons who break one law or another in one manner or another; and this attitude is decided by what society wants for itself.
It seems to me that there are three ways in which all these provisions fall to be discussed: first, by having regard to the character of the premises in question, which are occupied or may be occupied; secondly, by having regard to the character of the squatter—and by that may I say hastily that I mean character more in the sense of his ambition, whether it is merely to provide a roof over his head or to preserve his job so far as he is concerned, or whether it is to make some form of political protest or demonstration. And,
582
thirdly, we have to consider the character or type of person who has an interest in the property and as a result of that type of interest may depend whether or not criminal proceedings will eventually arise.
I shall take them one by one. I start with the premises to be protected. Under the Bill there are two types of premises which may be protected: first, in effect, dwelling-houses and, secondly, slightly artificially, premises which have what I might call a diplomatic flavour. That latter range is to be extended—if the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has his way—by one or two Amendments which will be discussed later. First, I shall deal with whether it is desirable that only dwelling-houses as a class in the normal course of events should be protected. There are daily demonstrations—if that is the right word, and I am not sure that it is—of the complexity of these types of occupation. Only a week or so ago a number of students occupied part of the University of London and eventually were removed, or removed themselves, but only after considerable disruption, a considerable amount of time spent by the court, what must have been very expensive proceedings and considerable disruption to the university and to everyone who had business there. I question whether, as a community, we want to leave the regulation of this kind of activity to the slightly haphazard workings of the civil law.
In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who has now left his place, seemed to be against the extension of the criminal law to any premises other than dwelling-houses, although in his first intervention he showed great sympathy for the squatter who is there for the purpose of providing a roof over his head—a sympathy which I know all noble Lords share and which, on a number of occasions during the passage of the Bill through the House, I have emphasised. I am not sure that I agree with the noble Lord. In fact, I go further and say that I am sure that I disagree with him that in the future, after the Bill becomes an Act, there will be no cases where a building has to receive this kind of protection—I use the word loosely—unless it is a dwelling-house.
In one of his more lighthearted moments, my noble and learned friend Lord Hailsham of Saint Marylebone referred to Ministry buildings. Indeed,

583
later on in these proceedings we shall discuss an Amendment which both he and I have tabled which will go far to relieve the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Harris. Public buildings are one type of building—which can all too easily be occupied by squatters who wish to make a political point—where it seems to me that we are in danger of leaving a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. If the only remedy open to either the authorities or whoever it is who owns or controls the building is to seek whatever aid they can get from the High Court—and we have had various estimates of how long that takes—all I can say is that if the persons who make this sort of squat wish to reinforce their point, action takes weeks rather than days and it may well take months. That is borne out by the report of the Law Commission.
I turn to the second of my headings—and I wish to be as brief as possible—namely, the aims and ambitions of the squatters themselves. It is a displeasing prospect—and I have said this before—that in Clause 6 violence should be invoked against a person who has no roof over his head. As the noble Lord, Lord Harris, said in Committee, the purpose of these provisions is to prevent breaches of the peace. It is distasteful that in the case of a thoroughly meritorious squatter activities of this sort—violence of whatever nature—are not only to be condoned but, in a manner of speaking, encouraged by the community. Nevertheless, I have very little sympathy for the squatter who is merely making a political point because, presumably, he has not enough faith either in his democratically elected representatives or in any other means of gaining attention to his cause. One has rather less sympathy, but still a certain degree of sympathy, with those who occupy business premises because they fear the effect of redundancy upon their employment or do so for a similar reason.
The third point to which I return is this creature, the displaced residential occupier. It was in this area that the House experienced most difficulty during the last stage of the Bill. It is almost capricious and is certainly a matter of luck whether the person, who one may describe loosely as the owner of the house, is a displaced residential occupier so that criminal proceedings may begin,
584
or has not yet become one or has ceased to be one so that they do not. Even the noble Lord, Lord Harris—and I do not use the word "even" in any offensive sense—said that perhaps all was not well with this wording and that it would merit further consideration. Nothing further has come from the Government, and perhaps it is not altogether surprising that that is so. What I threatened to do, and what I have done, is to table a series of Amendments which in their effect are approximately the same as before although they go about it in a slightly different way and remove some of the criticisms which were levelled at them in Committee.
In effect, Amendments Nos. 13, 14 and 15 extend the right of violence—which, as I say, I do not like—beyond the displaced residential occupier to persons who have a right to possession or occupation of the premises. Your Lordships will see that I have tried fairly precisely to put confines round this. I have said that there must be a right to possession or occupation of the premises. In paragraph (b), which has not previously been considered and nor has it been discussed in your Lordships' House, I have tried to confine the force to that which is reasonable to secure entry to the premises. In paragraph (c) I have tried to ensure that such force is used only against a squatter and not, for instance, against someone such as a tenant who has come to the end of his lease.
Amendments Nos. 18 and 19 in Clause 7 extend the same definition beyond that of a displaced residential occupier and put the person who can "trigger off", if that is the right word, the proceedings into a much wider net. I know it will be said that the effect of this will widen Clause 7, so that many people will be embraced other than the residential occupiers. I am informed—I do not have any reason to believe that my information is wrong—that 99 per cent, of squats take place in local authority owned property which, for one reason or another, is empty at the time when the person wishes to move in.
Noble Lords will realise that, so far as Clause 7 is concerned, it is still "adverse occupation of residential premises". Therefore, the purpose of these Amendments is that they should relate only to residential premises, but that they give local authorities in particular the right to

