Sitting of 7 June 1978

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

    Road and Rail Accidents
    Mr. Ioan Evansasked the Secretary of State for Transport how many accidents there were on roads and railways, respectively, involving injury for the latest year for which figures are available.
    The Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Horam): In 1977, there were about 266,000 road accidents involving injury, compared with 2,400 similar rail accidents.
    Mr. Evans: Does my hon. Friend agree that this should be an added reason for seeking to pursue a policy for getting traffic off the over-congested roads and on to the under-used railways? Does he further agree that we need to encourage the use of the railways, as there are good economic, financial, social, energy and industrial reasons for doing so?
    Will my hon. Friend also comment on the announcement about the new railway system which will enable trains to cover two miles in a minute?
    Mr. Speaker: Unless we hurry we shall miss every train.
    Mr. Horam: I note what my hon. Friend said in his comprehensive supplementary question. He will be aware of what we are doing in regard to rail investments, where my right hon. Friend and I are making considerable support available to the British Railways Board, and also in terms of general revenue support for railways. I entirely take my hon. Friend's point that safety is a factor to be taken into account.
    Mr. David Atkinson: Does the Minister accept that one of the causes of road
    170
    accidents is driver fatigue and frustration? What assurances will he give the millions of motorists who have experienced endless delays during the last weekends as a result of road repairs that they will not face similar delays during the rest of the summer period? Cannot this work be scheduled during that part of the year when the roads are not most used by motorists?
    Mr. Horam: Indeed, that is precisely what we are doing. We have reviewed very carefully the road maintenance programme during the next few summer months to avoid the sort of problem which would otherwise occur. We are able to schedule much of the work during the less frequently used periods of the year, such as the autumn. Where we can, we try to preserve two lanes in use in either direction on the motorways. We try to avoid peak periods. For example, we shall not be doing any maintenance work on the Midlands motorway links during the Motor Show in October.
    Mr. Anderson: Is it not also a fact that over the past two calendar years there have been no fatal accidents affecting passengers on our railway network? In the general road-rail debate, should not the contrast between this record of safety and the frightful carnage on our roads be a major factor in our policy decisions?
    Mr. Horam: It is certainly a very important and weighty factor, and I fully take account of my hon. Friend's point. In fairness, however, one should also take into account the fact that the railway system is a closed system, whereas the road system is not. Of course, a far greater amount of mileage is done on the roads than on the railways. One should take that into account in keeping a perspective. None the less, my hon. Friend's point is generally valid.
    Mr. Michael Roberts: I recognise the splendid record of British Rail in regard to safety, but does the Minister agree that the number of people travelling by road is so vastly greater than the number travelling by rail that any numerical comparison is both misleading and irrelevant?
    Mr. Horam: That is why I made the point that I did in reply to the supplementary question of my hon. Friend the

    171
    Member for Aberdare (Mr. Evans). It is important to keep this in perspective. A crude comparison of figures does not give the true picture. We have to take account of the fact that much more mileage is done on the roads than on the railways. Even so, I think that the picture is generally more favourable for railways.
    Mr. Robin F. Cook: Cannot my hon. Friend give us precise figures? It is comparatively easy to extrapolate figures for injuries per passenger mile on road and rail. The available figures certainly show that rail is undoubtedely very much the less accident prone of the two modes of transport. Will my hon. Friend take note that the remarkable safety record of the rail system gives the Government considerable reason for encouraging people to travel by rail rather than road wherever possible?
    Mr. Horam: I would not wish to give precise figures to my hon. Friend, although I understand his reasons for asking for them. There are genuine differences in the reporting of accidents on rail and road. Almost all rail accidents, even very trivial ones, are reported, whereas some road accidents are totally unreported. This can make a difference in drawing comparisons between the two modes of transport. But the general point that my hon. Friend is making is valid.
    Mr. Fry: Did the Minister read the recent statement of Mr. James Tye, the director-general of the British Safety Council, who said that
    "the general deterioration of road surfaces has already caused unnecessary accidents and the situation can only get worse"?
    Will the Minister now admit that the Government's cutback in funds for road maintenance over recent years—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Yes, the cutback in funds for road maintenance. Will the Minister admit that this was an appalling mistake and a false economy, which has led to much pain and suffering that could and should have been avoided? What does the Minister propose to do about it in the future?
    Mr. Horam: There is no evidence of the sort of deterioration mentioned by the hon. Member. I know what Mr. Tye has said, but I take leave to dispute it. The general picture that he has
    172
    put forward is not as valid as he likes to make out. I might also point out that precisely because we do not know enough about the situation we have launched a series of comprehensive annual reviews of motorway maintenance to determine exactly the sort of level of spending which is right. Until we get the facts, we are not in a position to say what level of spending is right. None the less, I am sure that the generalised remarks which the hon. Member attributed to Mr. Tye are incorrect.

    Rail Closures (Bus Service Substitutions)
    Mr. Ron Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Transport what is his policy towards the substitution of rail by bus services.
    The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers): I have no firm or exclusive view.
    Mr. Lewis: Does my right hon. Friend accept that past attempts at bus substitution have failed lamentably, and will be guarantee that his Department will not undertake this type of policy in the future?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree with my hon. Friend that for the most part attempts in the past have been unsuccessful and the dividends that were expected to be gained have not been there. But I do not rule out the possibility that bus substitution might make sense. Our objective must be to meet the needs of the public in the most cost-effective way, and that could be by bus rather than by rail. However, that is a matter about which I have an open mind.

    Lorries (Taxation)
    Mr. Spriggsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received about the proposed increase in vehicle taxation for very heavy lorries.
    Mr. Horam: We have received eight representations on the taxation of heavy lorries. These covered assessment of social, environmental and road costs, and the timing of any changes.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is my hon. Friend aware that this year's Finance Bill contains no proposals to increase taxation for these

    173
    very heavy vehicles? When does he expect the aims of his own White Paper to eliminate subsidies for these very heavy vehicles to be achieved?
    Mr. Horam: I should not expect my hon. Friend to see an increase in road haulage taxation every year. There were increases in previous Budgets, which did something to bring revenue and costs into balance, which is the objective of Government policy. As for when we expect ultimately to get a fully equal system, I might say that we hope to bring in the proper taxation of laden weight and axle configuration in about 1979–80.

    British Railways (Chairman)
    Mr. Ovendenasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of British Railways.
    Mr. Madelasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next plans to meet the chairman of British Railways.
    Mr. Neubertasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he next intends to meet the chairman of the British Railways Board.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I met him this morning and I expect to meet him again tomorrow.
    Mr. Ovenden: Does my right hon. Friend share the concern expressed by Sir Peter Parker in British Rail's annual report about how the views of the Price Commission on the fares of South-Eastern commuters can be reconciled with the financial objectives placed by the Government on the British Railways Board? When my right hon. Friend next meets Sir Peter Parker, what view will he express to the chairman about the way in which the two can be reconciled?
    Mr. Rodgers: I appreciate the concern which my hon. Friend has shown consistently about the problem of commuter fares, and I think that Sir Peter Parker comments on this very fairly in his annual report. It is for the Board to find a solution to the problem. The House has agreed the level which its subsidy should represent, and it must work within that total. If it does not increase fares in one area, it will have to recoup them in some other.
    Mr. Madel: As Sir Peter Parker has described the road versus rail argument as "sterile", would not the Minister expect Sir Peter not to allow British Rail to go in for anti-heavy commercial vehicle advertising, which it is now doing, in view of the employment provided in that industry and the exports gained by it?
    Mr. Rodgers: There is a later Question on advertising. However, I have often said—and I repeat—that I do not think that there is any advantage in "knocking" copy in the transport industry or parts of the industry. Both the public sector and the private sector have a part to play, and I think that it is best for everyone to get on with it.
    Mr. Neubert: Does the Minister accept that hard-pressed commuters from my constituency and others in the South-East contribute valuable services to our capital city, especially those working in the City of London, and wish to know what the future holds for them? Which of the chairman's three options, which are not wholly a matter for the Board alone, does the Minister himself support? Is it to be a special grant, extra high fares, or deteriorating services?
    Mr. Rodgers: Certainly it cannot be additional financial help for the railways, and I am surprised to hear the hon. Member suggest that that might be the course to follow. British Rail must operate within the ceiling that has been set for it and earn the revenue where it can by the fares that it charges. It is not an easy problem. But there is a very similar problem facing other commercial enterprises in both the private and public sectors.
    Mr. Hoyle: When my right hon. Friend meets the chairman of British Rail, will he ask him what measures his Board is taking to attract more passengers to areas such as North-East Lancashire, especially where the rolling stock is badly in need of renewal?
    Mr. Rodgers: I was very glad that the chairman reported in his annual report that there was an increase in the volume of passengers carried in 1977 over 1976. That will be welcomed on all sides of the House. As it is possible for British Rail to renew its stock, I think that travelling by rail will become more attractive and meet my hon. Friend's needs.
    Mr. Adley: Has the Secretary of State discussed with the chairman the attitude of the rail unions towards political expulsions from the unions? Will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that he agrees with the Prime Minister that no one's political views, however objectionable, should be used as an excuse for depriving a man of his job? Therefore, will the right hon. Gentleman support Sir Peter Parker in whatever management decisions he may feel it necessary to take on this difficult issue?
    Mr. Rodgers: I agree with the hon. Member that it is a difficult issue, but I am sure that it is clear in the mind of Mr. Sidney Weighell, for example, that it would be wrong to expel anyone or make him lose his job for political reasons. Equally, I think that the railway unions have been very concerned—and rightly so—with the danger of racialism on the railways. There is a great measure of racial harmony, and I think that we want to keep it that way.

    Drivers' Hours (European Community Regulations)
    Mr. Montgomeryasked the Secretary of State for Transport what steps he is taking to encourage the implementation of the EEC regulations on drivers' hours (543/69).
    Mr. William Rodgers: I am in close touch with both sides of the industry about the phased implementation now taking place.
    Mr. Montgomery: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether there are any plans, before the implementation of the EEC regulations on drivers' hours, to repeal those parts of the 1968 Transport Act which are causing such chaos and confusion in the transport industry?
    Mr. Rodgers: There are no such plans. There are problems with introducing regulation No. 543. I have allowed a honeymoon or phasing-in period and, of course, discussions are continuing about questions of derogation and harmonisation. These are difficult issues, but I shall keep closely in touch with both sides of the industry about them.
    Mr. Stan Crowther: Is my right hon. Friend aware that there is widespread anxiety in the road transport industry, both passenger and freight, about the
    176
    introduction of these regulations? Is this not yet another example of interference by the EEC Commission in an area in which our own legislation is perfectly adequate? Does my right hon. Friend accept that the longer he can continue the honeymoon period to which he has referred the more popular he will be in the industry?
    Mr. Skinner: I am not sure about that.
    Mr. Rodgers: I am grateful for that hint. We were able to negotiate a phasing-in period of three years for these regulations which was in a sense a bonus on top of the period of delay which had occurred. I shall do all that I can to make life easier for both the passenger and the freight industries, since the latter is facing some increases in costs as a result of this.
    Mr. Watt: Will the Minister assure the livestock hauliers of the North of Scotland that he will continue a derogation on drivers' hours to all those who have to operate on such inadequate roads? Will the Minister take the opportunity, some time during the summer, of having a motoring holiday in the North of Scotland so that he can see for himself the situation which pertains where heavy lorries have to operate on such narrow roads with very heavy loads of livestock?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am attracted by the hon. Member's final suggestion, but I am not sure that it will be possible. I take his word that there are very special problems in North-East Scotland as a result of the regulations. I shall continue to do what I can by way of derogation.
    Mr. Spearing: As my right hon. Friend said in the June issue of Socialist Commentary, his view is that long-standing domestic regulations can be quite as effective as harmonised ones from the EEC without risk to commercial competition. Does he not think that this controversial regulation No. 543 comes within that circumstance, and would he not wish therefore to restore the power of this House to throw it out?
    Mr. Rodgers: I have to accept realistically all the problems that result from membership of the EEC, which I supported and have no regrets about doing so. However, I certainly believe that there are a number of respects in which

    177
    the Commission's passion for harmonisation does not make good sense. Whereas it is desirable to have rules affecting international journeys, quite often we can be left alone to continue the working arrangements that we have built up over a long period of years.
    Mr. Fry: Surely the Secretary of State will recall that up until January this year his Department's impression was that those sections of the Transport Act 1968 relating to the driving day would be superseded by the EEC regulations. All that he has done since then, having misled the industry, is to suggest a vague kind of harmonisation. Does he realise that he will have to do something concrete, otherwise the extra costs that the industry will incur will come through in prices to the public?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not think that I misled the industry and I do not think that the industry believes that either. There were very difficult problems of interpretation—I will not deny that—and the position was not wholly clear until after 1st January, when regulation No. 543 applied. I shall continue to do all I can to help, but I cannot mislead the House or the industry into believing that we shall have a change of policy on this matter.

    British Railways (Closed Shop)
    Mr. Gowasked the Secretary of State for Transport what discussion he has had with the chairman of the British Railways Board about the operation of the closed shop in British Railways.
    Mr. William Rodgers: None, Sir.
    Mr. Gow: Is it a matter of approval, indifference or regret to the Secretary of State that 42 former employees of British Rail, some of whom had more than 35 years' service, should have been dismissed without compensation? Does he agree with the Prime Minister's statement on 4th April that it would be wholly intolerable for a person to lose his job because of his political views?
    Mr. Rodgers: I have always regretted it when people lose jobs that they would prefer to do. It is a harsh experience, which many people have shared over a period of years, for all sorts of reasons. I know the hon. Member's concern, and
    178
    he has already indicated his anxiety to raise the matter on the Adjournment. Perhaps it can be discussed fully then.
    Mr. Walter Johnson: Is my right hon. Friend aware that this decision was taken democratically by the unions concerned? It was a closed shop decision and the only people who are complaining about it are the very small minority who are too mean to pay their dues.
    Mr. Rodgers: There are many things that could be added about the closed shop—for example, that it is increasing in the private sector and is widely regarded as one of the guarantees of good industrial relations. I recognise that there are special situations in the railways, but I think that on the whole the matter has been handled wisely and well.
    Mr. Grimond: As British Rail has a monopoly, is it the Government's policy that anyone who does not wish to join a union should be denied employment?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is not a question of Government policy; it is the existing position under legislation. Two of those people who have been affected in this way have indicated their intention to take the matter to the European Court. I am sure that these issues will continue to be discussed. They are not new issues in this House, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman knows.
    Mr. Spriggs: Is my right hon. Friend aware that it is not just a matter of one's political views, because it makes good sense to be a member of a trade union?
    Mr. Rodgers: Yes, that is so. The complication is that, if a view were taken that because of political views a man should not remain a member of a union, there would be difficulties arising, in view of the closed shop.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Secretary of State aware that on the Opposition Benches we believe in the freedom to belong to a trade union and in the freedom not to belong to a trade union? We believe that this freedom is indivisible. Does the Secretary of State share that view?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am very glad to hear a plain assertion that it is the entitlement of every man to belong to a trade union, because that is not always the view that is expressed from the Conservative Benches. We have discussed these

    179
    matters over many years, and the view is very substantiallly taken, not only by the trade unions but by some employers, that a closed shop can make good sense. All the evidence is that it makes good sense on the railways.