585
require trespassers to leave. If it is said that the scope is widened too much, then my reply is that the occasions on which other owners of property (or whoever they may be other than the displaced residential occupiers) will be concerned will be very small, and I do not think that we need worry about them. I hope that is not too long an explanation of these Amendments, bearing in mind that there are six of them. I beg to move.
7.2 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, this group of Amendments, as the noble Earl pointed out, contains two principal ideas: First, that the right to use reasonable force to enter premises should be extended from a displaced residential occupier to any person with a right to possess or occupy the premises; secondly, that it should be a criminal offence for a trespasser to resist a person with a right to possess or occupy premises who seeks to enter them or to eject him from there. The two ideas are closely connected and it is right that we should take them together, but I should like to discuss each in turn.
In considering how wide should be the exemption from the offence of violent entry under Clause 6, it is natural that we should begin with the present law (which we discussed on the last occasion) on self-help. Although we cannot avoid considering it the uncertainties of the present law make it of only fairly limited help. The present law turns on whether the person on the premises has possession of them in a legal sense. If he has possession, anyone seeking to enter by force may be committing the offence of forcible entry. If he does not have possession, it seems that the rightful occupier would not commit an offence if he used reasonable force to enter his property. I have, no doubt, oversimplified the state of the existing law, but I should prefer for the moment to leave it at that. It can be studied in paragraph 2.16 of the Law Commission's Report and in the cases referred to there.
I should like next to describe how and why we came to have the exemption for a displaced residential occupier in Clause 6(3). In their Consultative Working Paper on offences of entering and remaining on property, the Law Commission suggested
586
that the right of self-help should be done away with altogether. As they said in paragraph 2.55 of their final report:
"Once self-help of this nature is allowed it is difficult to know where the line is to be drawn; while it may be thought acceptable for a person to eject a trespasser from his dwelling house occupied while he was away for the day, it may be thought far less acceptable to allow the use of a strong-arm gang to obtain occupation of a building planned for redevelopment but which squatters have been occupying for some time. Not only is the use of violence undesirable in itself, but the threat it poses to the squatters may lead them to resist, and so provoke a violent clash."
The Law Commission in fact received some support for this approach in Committee on this Bill. The noble Earl, Lord Mansfield, will recall his words on that occasion, and he repeated them in some degree today, when he said on 25th January at columns 404 and 405 of the Official Report:
"I find it disagreeable that in the last quarter of the 20th century we are proposing to sanction a measure which in effect allows one citizen to offer violence to another, because that is what Clause 6 implies. It means that where a displaced residential occupier wishes to regain possession of his premises, he is at liberty either by himself, or by his employees, agents, friends, anybody he can muster, to offer such violence as may be necessary for the purposes of securing entry into those premises again. It is not a very happy commentary on our state as a community that this is what is being considered."
I suspect that one of the reasons for the success that the Law Commission has had in seeing its draft Bills adopted by Parliament—and I suspect that my noble and learned friend Lord Gardiner will agree with this—has been its unvarying habit of widespread consultation. Subsection (2) derives from that consultation. The Law Commission originally advocated that the right of self-help should disappear completely. Consultation convinced them that, as they balanced the right to use reasonable force to deal with trespassers against the need to deter any breach of the peace, they should come down in favour of preserving the right of self-help in the case of what is now described as the displaced residential occupier, but only in that case. It is obvious from what I have said that it is a matter of judgment where to draw the line. The Government have so far backed the judgment of the Law Commission, made after extensive consultation. We still incline to that view, but we will consider further the arguments that have been advanced today for considering the exemption.

587
I hope that I can deal more briefly with the other major idea in these Amendments; that is, that it should be a criminal offence for a trespasser to resist the person with a right to occupy or possess the premises. As will become clear when we reach Lord Dilhorne's Amendment to Clause 10, it is not at present a specific criminal offence to resist, for example, a bailiff executing an order for possession. In its present form Clause 10 makes this a criminal offence only in the case of orders issued under the summary procedure. It seems to us to be going too far to make any form of resistance, for example to the displaced residential occupier, a criminal offence. The normal criminal law of assault and criminal damage applies in these circumstances and that will be sufficient.
In practice it seems possible that a person who has successfully and lawfully ejected trespassers by the use of reasonable force will not want to bring criminal proceedings unless the resistance offered was serious enough to justify charging an existing criminal offence. Another objection to the offence is that it would in practice be a general squatting offence available to anyone who went to the trouble of seeking to enter his premises or arranging for someone else to seek to do so on his behalf. If the Government were persuaded that a general squatting offence was desirable, we should prefer it to turn on a request to leave rather than resistance to an attempted entry.
I should like in conclusion for us to be clear about what the effect would be if we decided to accept these Amendments. The Bill exempts from the offence in Clause 6 a displaced residential occupier; in other words, someone who returns home to find squatters in his house. The Amendments in the name of the noble Earl would go a great deal further. If we were to accept them, it would not be an offence for a landlord to use or threaten violence against property, to enter premises where a tenant was holding over after the expiration of his tenancy. It would not be an offence for a factory owner or any group of his employees to use or threaten violence to enter premises where, for example, the employees threatened with unemployment were staging a work-in.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, is the noble Lord saying that it would not
588
be an offence, if my Amendments were accepted, for a landlord to enter premises of his tenant where the lease had expired?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am trying to indicate what in our judgment would be the full meaning of the Amendments tabled by the noble Earl. The Government's position is that it is the displaced residential occupier who is the only person in this, if you like, privileged position; the others would not be, and all that I am saying is that the consequence of his Amendments would be to carry it a stage substantially further.
This is clearly, as I have indicated on a number of occasions, a matter of difficult judgment. The noble Earl is right to say that these are difficult and complex matters. All I would say is that I believe his Amendments, for the reasons I have given, would not only go too far but would go substantially too far and I hope he will, having reflected on the course of our discussion tonight, decide not to press them. Certainly we will keep this matter under review as part of the continuing discussions we are having on the squatting sections of the Bill, but at the moment we are not persuaded that Amendments on these lines would be helpful.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, of course in this matter the Government are the author of their own difficulty. If all the old Statutes were abolished, if the conspiracy of trespass were abolished and Clause 6 did not exist, I would have no complaint; others would but, speaking personally, I would not. It is the Government who have chosen to create this new offence. Now that I see the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, on the Government Front Bench with the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, Lord Harris might care to ask him about hame-sucken, an offence which we might do well to have in English law but which we do not have at present.
The fact of the matter is that the Government have created Clause 6 and this special defence, and we have to consider it. It is I who have talked about reasonable force; the Government have not and never have until tonight. So far as I can see, the word "reasonable" does not appear in Clause 6. The displaced residential occupier is entitled to use such force as he can summon. I

589
suppose he could use a battering ram if he were able to find one and the people with the strength to swing it. There is nothing in Clause 6 which restricts the force which can be exercised and the manner in which it can be used from the point of view of a displaced residential occupier.
I repeat that it is I who have tried to bring an element of reasonableness into it, vet I now have that flung back in my teeth with some eminently quotable chunks from what I said in Committee. Nevertheless, I accept for these purposes that it is not the Government's wish that, so far as Clause 6 is concerned, the matter should be enlarged. What I wish could have happened, and still may happen, is that Clause 7 could be redrafted in an altogether tighter form. It seems to me very much more civilised if somebody can go to a squatter and say, "This is my house and I require you to leave, and if you don't you will be committing an offence". On that point the noble Lord is—I will not say being obdurate—getting close to being obstinate.
So far as resisting entry and assault are concerned, I find it extraordinary that the displaced residential occupier comes to his house, he cannot get in, he uses the protection of Clause 6 and there is a violent scene—which is sanctioned, if not sanctified, by the Government—and then, says the noble Lord, at the end, when the battle is over, if the squatter has used too much violence in resisting the entry, there may lie some sort of summons for assault. This is going to put an extra-ordinary strain on the resources of the magistrates' court dealing with summonses like this, when undoubtedly there will be cross-summonses. My Saturday afternoons many years ago were rendered almost intolerable by cross-summonses in magistrates' courts, and I have no doubt that the same will apply to others in future if this legislation is adopted.
I welcome the fact that the Government say that they will continue to give his matter their attention. I urge that Clause 7 be rethought. The noble Lord is careful to avoid the use of the phrase "local authorities", and I do not altogether blame him because there is no excuse for not giving local authorities some right of self-help, even if they too could go to a squatter and say, "Get out or you will
590
have committed an offence". However, that is as far as I will take the matter tonight and, in the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 16:
Page 6, line 29, after ("entry") insert ("which")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. When I was not being quite so obdurate on the last occasion, I accepted an Amendment moved in Committee by the noble Earl to improve the drafting of subsection (1)(a) of Clause 6. I am indebted to the noble Viscount, Lord Barrington, who pointed out on that occasion that consistency required this Amendment to subsection (4)(b), and that is what this Amendment is designed to achieve.
Clause 9 [Trespassing on premises of foreign missions, etc.]:
7.19 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 8, line 1, at beginning insert ("Subject to subsection (3) below")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I will speak at the same time to Amendments Nos. 22 and 25. These Amendments extend the definition of premises in Clause 9 and provide a defence for an accused person along the lines of subsection (2) of Clause 7. It has emerged since the Bill was published that some international organisations, such as the Commonwealth Secretariat and certain bodies connected with the EEC with premises in this country entitled to diplomatic inviolability, are not covered by Clause 9 in its present form. The Amendment includes a general form of words to cover other premises which are accorded diplomatic inviolability by or under any enactment.
It has also been represented to the Government, and we agree, that the Bill ought to cover private residences of diplomatic agents in so far as they are accorded diplomatic inviolability. This does not extend to everyone who works in an embassy. To some extent, these

591
premises are covered by the offence in Clause 7 and the exemption for a displaced residential occupier in Clause 6. But there could be a problem where a diplomatic agent has been appointed to a post in this country and is intending to live in a particular house but has not yet arrived. The Amendment will allow the police to take the necessary action to discharge our international obligations. The extension to private residences makes it essential, in the Government's view, to include a defence for a person who did not believe and had no reasonable cause to believe that the premises on which he was trespassing were premises to which this clause applies. I beg to move.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I do not suppose that any of your Lordships would wish to quarrel with these Amendments, although they exemplify what happens when one starts to take legislative action and then finds that there are difficulties in the way. One wonders what will be the attitude of, for instance, a magistrates' court when the accused produces a subsection (3) defence. If one wished to be flippant, one might say that the possibilities were unlimited. But no doubt that is something that will occupy the courts in the future. Is it possible for the noble Lord, Lord Harris, to say in general terms just how far down the scale of foreign potentates resident within our shores this provision is meant to protect?
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: Indeed, this is a difficulty, my Lords. But, as the noble Earl will recognise, this clause is necessary to fulfil what, in our view, are our international obligations. It therefore seems to us to be right to have put this particular provision into the Bill. So far as the term "diplomatic agent" is concerned, the situation is, I understand, that every country that maintains an embassy notifies the Foreign and Commonwealth Office of the names of those members of its staff which it regards as having diplomatic rank. The names are normally accepted without question and entered on a list kept by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office for that purpose. In effect, only those whose names are on the list are regarded as having diplomatic rank. That is the position as I understand it.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 8, line 12, leave out ("Article 1(j)") and insert ("paragraph 1(j) of Article 1").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
The PRINCIPAL DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Tweedsmuir of Belhelvie): My Lords, I should say that if Amendment No. 22 is agreed I cannot call Amendment No. 23.
7.24 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 22:
Page 8, line 15, leave out from ("1968") to end of line 26 and insert—

("(c) any other premises in respect of which any organisation or body is entitled to inviolability by or under any enactment; and

(d) any premises which are the private residence of a diplomatic agent (within the meaning of Article 1(e) of the Convention mentioned in paragraph (a) above) or of any other person who is entitled to inviolability of residence by or under any enactment.