    Birmingham Inner Ring Road
    Mr. Rookerasked the Secretary of State for Transport what contribution his Department is making towards the cost of repairs to the Birmingham Inner Ring Road.
    Mr. Horam: Assistance from the Department is provided through the transport supplementary grant for this and other items of transport expenditure by the West Midlands County Council, which is responsible for this road. Because the TSG is a block grant, it is not possible to say how much of it relates to this one item of expenditure.
    Mr. Rooker: Will the Minister confirm that there will be extra money over and above that which would ordinarily go to the West Midlands County Council for this job? Will he bear in mind that 20 years ago the Ministry of Transport paid three-quarters of the cost of this road, and that the Tory Government at that time allowed the methods of construction that have subsequently proved inadequate? Why should the Birmingham ratepayers have to foot the bill for the actions of a Tory Government 20 years ago?
    Mr. Horam: I cannot confirm that there will be extra expenditure as a result of the events that have taken place, but there will be expenditure, roughly estimated by the West Midlands County Council at £440,000, on general maintenance between 1977 and 1981 on this stretch of road. There may be one or two items on top of that. That is what we shall finance in the normal way as part of the TSG.
    Mr. MacKay: Will the Minister bear in mind the amount of ratepayers' and taxpayers' money that is invested in new roads such as the Birmingham Inner Ring Road, taking account of the fact that we have had major structural defects very early on in these roads? Does he agree that it is time to consider checking with the people who constructed those roads to see whether they are responsible, and
    180
    should compensate us, rather than the taxpayer and the ratepayer having to pay?
    Mr. Horam: This is something which we have gone into very thoroughly. Where there have been clear design mistakes and inappropriate methods have been used, we have looked at it very carefully. The important thing is to get the changes made as quickly as possible.

    Traffic Commissioners
    Mr. Charles Irvingasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will review the operation of the traffic commissioner system.
    Mr. Horam: No, Sir.
    Mr. Irving: Does the Minister agree that the traffic commissioners' system is totally undemocratic, and its revision is needed to strengthen the views of the passengers and the taxpayers, who are so frequently ignored totally?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Member will be aware that the Transport Bill, which has completed its stages in this House, is going through another place. In that Bill we have revised the role of the traffic commissioners, and, in fact, we have suggested that they should take account of the policies and plans of the county councils which represent the taxpayers, as well as the consumers. Therefore, we are meeting the sort of point that the hon. Member has in mind.
    Mr. Bradley: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that Bill does not go far enough? Will he come to Leicester to see for himself the problems that have been created and that are being preserved by the system that he is defending?
    Mr. Horam: The problem of Leicester, of which I am well aware because my hon. Friend has ventilated it, quite rightly, on a number of occasions, would be solved more directly by proper arrangements between the municipal operators and the National Bus Company. This is the heart of the matter. To go further and to give more power to the county councils over the traffic commissioners would be very bad for bus services—certainly in other parts of the country.
    Mr. Arthur Jones: In the context of what the Minister has just said, clearly

    181
    there is an intention of the Government that responsibility shall lie with the county councils. If that is accepted Government policy, to what extent should the traffic commissioners be allowed to have power to override the county councils? Is the Minister in a position to give an assurance to the House that the traffic commissioners are not discriminating in favour of the National Bus Company on scheduled and other routes?
    Mr. Horam: The commissioners are certainly not discriminating in favour of the company. They operate an independent check on what the county councils are doing. In view of what some Conservative-controlled county councils have done to bus services in the past two or three years, I am delighted that the traffic commissioners will continue in being.

    Council of Ministers
    Mr. Channonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has to meet his colleagues in other EEC countries.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I met my EEC colleagues at the Council meeting of the European Conference of Ministers of Transport on 31st May and 1st June at Brussels and I look forward to seeing them again at the Council of Transport Ministers of the EEC on 12th June at Luxembourg.
    Mr. Channon: When the right hon. Gentleman next meets his European colleagues, will he discuss, especially with his Benelux colleagues, the system of tax concessions that exist for those who travel to work by rail in those countries? Is that not a possible way out of the dilemma of London and South-East commuters, who now have serious problems? Is it not something that he should discuss with the Chancellor of the Exchequer as a high priority to be considered when tax cuts are being considered for the future?
    Mr. Rodgers: I shall inform myself of the practice that is followed in the Benelux countries, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. We must recognise that any concession of the sort that he has mentioned would, in effect, be the same as tax cuts, as he plainly says, or an increase in public expenditure. In the circumstances, we could not possibly make such a conces-
    182
    sion apply only to those living in London and the South-East, however strong their feelings may be.
    Mr. John Evans: When my right hon. Friend meets his European colleagues, will he obtain from them an assurance that they will not insist that Great Britain has to introduce the tachograph for domestic journeys? Will he point out to his colleagues that British lorry drivers accept that tachographs should be fitted for international journeys but that there is no need for them to be fitted for domestic journeys?
    Mr. Rodgers: The view of Her Majesty's Government on tachographs is well understood by our partners in the Nine, but not entirely sympathetically.
    Mr. Wells: Will the right hon. Gentleman have consultations with his European colleagues about the possibility of reopening the Channel Tunnel project, especially using European money?
    Mr. Rodgers: No. I am not proposing to have such discussions at present.
    Mr. Skinner: Does my right hon. Friend accept that if the direct elections come about—they were supposedly due to take place in June although I now believe that November is being discussed as a possible date, and they may be even later than that—any resistance that he has displayed already on tachographs will mean nothing as compared with the power that will be handed over from nation States and Ministers to the directly-elected European Parliament? Therefore, why does my right hon. Friend support the idea of a directly-elected Assembly?
    Mr. Rodgers: I do not accept the conclusion that my hon. Friend reaches. I should put it the other way. If there is a strong case for the United Kingdom on the tachograph, or on regulation No. 543, and that view is shared by hon. Members, I see no reason for our representatives in the European Parliament, speaking with a loud voice, not persuading some other Members of that Parliament that we are right.