(3) In any proceedings for an offence under this section it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that he believed, and had reasonable cause to believe, that the premises in question were not premises to which this section applies").
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, if it is the case that Amendment No. 23 cannot be called if Amendment No. 22 is agreed, I should like to make two points. The first is on Amendment No. 22 itself. I cannot myself see the justification for the insertion into the subsection of the words:
"and had no reasonable cause to believe".
Nor can I see why in this case the burden of proof should be on the defendant to say that he did not believe. It seems to me that these are extensions of the general principles of criminal law and I do not know at all why the Government have thought it necessary to extend them in this particular field. The whole philosophy of the Government in this field, right or wrong—and I must say that I have some doubts about it—has been to reduce the field in which trespass should be a crime if committed by more than one person.

593
Here, we find a modest extension in the opposite direction. I wonder why. I do not myself see any justification for it.
As it appears that I am to be driven out of the field if the Amendment is accepted, and as I do not want to divide against Amendment No. 22 simply in order to get Amendment No. 23 discussed, I should like to explain why I put down Amendment No. 23. We had a short discussion in Committee. It seems to me that, to take the example that I gave in Committee, a group of people entering the private office of the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs and excluding him from his private office in order to give rise to a political point or to make a protest against Government policy, are just as much committing an offence against public order as if they break into the Sierre Leone Second Secretary's private premises to do the same. It seems to me that the Government have gone too far in the reverse direction and that they ought to protect public buildings against this kind of nuisance. I wonder whether, when the noble Lord, Lord Harris, replies, he could consider the very brief account that I have given of Amendment No. 23 as well as answering the substantive point that I made on his own Amendment, No. 22.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord has pointed out, we had a short discussion on this matter in Committee when he raised the question of occupation of the Foreign Secretary's office. The question was whether it would be an offence of violent entry under Clause 6 to enter the room by force or to eject the trespassers. The answer is that, in practice, it would not be a criminal offence. In practice, there is always someone on the premises of a major Government building, and this is particularly the case with the Foreign Office. This is so day and night and, provided that that person, be he a security guard or a resident clerk, was in the group seeking to eject the trespassers, it would presumably be held that reasonable force was being used to eject trespassers from the premises by those who were already there, rather than that an offence of entering premises was being committed. That is our view of the matter.
On the wider question which the noble and learned Lord deals with in Amendment No. 23, where he is seeking to
594
insert the words in the Amendment, in our view this goes substantially too far. This is for a reason of which I shall attempt to persuade him. On the last occasion, I indicated that we should look into this matter and we have done so. Certainly our conclusion is that this formula would not be the right one to employ in the Bill. May I say briefly in passing that the Amendment, as drafted—I do not want to get into the tedious game of using debating points about the precise drafting of Amendments—could mean that it would be a criminal offence for a trespasser to walk across the playing field of a local authority school. I am quite sure that that is not the intention of the noble and learned Lord. Any Amend-ment along these lines is bound to run into the difficulty that the boundary between the public and private sectors is not as clear as it might have been 50 years ago.
To take an example of which the family of the noble and learned Lord has great knowledge, the premises of some colleges belong to local authorities. Others belong to private bodies. Would it be right to divide educational institutions in this way? I should have thought not. In other contexts, nationalised industries have been held to be public authorities. It may not seem to be fair to some private firms, large and small, that the law should discriminate against them and in favour of the public industries such as, to take another example, water boards. Why should a water board be on one side of the divide and, let us say, a building society on the other? I do not think it is an answer to say that one is publicly owned and the other is not.
If I may say so, in a mood of affection, it is a strangely neo-Marxist argument to say that the public sector should get a particular type of treatment of this kind so far as the criminal law is concerned. I remember being present at a juvenile court hearing some years ago in Moscow. The Soviet authorities had kindly allowed me to go into the hearing because of my interest in this area. I heard a case being deployed against a group of young men who had broken into a school and stolen public property. The argument was that it was far more objectionable for them to have stolen public property than if the property had been private. I do not accept that view: nor, I am sure, does the noble and learned Lord.

595
I perfectly understand the reasons that have motivated the noble and learned Lord to put down the Amendment, but I do not believe that so far as the application of the criminal law is concerned, it is wise to discriminate between public and private bodies in this way. Certainly I understand the anxieties that the noble and learned Lord has on the matter, but, for the reasons I have given, the Government are not persuaded that an Amendment on these lines is right. So far as Amendment No. 22 is concerned—and we have discussed it with Amendment No. 20—I should like to look into the points which the noble and learned Lord raised, and I will do that before the next stage of the Bill.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, with the permission of the House, I should like to point out to the noble Lord that it would not be a convenient way to pursue this matter at any length in the context of these two Amendments. I am grateful to him for looking into the point on Amendment No. 22, but I should like to make two observations about what the noble Lord has just said about the wider point I raised. First, by parity of reasoning, if a little boy or a young person penetrated the grounds of the Sierra Leone High Commission, or the residence of the American Ambassador, to retrieve a tennis ball, he would be committing an offence under the noble Lord's Clause 6. So it is hardly an effective argument to say that he would be doing the same if he did it on the property of a water authority.
It may be that I am more of a Marxist than is the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, but it would surprise me if this was so. But I must say that the idea of people being allowed, for instance, to occupy a water board's reservoir, thereby polluting the water, as not being more within the criminal law than the occupation of, say, a small sweet and tobacco shop, surprises me. I should have thought that there is a point at which we are all Marxists now.
7.33 p.m.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 24:
596
Page 8, line 29, leave out ("are or form") and insert ("were or formed")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 8, line 30, leave out ("(c)") and insert ("(d)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. It has already been discussed.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28:
Page 8, line 31, after ("above") insert ("at the time of the alleged offence")
Page 8, line 31, leave out ("are or form") and insert ("were or formed")
Page 8, line 32, at end insert ("at that time")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 28 en bloc. They are all drafting Amendments.
Clause 10 [Obstruction of court officers executing process for possession against unauthorised occupiers]:
7.36 p.m.
Viscount DILHORNE Viscount DILHORNE moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 9, line 9, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Viscount said: My Lords, Clause 10 makes it an offence to obstruct court officers executing process for possession against unauthorised occupiers, and I would think that that is a very desirable provision. As I understand it, at the present time the only proceedings that can be taken in respect of obstruction of court officers enforcing the orders of the court are proceedings for contempt. But what I do not understand—we discussed this on the last occasion and I still do not understand it—is why in subsection (2) subsection (1) is limited in its scope to protect only court officers executing certain kinds of orders for possession. I suggest that a court officer pursuing his duty, doing what the court has ordered him to do, should be entitled to the same protection no matter against whom the order for possession is directed.
It seems to me quite indefensible to say that a criminal offence will be created by obstructing a court officer who is seeking to enforce, on the orders of the court, an order for possession against squatters, and that it is no offence to obstruct a court officer seeking to enforce an order for possession against anyone else. f can see no justification at all for that, but it is, as I understand it, what subsection (2) provides. Indeed, when we raised this matter at the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, did not dispute that that was the effect of subsections (1) and (2) taken together. With the greatest of respect to the noble Lord, I do not think, despite his eloquence, that he made any defence at all for this most extraordinary limitation.
Let us examine the position. The court officer will be given an order for possession and told to go and execute it. He takes it along and he is obstructed. We were told last time that this limitation was wanted by the police. Consider the position of the policeman on the spot. He will see the court officer obstructed. If he knows his law and remembers it he will have to say to himself: "I cannot do anything about this. I cannot arrest this man until I find out against whom the order for possession was directed. Was it a squatter or was it someone else?" The policeman will ask the court officer, and I should have thought that the chances of the court officer knowing were remarkably slender.
So, as the clause now stands, it seems to me that the police officer may be in a considerable quandary about knowing whether an offence has or has not been committed under his eyes, as well as in a quandary about knowing whether or not he has legitimate, lawful power of arrest. This provision was defended because of the position of police officers. I find that difficult to accept. But that is not the reason why I am moving the Amendment. The reason is that, in my view, the same protection should be given to all court officers enforcing the orders of the court for possession, no matter against whom they may be directed. It is for that reason that I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the noble and learned Viscount put down this Amendment, as he has reminded us, on the last occasion and
598
we then had a debate on it. I sought to persuade him, I think in correspondence, that he was mistaken on this matter and he has now come back to it. As I made clear in correspondence with the noble and learned Viscount, the Government have considered this matter most carefully, but have come to the conclusion that it would be wrong to make the Amendment i on the lines that are proposed to us this evening. Certainly I would begin with one admission right at the outset: that what the noble and learned Viscount is proposing would make the situation rather more logical than it is at the moment. I think he is right in saying that; it would. But I am afraid that that does not dispose of the argument. What we have to discuss is what are the practicalities of the situation which would face us, and which in particular would face the police, if this Amendment were to be carried.
Before developing my argument, I should perhaps begin by explaining that court officers seeking to execute an order now are not without protection under the law. It is a criminal contempt of court, for which a punitive sanction may be imposed, to assault or otherwise seek to frustrate a court officer carrying out a writ of possession. In addition, the general criminal law applies, so that a criminal offence is committed in any case if resistance reaches the point of assault or breach of the peace. There is therefore under the present law an ultimate saction of imprisonment against a person who refuses to comply with a court order for possession by means of proceedings for contempt, whether the order is obtained in the High Court or in a county court.
In its report, the Law Commission recognised that there was an increasing problem of enforcement of court orders for the restoration of property, but they considered that this had arisen on a wide-spread scale mostly in relation to cases of squatting, and they limited the offence of resistance to court officials to orders issued under Order 113 of the Rules of the Supreme Court or under Order 26 of County Court Rules. This special form of action for possession was introduced in 1970 to facilitate the recovery of possession from squatters. The procedure is confined to cases where the property is occupied without the licence or consent of the rightful owner, and it

599
cannot be used against tenants holding over after the termination of their tenancy. The Law Commission recognised that their proposed offence of resistance to the officer of a court would put the enforcement of orders of this nature in a special position, but they thought that this was where the main problem arose. The Government recognise that there is a wider question, but we do not believe that it is possible or appropriate to attempt to solve it in this Bill; or, indeed, that the noble and learned Viscount's Amendment would solve it.
My Lords, I referred at the beginning to the practicalities of the situation, and I should like to come back to these now because it is only right, speaking not only for the Government but as a Home Office Minister, to discuss what would be the consequences for the police and in fact to put the position, not only of the Government but of a very substantial number of senior police officers who take the same view as we do on this matter. The enforcement of the civil law is not usually regarded as a matter for the police. That, I think, is a proposition which most of us would accept. They have many other pressing tasks, and their resources, particularly in the metropolitan areas, are fully stretched. Chief officers of police are understandably most reluctant to accept an increased involvement in the enforcement of the civil law. Although a court official as well as a constable may exercise the power of arrest under this clause, the police consider it likely that they will become increasingly involved in the enforcement of orders for possession as a result of Clause 10, and of course even more widely if the ambit of Clause 10 were expanded in the way which the noble and learned Viscount has proposed.
The potential burden could well be sizeable, and it would fall most heavily in the metropolitan areas, where police resources are at the moment most fully stretched. I cannot pretend to have the fully up-to-date figures, but the Civil Judicial Statistics show that in 1974 some 25,500 warrants for possession were issued in the county courts, of which 11,500 were executed. This compares with a figure of some 1,300 orders for possession made under the summary procedure in the county courts. I do not claim that the police would be
600
involved in every case—I certainly would not say that—but it can be seen that orders made under the summary procedure are merely the tip of a very substantial iceberg. Both the total figures and those for orders made under the summary procedure, I must again make it clear, have increased quite substantially since 1974. Those are the figures, as I repeat, that I have just given the House.
The problem is to a very large degree a metropolitan one. It is a problem in London, it is a problem in Birmingham, in Manchester, in Liverpool—in the main centres of population—and these are precisely the areas where at the moment the police are under the most substantial pressure; where the level of crime is at its greatest and where, in many cases, there is still a substantial shortage of manpower. All I would say to the House is this: it has been represented to us most vigorously by the police that a further extension of the kind which is put forward in this Amendment would lead to even greater pressure on their already overstretched resources. I accept that this will not wholly persuade the noble and learned Viscount, but, nevertheless, it is right that noble Lords should recognise the strength of police feeling on this matter and come to a conclusion whether they are, notwithstanding this, prepared to insist on the police taking on this additional obligation. I must repeat: it is the forces in the major urban areas of this country which would feel the burden of this, and it is exactly those forces which at the moment have both significant manpower shortages and are experiencing some of the most difficult crime problems in this country.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I am not at all sure that I am wholly persuaded by the case to which we have listened. I can understand, and I think up to a point I agree with, the reluctance of the police to be drawn into the enforcement of civil rights as such, and that is why I certainly have not put down any Amendments which would encourage what is really a widespread demand, despite the fact that I have not put it down, that the police should in general help to eject persons who have no right to be on particular sets of premises. But on either view this is a protection for court officials, and not for