    Rural Transport
    Mr. Maddenasked the Secretary of State for Transport what progress is being made towards the provision of rural transport.
    Mr. Horam: The Government are providing for more than £15 million extra to be spent on public transport in rural areas by the end of the decade, and first indications are that a number of counties are responding well. The Transport Bill will encourage further development of community buses and social car schemes and provide a new framework for planning. Our programme of rural transport experiments is well under way and the first interim report, on the Exe Valley market bus, is expected shortly.
    Mr. Madden: Given that the Government are doing a considerable amount to encourage rural transport, will the Department do more to encourage initiatives between local community groups and public transport authorities to improve rural transport facilities, especially in areas such as Hebden Bridge, in my constituency?
    Mr. Horam: In the Transport Bill we have relaxed provisions, for example, in respect of car sharing and encouraging communities to set up their own minibus services, which should help in that direction. We shall be implementing these schemes and following them up with further publicity that will bring to the attention of local community groups what is possible under the Bill.
    Mr. Marten: Will the traffic commissioners be able to grant to parish councils the right to run minibuses between villages to link up with trunk routes run by the nationalised industry?
    Mr. Horam: If a parish council, a community group or anybody in the community can justify a case for a minibus service, the commissioners will have the power to grant that right by a speedy procedure.
    Mr. MacFarquhar: Will my hon. Friend encourage the various member companies of the National Bus Company to undertake their own experiments and not continue to wait for others to carry out experiments, especially in rural areas, where it is the poor who are being squeezed by rising fares? It often seems that that is happening with no impact upon those who are running the companies.
    Mr. Horam: I accept that the National Bus Company, which is by far the largest
    184
    bus group in Britain, should undertake as many experiments as possible. It has originated a number of experiments but it may be that they have not yet reached Derbyshire. None the less, a great deal of work is being done by the NBC throughout the country and it is participating in some of the Government-sponsored experiments.
    Mr. Adley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the criticism of the innovative virtues of the National Bus Company that has been mentioned is shared by a number of others? Is he satisfied that not only local authorities but community groups and associations throughout the country are aware of the opportunities that exist under the NBC's community bus scheme? Will he consider inviting the NBC to enlist the active support of hon. Members, most of whom, if not all, are actively in touch with the community leaders in their constituencies? It is clear from my constituency that much of the information that is of interest and use to small rural communities is not known and is not available at that level.
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Gentleman is correct. Those on the ground floor, as it were, have not yet caught up with what we are doing in the Transport Bill and with what the National Bus Company is doing in its way. I shall ensure that our plans to publicise these matters as widely as possible are taken seriously.

    Fares
    Mr. Canavanasked the Secretary of State for Transport whether his Department will undertake a study of the effect of increased fares on public transport.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Not unless I can be persuaded that there is something new to be learnt.
    Mr. Canavan: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the recent 15 per cent. increase in Scottish bus fares means that in some cases it is cheaper to travel by car rather than by bus, so that the bus fare increases cause a reduction in the number of passengers, which in turn causes either cuts in the bus services or further fare increases? Is it not about time the Government took action to stop this vicious circle, which is threatening to cripple public transport in many parts of the country?
    Mr. Rodgers: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the hardship that can be caused by rising fares. He knows that it is a matter that has been very much in the Government's mind during the whole of the counter-inflation policy. I am glad to say that the railways are proof against rises in fares. However, we must do our best to ensure that the sort of increases to which, perhaps, we have become accustomed do not become the pattern in the years ahead. We must try to keep fares down.
    Mr. Michael Latham: May we have a study of the effect of reduced fares on public transport in some areas, because a fare cut might increase revenue and mileage?
    Mr. Rodgers: Indeed it might. There is no simple answer, but it is true that on the buses—and it is certainly true on the railways—there has not been a loss of passengers. It is equally true that where British Rail has been able to experiment—this applies to bus companies as well—with lower and concessionary fares it has often found them popular and has earned additional revenue.
    Mr. Heffer: Will my right hon. Friend carry out a study in a number of urban areas with a view to suggesting that there should be free fares in certain urban areas to reduce the number of individual cars being used and increasing the use of public transport? Will he consider that approach? There are many of us who have believed for a long time that that is part of the solution to the transport problem.
    Mr. Rodgers: I have always made it clear that I am much in favour of experiments of the sort that my hon. Friend suggests, provided that those who are responsible for them recognise the risks that are involved and are prepared to cover the loss of revenue that might occur. As he knows, buses are often operated by municipal bus authorities, which are entitled to undertake the sort of experiment that my hon. Friend has described if they so wish.

    Passenger Services (Advertising)
    Mr. Crouchasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry to assess the effects of advertising on choice of method of travel.
    Mr. Kenneth Lewisasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will set up an inquiry to assess the effects of advertising on choice of travel methods.
    Mr. William Rodgers: Not in the absence of good cause.
    Mr. Crouch: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that British Rail is now boasting of its great successes, at a cost of several hundred thousand pounds a year in advertising? What use is that to those who are compelled to travel by British Rail and suffer its growing inefficiency, as are commuters in the South-East?
    Mr. Rodgers: I disagree with everything that the hon. Gentleman says. The efficiency of British Rail is improving. I believe that is widely recognised on both sides of the House. It is set out clearly in British Rail's most recent annual report. That being so, I see no reason for British Rail's not bringing to the attention of its passengers the facilities that it offers. I am glad to say, for example, that the advertising associated with the introduction of the HST on many new routes has been a great success. The high speed trains are now carrying up to 30 per cent. more passengers than the trains that were previously running.
    Mr. Lewis: Is it not a fact that the more we have special offers the more complicated they become and the greater the advertising and administrative costs involved? Would it not be better if British Rail reduced normal fares and kept the price to the ordinary passenger within limits? It would then still get the increased numbers, without having to spend so much on advertising.
    Mr. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman may feel that he can run British Rail better than the present chairman. I think that these are largely management decisions, which ought to be made by those who are professionally qualified to make them. It seems that reduced fares, which hon. Members on both sides of the House generally want to see, must go with advertising so that people will know that they are available.
    Mr. Clemitson: Has my right hon. Friend seen the advertisement which seems to make a virtue out of the comparison between British Rail and other Western

    187
    European countries with regard to the degree of subsidy received by British Rail? Does he agree with British Rail's assessment of the situation?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am not familiar with the poster. There can be a great deal of argument about exactly how subsidies here compare with those in other countries. The point of substance is that British Rail is providing an increasingly efficient service within rules and a subsidy agreed by the House. I think that it deserves the encouragement and good will of the House.

    A6 (Quorn and Mountsorrel)
    Mr. Michael Lathamasked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has to alleviate traffic problems in Quorn and Mountsorrel, Leicestershire, along the A6 road; and whether he has any new plans for a bypass round those villages.
    Mr. Horam: Following a recent assessment of the A6 through Quorn and Mountsorrel, we propose to carry out a series of improvements to the existing road. Four of these will be completed by April 1979. There are no new plans for a bypass of either village.
    Mr. Latham: Is the Minister aware that the serious and growing problems of these communities through traffic can be solved not by minor improvements but only by a new bypass? Will he discuss this matter urgently with the Leicestershire County Council, as it is currently reviewing its transport policy programme?
    Mr. Horam: I cannot undertake to discuss the matter urgently. The kind of improvements which we are now about to implement will answer some of the problems which the hon. Gentleman legitimately raises. Certainly there have been far too many accidents, for example, in the two villages. The kind of improvements that we are about to make to junctions are designed to reduce the number of accidents, which have mainly taken place at junctions.
    Mr. Skinner: While he is about it, will my hon. Friend look into the question of possible road congestion between this House and Epsom, because, according to the attendance today, many hon. Members must be making their way there?