601
private owners—and court officials acting on the orders of the Judiciary after a court hearing. I wonder whether it really is practicable to say that in some cases court officials shall be protected by the criminal law and in other cases they shall not.
As the noble Lord has frankly admitted—and he has been very candid about this—they are in fact protected by the criminal law. When the bailiffs go in to effect an order for possession, anyone who resists them or obstructs them is guilty of contempt, and if they lift as much as a finger they are guilty of an assault. The moment one accepts that, one has to recognise that the police are immediately involved because of the danger of a breach of the peace. I wonder whether, really, either those police officers who have been advising the Home Office or the Home Office itself are really sensible in saying that you can draw the line at the point at which they have drawn it. Once you concede that the criminal law must necessarily be involved in resistance to a court order, it seems to me to be splitting an impossible hair to say that some court orders are supported by a further and special provision of the criminal law and others are not. I should have thought that the practical problems of the police officer carrying a volume of the Statutes in his coat pocket when he is sent for would be almost greater than those which the noble Lord envisaged by way of obstruction.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has replied fully to what I have said and I am grateful to him for doing so. I am not in the least satisfied by his answer. He told us about the number of warrants for possession being issued. That is really beside the point unless you know the number of occasions on which officers executing the orders of the court have been obstructed in the execution of those warrants. Those figures we were not given. We are not here concerned with the ejectment but with the obstruction of officials of the court seeking to execute the orders of the court. I think it is recognised by the provisions of Clause 10(1) that the law of contempt which applies now in every case is not wholly satisfactory. If it were, there would be no need for subsection (1); and
602
it is because it wants strengthening that we find subsection (1) of Clause 10.
I do not feel in the least convinced by the arguments, because, from what the noble Lord, Lord Harris, has said, I venture to doubt whether the problem has been fully appreciated by the police authorities. It is not every warrant which involves interference with the police; it is not getting them involved always in civil procedure. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, pointed out that this is a problem which arises chiefly in the urban areas—not entirely so, I dare say, but almost entirely. It is in those areas in particular that one wants to sustain the rule of law; and the rule of law is not just enforcement of the criminal law. I cannot think of anything perhaps more damaging to the rule of law in its wider aspect than for people to think that they can flout the orders of the court with impunity. If one starts with the thesis which is accepted in this measure, that the law of contempt is not wholly satisfactory and that, therefore, you have to make it a criminal offence to obstruct an officer of the court, I do not think you can stop there.
My Lords, I am in a quandary about what course to pursue. I should like to take this matter to a Division, but I do not know—and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, has not indicated; and neither has anyone else—to what extent that course would be supported. In the absence of any indication of any support I should not, myself, like to take up the time of the House by dividing; but I am not at all happy about this. I think it is entirely unsatisfactory. I shall be interested to know whether there are any others who share my views on this matter before I ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, if I might intervene, I did not give any indication for I thought the House rather thin, and I do not know whether we could have a very convincing Division; but on the merits I would have voted with the noble and learned Viscount.
Viscount DILHORNE: My Lords, in those circumstances—although it has come on at a late hour, we did raise it on Committee, and I withdrew it then—we may not have a satisfactory Division; but at

603
least a Division would indicate the degree of dissatisfaction I feel about this. I do not ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.2 p.m.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARY-LEBONE: My Lords, I wonder whether I may ask the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, how we stand at the moment. We are getting fairly thin on the ground and we have been dealing with this stage for very nearly the statutory four hours which was expected. I do not think we shall be discussing, say, Amendment No. 36 for some lime. I have made inquiries of certain noble friends and others about that Amendment, and the chances of a Division are quite high. I am wondering whether the sensible course would be to go away and have some dinner.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am always anxious to fall in with any proposal of the noble and learned Lord; but, unhappily, on this occasion I find myself in some slight disagreement with him. I entirely agree that we are not going to reach Amendment No. 36 tonight, nor would it be desirable for us to attempt to do so; of course, it raises wider questions. I am glad to see that the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, agrees with me—at least on this point. I should like to make a little more progress and, if it will be for the convenience of the House, I propose we adjourn at 8.30 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 29) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents 31; Not-Contents, 25.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Arran, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Moyne, L.

Barrington, V.

Inglewood, L.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Lyell, L.

Simon, V.

Colville of Culross, V.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Somers, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

McNair, L.

Strathclyde, L.

de Clifford, L.

Mansfield, E. [Teller.]

Vivian, L.