    Roads (White Paper)
    Mr. MacKayasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the White Paper, "Policy for Roads: England 1978" (Command Paper No. 7132).
    Mr. William Rodgers: It is early days to add significantly to what the White Paper said.
    Mr. MacKay: Does the Secretary of State agree that it would be a good idea to have a debate as soon as possible on the White Paper, because many hon. Members on both sides are worried about the state of our roads? We appreciate that limited funds are available for extra maintenance, but we would like to discuss the allocations of those funds.
    Mr. Rodgers: I should certainly be happy to have a debate on that subject. I think that it would be a very good idea.
    Mr. Jessel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the urgent need to complete the M25 motorway in outer London, to which he referred in the White Paper? Is he aware that in parts of outer London, such as Hampton, there is intolerable congestion which cannot be relieved until this new orbital road is completed? What is he doing to speed matters?
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that there is wide agreement that the M25 should stand at the top of priorities for new roads. Good progress is being made, but the planning procedures are very long. That is inevitable, given the need to consult widely and to give everyone a fair opportunity to raise doubts.
    Mr. Fernyhough: Given the demands which have come from the Opposition this afternoon for increases in public expenditure, at the end of Question Time will my right hon. Friend get one of his colleagues to calculate how much increased public expenditure has been demanded and then send me a letter giving the amount?
    Mr. Rodgers: I should be happy to help my right hon. Friend in the way that he suggests, but it might be an unfruitful use of Civil Service time. I think that it is apparent to all hon.

    189
    Members, at least on the Government side, that there are great contradictions on the Opposition Benches between the cuts in public expenditure for which they ask part of the time and the increases which they put forward for the rest.
    Mr. Fry: Does the Secretary of State agree that expenditure on road maintenance could save lives whereas spending money on school milk does not necessarily save anybody's life.
    Mr. Rodgers: I think that the hon. Gentleman should have thought twice about that. Apart from the totally unproven assumption that there is neglect of maintenance which has led to dangers in terms of road safety, I should think that many right hon. and hon. Members on the Opposition Benches believe that school milk is important and relevant to the health of the nation.

    Tachographs
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilsonasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement about the Government's intentions towards implementing the EEC directive on tachographs, in view of the action being taken by the European Court.
    Mr. Martenasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the latest position on tachographs.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Brigg and Scunthorpe (Mr. Ellis) on 24th May.
    Mr. McNair-Wilson: The Secretary of State is soon to meet the European Court. Is he going to say that the wishes of Her Majesty's Government are to await the permission of the Transport and General Workers Union before this EEC directive is implemented? Is he aware that the Transport and General Workers Union is now insisting that even tachograph-fitted vehicles from the Continent shall be approved by it before operating in the West Midlands?
    Mr. Rodgers: We must see what the timetable for proceedings in the European Court may be. It has been made clear that we are to be referred to the Court, but I do not think that the reference has yet taken place. I have made
    190
    my position on this matter plain on a number of occasions. I am happy to see voluntary agreements for the use of the tachograph. It is wholly understood that the tachograph must be used for international journeys. The only question at issue is whether there should be compulsory fitting of the tachograph at home. I have also made my view clear on that aspect.
    Mr. Marten: Has the Secretary of State now found out the answer that he could not give me last time—namely, if we disobey the ruling of the European Court, who is imprisoned? Is it he?
    On the question of tachographs, could he get a waiver for educational and youth minibuses carrying fewer than eight passengers for this summer so that they can go on tour on the Continent without tachographs?
    Mr. Rodgers: On the second point, I recognise that there have been problems. This is a totally different issue, because it is a question of the law of the land in other countries. If it is logical to argue that tachographs ought not to be compulsory here because the law of this Parliament should prevail in that respect, it is equally logical to recognise that the rules of other countries may be different. I have certainly made my view known about this issue. I am sorry if it causes hardship and inconvenience.
    Mr. Madden: What increase in industrial costs and in the cost of living would flow from the full implementation of the EEC regulations on tachographs and drivers' hours?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is difficult to put both together. The assumption about the compulsory fitment of tachographs is that it would cost about £100 million overall, with recurring annual costs of about £40 million. What no one has been able to put a precise figure on is what resultant savings there might be in productivity. Certainly there would be a substantial initial cost. I should make it plain that it is a cost which many employers do not want to have imposed upon them.
    Mr. Fry: I refer the Secretary of State to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Mr. McNair-Wilson). I return to the question of the T and GWU in Birmingham, which, without any foundation in law, is interfering

    191
    in lawful trading operations. What is the right hon. Gentleman going to do about this matter? It is causing considerable dislocation to transport in the Midlands. Is it not time that he stood up to the union—or is he frightened of offending Mr. Alan Law and his bullies in the Midlands?
    Mr. Rodgers: I am prepared to stand up to anybody whose blandishments, including those of the hon. Gentleman in this respect, I feel I must resist. If the law of the land is being broken, action should be taken in the courts. If it is not a question of the law of the land, we must recognise the real problems and resistance to the use of the tachograph, which are not simply based upon bloody-mindedness. We must hope to find a satisfactory and peaceful resolution of this matter in the end.
    Mr. Rooker: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House why drivers, who are expected to live, eat and sleep in lorry cabs in the interests of big business, ought not to be consulted about any modification that goes into those cabs, whether it be in the shape of the seats or the mechanical instruments?
    Mr. Rodgers: It is right that there should be consultation. The issue is whether we are obliged to implement the tachograph directive in the United Kingdom under the Treaty of Accession, given that there was no renegotiation. Of course the lorry driver is entitled to a point of view on a matter of this kind.

    Channel Tunnel
    Mr. Whiteheadasked the Secretary of State for Transport what proposals he has received proposing a modified version of the Channel Tunnel project.
    Mr. Rostasked the Secretary of State for Transport if he has had further discussions with British Railways on new proposals for a direct rail link across the English Channel.
    Mr. William Rodgers: I have received no proposals for a modified version of the Channel Tunnel project, nor have I had discussions with British Railways on new proposals for a direct rail link across the English Channel.
    Mr. Whitehead: That reply might explain my right hon. Friend's rather
    192
    lugubrious view of this exciting subject. But is he prepared to consider ideas which are current in Brussels for sharing the cost of a Channel Tunnel between railway and electricity authorities, since there must be a link built in the near future between Britain and the Continental grid which could utilise a tunnel rather than having the cables laid on the sea bed?
    Mr. Rodgers: That is a fascinating proposal, of which I had not heard. I am ready to examine it. I am not ruling out the argument that there are many people who believe that a Channel Tunnel might make good sense, particularly for the railways in this country and on the Continent, not only in France. For that reason, I fully understand the wish of many to look at this more closely. No proposals have been made to me. The Government's position has not changed since the statement at the time when the previous tunnel was abandoned.
    Mr. Mayhew: Will the Secretary of State make it clear now that he will not contemplate any scheme which, like the last one, provides for trains travelling at 150 m.p.h. every four minutes only 50ft. from houses in built-up areas?
    Mr. Rodgers: The last proposal threatened considerable environmental damage in Kent. The present proposal which is being considered and informally discussed would avoid that danger.
    Mr. Ovenden: Whatever my right hon. Friend says about the desirability of a Channel Tunnel, will he make it clear that he will have nothing to do with the idea of a roll-on-roll-off motorway which was involved in the last project and which would have caused immense environmental damage in Kent?
    Mr. Rodgers: I confirm what my hon. Friend said, but I must not allow the nature of his supplementary question to lead him to believe that I am likely to make a decision. I am not considering the possibility and I do not think that this is the proper time.

    Freightliners (Sidings)
    Mr. Ronald Atkinsasked the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received concerning the

    193
    unavailability of Section 8 grants for private sidings to British Railways in relation to their operation of Freightliners.
    Mr. Horam: The chairman of British Rail has inquired about this, but we have received no other representations.
    Mr. Atkins: Does my hon. Friend agree that the absence of this grant will impose a difficulty on the railways when pursuing the policy which the Government advise, namely, bringing more goods on to the railways?
    Mr. Horam: Overwhelmingly, Freightliners and British Rail customers have taken advantage of this grant. It is not available to British Rail or to Freightliners now that it is to become part of British Rail. Freightliners has not made much use of it in the past. Since its customers can use it, the main purpose of the grant is achieved.

    Roads (Maintenance)
    Mr. Knoxasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the third annual road maintenance survey to be completed.
    Mr. Horam: The survey should be completed in July and the results should he available by the end of the year.
    Mr. Knox: Does the Minister agree that the cuts in expenditure on road maintenance imposed by the Government are false economies? Will it not eventually cost more to bring the roads up to standard than had the cuts not been made? Is this not yet another example of the Government's passing the buck to the next Conservative Government?
    Mr. Horam: Perhaps we should take the extra money for road maintenance out of the £500 million which the Opposition lopped off the Finance Bill. The Opposition are being totally hypocritical about public expenditure by demanding general cuts but making further specific demands for expenditure.
    Mr. Adley: Is the Minister aware that the word "hypocritcal" lies ill in his mouth? The Opposition's views on public expenditure involve priorities. We would rather see money spent, as it should be, on road maintenance than, for instance on giving unlimited funds to the National Enterprise Board. Is the Minister aware
    194
    that the cracked surfaces, the potholes and the general deterioration in the standard of our roads are a fitting monument to four years of Labour Government?
    Mr. Horam: The hon. Member's philippic is wholly unjustified. The situation has not deteriorated. We have maintained a reasonable level of road maintenance expenditure in the light of the cuts that we have had to make. I understood that the Opposition wanted us to go even further.

    Coaches (Safety)
    Mr. Gwilym Robertsasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to make a statement on the study he has made of recent serious coach accidents; and if, in view of these accidents, he will now speed up provision for improving coach safety by increasing roof strengths and improving braking arrangements.
    Mr. Durantasked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects to be able to make a statement on progress in improving coach safety.
    Mr. Horam: Notwithstanding recent tragic accidents, records show that coaches are by far the safest form of travel on the roads. Nevertheless, various measures are in hand to improve coach safety. In particular, we are now considering the adoption of new requirements on roof strengths without waiting for international agreement on the related test procedures. New requirements on braking are also being drafted. However, this is no substitute for operators properly maintaining their vehicles under the existing requirements of the law.
    Mr. Roberts: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is now nearly two years since he outlined to me the additional regulations to improve braking and increase roof strengths? Does he agree that in this long period we have had a series of tragic accidents? Is it not time that something was done quickly to try to reduce this toll?
    Mr. Horam: I am well aware of the urgency of the situation. That is why we have taken specific measures without waiting for international testing, which might have been wise in many respects.

    195
    We wish to move ahead as fast as possible.
    Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: Does the Minister agree that the installation of tachographs in the cabs of coaches will ensure that coach drivers are not asked to work excessive hours and are thus always fresh for driving?
    Mr. Horam: The safety implications of the tachograph are debatable.
    Mr. Crouch: Is it a requirement that coaches be fitted with a dual braking system? If it is not, does the Minister think that it should be?
    Mr. Horam: I am grateful for that suggestion. It is not a requirement at present. Perhaps the hon. Member is thinking of a retarder which works as a supplementary brake in certain situations. We are considering the suggestion.

    Metrication
    Mr. Nicholas Wintertonasked the Secretary of State for Transport what communications he has received from the EEC about metrication.
    Mr. William Rodgers: None, Sir.
    Mr. Winterton: I am grateful for that brief reply. Is the Minister aware that the future of the EEC has nothing to do with changing from miles per hour to kilometres per hour and changing our mile signs to kilometre signs? What would be the cost of changing over to the metric system on our highways? Is the Minister aware that the British people are proud of their identity and do not wish to change?
    Mr. Rodgers: We have been round this particular course on several occasions at recent Question Times. I have made clear that my own rather simple view is that I like kilometres abroad and miles at home. The only obligation on the United Kingdom is to review the matter. That will be time enough to discover how much it would cost. I do not know the cost now.
    Mr. Heffer: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many hon. Members on the Government Benches are absolutely delighted at the Government's attitude to metrication? Will he explain to the Leader of the Opposition, who is not in the Chamber—
    Mr. Skinner: She is at the Derby.
    Mr. Heffer:—that the Conservative Party was not responsible for metrication being scuttled? There was a vast phalanx on this side of the House which was totally opposed to the concept of metrication. Does he agree that our attitude basically was responsible for sinking this issue, I hope, once and for all?
    Mr. Rodgers: Fortunately, I am not responsible for metrication as a whole. It would be wise for me to limit my answers to questions relating to miles and kilometres. My view is that the question of miles and kilometres is in some respects an unusual one. It is difficult to see what benefits would come from a change.
    Sir A. Meyer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of his or any of his colleagues receiving many representations for the restoration of duodecimal currency? When did he last hear a plea for the restoration of the sixpence?
    Mr. Rodgers: If the representations had been made, they would not have been received by me. However, the hon. Member is making a wider point. I might not dissent from his view on that matter, but the subject of miles and kilometres is somewhat different.

ROYAL VICTORIA HOSPITAL, BELFAST
Mr. Fitt: I beg to ask leave 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 security situation at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, and the morale of the security staff at that hospital."
The Royal Victoria Hospital is situated in my constituency. Over past years it has performed a signal, humane and compassionate service to the whole population both within Belfast and outside it. Like other public buildings, it has had to have security staff, and in a very difficult situation the hospital has been lucky in the type of personnel it has employed as security officers.
Recently serious allegations have been made both within and outside Northern Ireland against the personnel employed as security officers. The allegations have

197
When it was alleged that the situation among security staff at the hospital was deteriorating, I went to the hospital. I met the chief security officer who, I believe, is not a political supporter of mine. He told me freely and under no compulsion that all of the allegations that have been made are completely unfounded. He suggested to me that any right hon. or hon. Member can go over the security files in the hospital to ascertain that there is no truth whatever in the suggestion that those security men are members or supporters of the Provisional IRA.
In these circumstances I thought it would be wise to ask the chief security officer to write me a letter. He did so and I am prepared to allow any hon. Member to read it.
When statements are made that have absolutely no foundation, when persons in Northern Ireland make statements that are blatant lies, it is the duty of this House, particularly in view of the dangerous situation in which the security personnel now find themselves, to take the opportunity to discuss those allegations.
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Belfast, West (Mr. Fitt) was good enough to give me notice before 12 o'clock today that he would seek leave 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 security situation at the Royal Victoria Hospital, Belfast, and the morale of the security staff at that hospital."
I listened with great care to the hon. Gentleman. He knows that I do not have to decide whether the matter should be debated. I merely have to decide whether there should be an emergency debate. I fear that I have to rule that the hon. Gentleman's submission does not fall within the provisions of the Standing Order, and therefore I cannot submit his application to the House.