Dilhorne, V. [Teller.]

Monson, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Falkland, V.

Morris, L.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Blyton, L.

Janner, L.

Raglan, L.

Champion, L.

Kilbracken, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rusholme, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Maelor, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Gardiner, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Gifford, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Clause 12 [Supplementary provisions]:
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 31:
Page 10, line 3, at end insert—
("( ) A magistrate, upon being satisfied by information on oath that a person is a displaced residential occupier as described in this section, shall issue a warrant so certifying.")
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a proposal which the noble Lord and the Government may find helpful, especially to those who are going to concern themselves with Clauses 6 and 7. The Amendment would give the opportunity for a displaced residential occupier to go to a court and obtain what I describe as a certificate (although the Amendment describes it as a warrant) that he is a displaced residential occupier. The effect would be that, before sounding the charge that he was going to act under the terms of Clause 6—in other words, to try to regain his property by force—or, alternatively, if he was going to suggest to the squatter under the terms of Clause 7 of this Bill that he should vacate the premises or else he (the squatter) would be committing an offence, the displaced residential occupier would be fortified by taking this course.
One can conceive that there are going to be considerable difficulties caused both

605
to the police and to the courts by virtue of both these clauses, particularly, as I think most noble Lords will agree, in the case of Clause 6. In Clause 7 there is the special defence open to the squatter in effect that he had no reasonable cause to believe that the displaced residential occupier was indeed that; and I would maintain that this might be a useful provision to show the squatter that the person who came before the house was indeed the person whom he claimed to be. I beg to move.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, the suggestion that magistrates might be used to reduce the difficulties that the police are bound to face—and I accept that point at once—in any offence involving a dispute over property is under consideration by the Government. The subtler the distinctions that we wish to draw in the criminal law in order to avoid abuse of the offence, the greater the pressure to find some way to relieve the ordinary police constable from having to reach an immediate decision when confronted with a dispute. Although we are thinking about possible provisions involving the courts, there seem to us to be some serious difficulties about the scheme proposed in this Amendment. The definition of displaced residential occupier includes two elements; first, the fact that a person is the residential occupier of the premises in question; and, secondly, the fact that the person on the premises is a trespasser. If the position has to be resolved on the spot by a police-man, at least he can make some straight-forward inquiries, hopefully on both sides of the divide.
On the other hand, a magistrate would be in no position to check facts which are alleged to be true in a statement by one party to a dispute over property. Without the opportunity to check the story of the person in physical occupation of the premises, the magistrate would be in danger of being used as a rubber stamp. There may be cases where the owner of a property with proof of his ownership wrongly but, perhaps innocently, alleges that the person in physical occupation is a trespasser when he is a tenant staying over after the end of a lease. There can be a misunderstanding of that kind. But, nevertheless, the consequences could be quite significant if he were to use the
606
procedure which is envisaged in this Amendment.
There are problems about this Amendment. A warrant certifying that someone was a displaced residential occupier obviously could not last for ever. From the policeman's point of view, the important time is the time when he is about to make an arrest. If we were to move in this general direction, it would be necessary to overcome this particular problem. As I said at the beginning, the Government are not unsympathetic to the spirit behind this Amendment. There are formidable difficulties in the way of a move in this direction, as has become obvious from what I have been saying, and not least the understandable reluctance of magistrates either to be used as a rubber stamp or to be drawn into more civil or quasi-civil work when the trend is in the opposite direction. Nevertheless, I can undertake that we will be studying this Amendment and the debate on it further in our continuing work on the general problem at which Part II of the Bill is directed.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, I hope this seed has not fallen upon entirely stony ground. I think anybody who has ever been into a magistrates' court at the beginning of its business will know whether or not magistrates are used as rubber stamps, or regard themselves as so used, when a mass of search warrants, and so on, are applied for and a good many ladies come forward seeking summonses because they say that on the last pay night their husbands assaulted them. Really, I do not think that is a very good argument.
Similarly, during the last stage of the Bill the noble Lord painted a rather pathetic picture of a police officer standing in a street—I think "in a drizzle" were the words used by the noble Lord—trying to make a value judgment. I have tried to provide him with a piece of paper which will take him out of the street in a drizzle into a warm magistrates' court; and the noble Lord then quarrels with that. However, I am not disposed to push the matter any further tonight and, in the hope that something may come of this, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.11 p.m.
The Earl of MANSFIELD The Earl of MANSFIELD moved Amendment No. 32:
Page 10, line 24, at end insert—
("( ) In this Part of this Act "premises" means any building which

(a) is a unit of occupation or of entitlement to occupation, or

(b) comprises two or more such units having a common entrance, or

(c) any part of a building described in (a) or (b) above.")