TRADE UNION OFFICIALS (REGISTRATION)
3.34 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Ridley: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to provide for the establishment of a Commission, boards and disciplinary committees for trade union officials; to provide for their registration; for regulating their professional education and professional conduct, and for cancelling registration in cases of misconduct; to provide for a code of conduct for such officials; to make consequential changes in other legislation; and for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid.
I should make it clear from the beginning that I believe that trade unions play a very important part in our society. Recent garbled documents that have appeared in the Press have been misinterpreted in so far as they are alleged to reflect my views.
I do not believe in confrontation with the trade unions. For instance, I would never dream of employing the forces if the fire brigades went on strike. Nor do I believe in meeting an awkward industrial wage situation by such means as transferring North Sea divers from employed status to self-employed status in order to stave off that difficulty.
I believe that the vital importance of trade unions to their members is the issue on which we should concentrate. Always, in my thoughts about trade unions, I believe that it is the interests of the members which they should represent and which we should consider. My Bill is designed to help in that process.
There are many who believe that trade union affairs should be left to trade unions. That, however, has not been the custom of the House in recent years. I am always amazed at the alacrity with which we seek to legislate to regulate all sorts of trades and professions, almost, in the legislation, accusing them of malpractices which they may well never have committed. Examples are employment agents, estate agents, professions supplementary to medicine, doctors, lawyers and even hairdressers. They are all tightly controlled.
I simply seek to extend similar professional status and similar control to the activities of trade union officials who,

199
after all, should benefit from their elevation to the status of "professional" and should benefit from what has been deemed to be to the benefit of the other professionals I have mentioned. That is what the Bill seeks to do.
I believe that we have passed Bills such as this too quickly and that perhaps we shall have a long Committee stage on this Bill. There are occasional problems in trade union matters with which the House should concern itself. I therefore propose a commission to supervise these affairs, a register on which all trade union officials, local, regional and national, should be entered, and programmes of training. I propose also a system of qualification with the disciplinary power to remove from the register those who have offended against a code of conduct.
All of those provisions are taken from similar legislation to which I have already referred and they are simply designed to reflect the same sort of regulatory conditions as we propose for other people.
The code of conduct would consist, first, of rules for safeguarding members' money similar to the rules set out in other legislation for safeguarding clients' money.
Let me give an illustration of one of those rare cases of abuse. It was reported in The Daily Telegraph of 23rd September last year. It read:
"Although a fully paid-up member of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Mr. Blewett had refused to contribute 10p toward a shopfloor fund at the company's Bristol factory.
He explained why he refused to pay up, 'I am unable to get a receipt for any money paid into the shop fund. This is not a plan recognised by the Union, otherwise they would receipt my union card. We never see any accounts for this fund, although it is said they go on the notice board'."
That is obviously a necessary provision.
Secondly, the fees and the level of dues are creeping up very fast. I am receiving complaints from constituents about the level of union dues and the political levy. Mr. Jack Cleminson was 38 years working with the Post Office. He was forced to pay the political levy, which was deducted at source from his wages. Although he applied for it back, he did not get a refund for 12 years. It seems to me that that is against what should be in the code of conduct.
200
As to the conduct of elections, I shall not go over the Electrical Trades Union ballot rigging case of many years ago, but I think that the House must consider whether it is right for the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union to be elected for life or until he retires. These are practices which the House should consider seriously.
I should perhaps mention the Civil and Public Services Association. I quote again from The Daily Telegraph of 21st November of last year:
"It is, says Mrs. Kate Losinska, a CPSA former president and leader of the moderate group, a direct blow at the extremists who maintained their stranglehold on the membership by 'calling meetings at short notice, stretching them out late into the evening then putting the vote when the majority had drifted away'."
The next item in the code of practice will concern harassment. I had a small printing firm in my constituency, in the village of Withington, consisting of the owner and two people. Their work was threatened to be blacked by SLADE unless they all joined the union. None of them wanted to join the union, but they were forced to join the union, although all three of them did not wish to do so, because otherwise the work that they did would have been blacked at the magazines to which it was destined to go. That is not something that we should have in modern-day Britain. It is not the way to deal with matters.
I give another example from The Daily Telegraph of 23rd September 1977:
"Mr. Stanley Gretton, former general secreretary, died of a heart attack in 1975 after a sustained campaign of poison-pen letters and vicious telephone calls accusing him of selling out' his members by not taking a more militant stand."
Then one goes on to mention the closed shop and the offences and abuses which can occur under that. Again, I quote from the Daily Mail of 18th October 1976:
"The local district secretary of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering Workers, Mr. Arthur Sjogren, last night defended the union action. He said: 'Daly'"—
that is, Mr. Daly—
"'reneged on a shop-floor decision. He was defiant. He said to hell with everybody. He worked like the clappers day in and day out, and because of this was able to earn very good money'."
He was sacked from the union and he lost his job.

201
Again, I quote from the Sunday Express of 23rd January 1977:
"Car worker, Mr. Clifford Derbyshire, who was sacked for criticising the output performance of workmates, suffered another blow yesterday. He was expelled from his union, the National Society of Metal Mechanics."
Mr. Eric Heffer: Why does the hon. Member not talk about the City, something that he knows about?
Mr. Ridley: We should not be frightened to discuss these matters in the House. We should not enter into these matters in any spirit of hostility, union bashing or confrontation. But, equally, we should not be cowed in trying to deal with the human rights of these people. Although Labour Members may wish to turn blind eyes to what is going on, we on the Opposition Benches should not be too frightened to bring out into the open what is happening and to seek, by means which have been approved for so many other professions, to right the wrongs where they occur. They do not occur always, by any means; it is not even frequently. But where they occur they should be righted.
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said the other day:
"No, the fact to which I refer is that, as a result of the growth of trade unions, men and women can be punished, even to the extent of losing their livelihoods, by kangaroo courts set up under those same unions, or by other action undertaken by those unions. Some would freely admit that they have joined unions not out of the conviction but out of self-protection. Others fear flying pickets and similar manifestations of the power of unions more than they fear the law."
I commend the Bill to the House as a mild measure but one which will receive enormous support in the country—
Mr. Martin Flannery: The hon. Member has never done anything mild in his life.
Mr. Ridley:—and particularly enormous support among members of trade unions. If the Labour Party does not facilitate the passage of the Bill, it will do itself harm not only among the people at large but more especially among the membership of the unions, whose malpractices it seeks to cover up.
3.45p.m.
Mr. David Stoddart Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon) rose—
Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member seek to oppose the motion?
Mr. Stoddart: Yes, indeed, Mr. Speaker.
While many of the colleagues of the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) are at Epsom today, either losing their shirts or—[HON. MEMBERS: "Where are your colleagues?"] some of mine, as well—either losing their shirts or making a killing, the hon. Member has come to Westminster to try to nobble the trade union horse. In spite of the soft words that he used at the beginning of his speech, this is yet another example of trade union bashing. Let us make no mistake about it. That is exactly what it is.
The hon. Member has a fanatical obsession with the trade union movement, which he does not appear to know or to understand. This leads him to propose wild and repressive measures against the movement and the people who work in it.
Mr. Robert Adley: The hon. Member wrote his remarks before he heard what my hon. Friend said.
Mr. Stoddart: The hon. Member's speeches and his proposals exhibit a savage dislike of the trade union movement and all those people who, for all their lives very often, give their service to that movement.
The most recent Conservative paper on the nationalised industries is less concerned with efficiency in those industries and more concerned to concentrate on means whereby a future Tory Government could have a successful confrontation with organised labour. It is no use the hon. Member trying to deny that that is his objective. It is little wonder that trade union leaders are worried and concerned about the grim possibility of a future Tory Government. They see in statements and actions by the hon. Member, who is reputed to have the ear of the Tory leader, the heralding of a new era of conflict, replete, as before, with regular six-monthly states of emergency. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Indeed, we had them before, and there is no reason why we should not have them again under this policy.