The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is an attempt to come back to what we discussed in Committee. On that occasion, the noble Lord, Lord Harris, was good enough to—
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, perhaps I might intervene to suggest that we could take Nos. 32 and 33 together, if that is convenient to the noble Earl.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: Yes, my Lords, except that, as I understand it, Amendment No. 33 deals with houseboats and my Amendment deals with rather more permanent structures. However, I am perfectly content that we should discuss them on that basis. At the last stage of the debate I did, I hope, point out that there were a number of anomalies or, at any rate, uncertainties in the Bill, and the Amendment which I then sought to move, which is rather similar to this one, might cover a situation, for instance, where there is a block of flats or a part of a large building, of which the residential part may be a caretaker's flat. The noble Lord, Lord Harris, said that he would be good enough to consider the matter, and now we shall see whether he has. So far as houseboats are concerned, that Amendment seems to be perfectly innocent. It may even be laudable, and no doubt the noble Lord will commend it to the House.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I am glad to set the noble Earl's mind at rest right at the beginning. I think the Amendment in my name goes rather wider than houseboats but it does include a number of difficulties associated with houseboats. On the second day of the Committee stage, the noble Earl moved a probing Amendment to discover whether the Government were satisfied with the definition of "premises" in this part of
608
the Bill. The Government's Amendment to subsection (6) of Clause 12 is the result of our further consideration of the point since the Committee stage. It appeared that there was some doubt as to whether or not Clauses 6 and 8 extended to land which was not associated with a building. It seemed unsatisfactory that that major point should be left to be decided by the courts, and the Government's Amendment clears up the point by providing that Clauses 6 and 8 do not cover land unless it is adjacent to, and used in connection with, a building, and so on.
Another part of the noble Earl's Amendment in Committee addressed the problem of the multiple occupation of premises. We have given some thought to this since the Committee stage, though it will be apparent that the Government's Amendment does not cover that point. This is not such a straightforward matter as to whether or not land associated with buildings should be covered: one can deal with that matter. In the case of multiple occupation, there could be so many totally different circumstances and we think in this case it is advisable to leave the courts to apply Parliament's intention in the light of the facts of a particular case, or, to use the words of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham,
…"leaving it to the common sense of the judges".
I think the more we have gone into this matter the more convinced we have become that it is better in this situation to leave it to the judges rather than attempt to deal with it in the Statutes.
It is usually easy, as indeed it was on an earlier Amendment today, but nevertheless I accept at once that it can be unprofitable for a Minister to spend too much time exposing technical defects in an Amendment which has been prepared without the professional help which is available to the Government. However, I must refer to some technical aspects of the Amendment moved by the noble Earl, because it forms an essential part of my argument. The first difficulty, which could no doubt be put right, is that its form—"premises" means any building—makes it appear as a complete definition of premises. It limits the offence in Part II to buildings, and cuts out gardens and other land around the buildings. More seriously, it presents no real guide to the courts in a particular case.

609
Suppose that a person trespasses in a room in a house but makes no attempt to keep the rightful occupier out of the rest of the house. Suppose the case reaches a court which has to decide whether in this particular case "premises" means a room in the house or the house itself. The Amendment allows it to mean either and gives no guidance to the court. Suppose, instead of a room in an owner-occupied house, it is a room in a house with separate bed-sitting rooms, with the use of a common kitchen and bathroom: is that bed-sitting room a unit of occupation?
I have not used those particular examples in order to make debating points, In the Government's view, any attempt at a comprehensive definition of "premises" for Part II of this Bill is doomed to failure. If we were to attempt it we should no doubt produce an exceptionally lengthy and cumbersome Amendment which I fear might be criticised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, because of its length, and possibly even because of its ambiguity and the number of additional pages it will add to the Statute Book. Even then, it could turn out to be wrong. Amending legislation would then be needed and the constraints of the Parliamentary timetable are such that that is always an extremely difficult business. As I said earlier, we believe that "premises" can be properly understood and interpreted only in the light of a particular case. For example, in a case involving violent entry to a common entrance to a block of flats, I am sure the courts would reach a sensible decision in the light of the facts of the case and in the light of the Act.
I hope that I have said enough to convince the House that it is better to have a partial rather than an exhaustive definition of "premises". We are certainly grateful to the noble Earl for moving his Amendment in Committee and also for the spirit in which he moved it. Certainly I regret that I cannot advise the House on this occasion to accept his Amendment, but I hope the House will accept the Government's Amendment. It largely springs from the noble Earl's work on the last occasion.
The Earl of MANSFIELD: My Lords, the sweet reasonableness of the last sentence betrays a certain lack of logic
610
in the first few paragraphs of the noble Lord's brief; and anybody who, for instance, considers our breathaliser law might wonder just how safe it is for Parliament to leave definitions in such circumstances to the courts. I know that I certainly made a lot of money out of it in my day! However, I hope that this is not the end of the matter. More seriously, I think that some sort of definition should be put into this part of the Bill, and I certainly believe that it can be put in without overloading it.
I think it is wrong, at the end of the day, to expect courts to have to decide in a case of squatting what are "premises". I quite agree with the noble Lord that when it comes down to matters of fine detail it is perfectly proper, and indeed only sensible, that courts should make that distinction. But I do not agree that there is anything other than prudence involved in trying to ensure, for instance, that in the future if we are to have these provisions in Part II of the Bill, they apply to a block of flats, or to units within such a block of flats; and, secondly, that where there is, as I have illustrated before, a large building, with, perhaps, a resident caretaker in one corner of it, the provisions of the Bill apply to that whole building. But, certainly so far as this evening is concerned, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 10, line 31, at end insert ("but in sections 6 and 8 above "premises" does not include land unless it is adjacent to and used (or intended for use) in connection with the occupation of any building, of any movable structure, vehicle or vessel so designed or adapted, or of any structure other than a movable one.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we discussed this on the last Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 23 [Certain offences triable either way to be tried summarily if value involved is small]:
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH moved Amendments Nos. 34 and 35:
Page 16, line 3, leave out from ("£200") to end of line 4.
Page 17, line 16, leave out from ("measured") to ("as") in line 17.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, these are minor drafting Amendments, consequential on the acceptance at Committee stage of the Amendment to remove the small thefts provisions from the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord HARRIS of GREENWICH: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved accordingly and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

IMMEDIATE TRANSPORTATION (DELIVERY WARRANTS) BILL [H.L.]
Examiners Certificate that the further Standing Orders applicable have been complied with: Ordered to lie on the Table; Bill committed to an Unopposed Bill Committee.
BRITISH TRANSPORT DOCKS BILL
Brought from the Commons: read la and referred to the Examiners.
  ASBESTOS
  ASBESTOS
  NHS FAMILY PLANNING FACILITIES
  NHS FAMILY PLANNING FACILITIES
  FAMILY PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICE
  FAMILY PLANNING INFORMATION SERVICE
  CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS
  CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR POSTAL ARRANGEMENTS
  CHILE: ECGD COVER
  CHILE: ECGD COVER