203
The hon. Member's Bill is seeking to control, through a commission, no less—no doubt a commission under a High Court judge—the conduct of trade union officials. In this, the hon. Member seeks to go even further than the Industrial Relations Act 1971, which had such disastrous consequences for industrial relations in Britain.
What is more, the hon. Member did not mention in his speech the public expenditure implications of this commission. He is always lecturing us about public expenditure on other occasions. Let us think of the millions of pounds that this proposed commission would cost. What about all these QUANGOs about which we have heard recently? Now the hon. Member proposes a commission and tribunals and other bodies which would oversee the activities of trade union officials. That is all right by Opposition Members because it would be regulating an organisation which they dislike.
Such a Bill hits at the very roots of free association of workers and clearly seeks to establish State control of trade unions. This is the very antithesis of the freedom about which the Conservative Party so often prates. It would, in fact, create the sort of weak, ineffective and lickspittling lackey-type trade unions masquerading as workers' organisations in authoritarian States.
The Bill would create an extensive and bureaucratic apparatus to monitor and control activities of trade union officials and would clearly threaten rights of working people to organise in trade unions and select their own representatives freely and democratically.
The hon. Member does not tell us how far the provisions would extend. Would they be confined to general secretaries or would they extend to national officers, district and regional officials or shop stewards? How many people would be concerned—a handful, or those thousands throughout industry who exercise, in the same way as general secretaries, the power of the union at local and regional level? The hon. Member did not answer those questions.
204
As for his educational proposals, what if the membership elected someone without the proper educational background? Would the elected official be disqualified because he did not have a university degree or had not gone to Eton? The hon. Gentleman told us nothing about the Bill, but we know its real meaning.
What real evidence is there, except the few cases that the hon. Gentleman quoted, to show that the great majority of union officials, professional and lay, are not doing their job properly? If such officials break the law, they can be called to account within the law. The huge majority of union officials do their jobs efficiently and selflessly, often for no or little reward. In any event, the official who does not do it properly will soon be thrown out by his members.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned again the closed shop. It is important to understand that a closed shop agreement is entered into freely by both employer and employee. There has to be agreement on both sides. The closed shop system has been built up by workers over a period to protect their interests.
Those who remain outside the trade union movement, I believe, are free riders who want to get the benefits of trade unionism without paying for them. If the benefits of wages and conditions negotiated by unions were confined to union members, there would be a stampede in which many union members would be killed by those free riders trying to join the unions.
The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury has little knowledge or understanding of the trade union movement. What he does not know or understand, he hates. He hates the trade union movement because he does not understand it. He is a political Luddite indeed. His language is provocative and his proposals are dangerous—dangerous to freedom, dangerous to understanding and cooperation in industry, dangerous to democracy itself. I trust that the House will have the good sense to reject the Bill overwhelmingly and decisively.
Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring

205
in Bills and Nomination of Select Committees at Commencement of Public Business):—
The House divided: Ayes 95, Noes 159.

Division No. 229]

AYES

[3.53 p.m.

Adley, Robert

Goodlad, Alastair

Osborn, John

Amery, Rt Hon Julian

Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)

Page, John (Harrow West)

Atkinson, David (B'mouth, East)

Griffiths, Eldon

Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)

Bell, Ronald

Grimond, Rt Hon J.

Pattie, Geoffrey

Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)

Grist, Ian

Raison, Timothy

Blaker, Peter

Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)

Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)

Boscawen, Hon Robert

Hampson, Dr Keith

Rifklnd, Malcolm

Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)

Holland, Philip

Ross, William (Londonderry)

Braine, Sir Bernard

Hordern, Peter

St. John-Stevas, Norman

Brotherton, Michael

Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)

Scott-Hopkins, James

Buchanan-Smith, Alick

Hutchison, Michael Clark

Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)

Buck, Antony

Jessel, Toby

Shelton, William (Streatham)

Burden, F. A.

Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine

Sims, Roger

Channon, Paul

Kimball, Marcus

Smith, Dudley (Warwick)

Clark, William (Croydon S)

Knight, Mrs Jill

Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)

Clarke, Kenneth (Rushclilfe)

Lamont, Norman

Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)

Cope, John

Lawson, Nigel

Sproat, Iain

Cormack, Patrick

Lloyd, Ian

Stanley, John

Costain, A. P.

MacKay, Andrew (Stechford)

Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)

Critchley, Julian

Marten, Neil

Stokes, John

Crouch, David

Mates, Michael

Tapsell, Peter

Crowder, F. P.

Mawby, Ray

Trotter, Neville

Dean, Paul (N Somerset)

Mayhew, Patrick

Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek

Drayson, Burnaby

Meyer, Sir Anthony

Wall, Patrick

Fairbairn, Nicholas

Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)

Walters, Dennis

Fairgrieve, Russell

Molyneaux, James

Warren, Kenneth

Fisher, Sir Nigel

Montgomery, Fergus

Whitney, Raymond

Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)

Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral

Wiggin, Jerry

Fletcher-Cooke, Charles

Nelson, Anthony

Winterton, Nicholas

Fry, Peter

Neubert, Michael

Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)

Newton, Tony

TELLERS FOR THE AYES:

Glyn, Dr Alan

Normanton, Tom

Mr. Nicholas Ridley and

Goodhew, Victor

Onslow, Cranley

Mr. Ian Gow.

NOES

Allaun, Frank

English, Michael

Maclennan, Robert

Anderson, Donald

Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)

McNamara, Kevin

Armstrong, Ernest

Evans, John (Newton)

Madden, Max

Ashton, Joe

Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Marks, Kenneth

Atkinson, Norman (H'gey, Tott'ham)

Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)

Mason, Rt Hon Roy

Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)

Flannery, Martin

Meacher, Michael

Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)

Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)

Mikardo, Ian

Bates, Alt

Foot, Rt Hon Michael

Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)

Beith, A. J.

Forrester, John

Mitchell, Austin (Grimsby)

Blenkinaop, Arthur

Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)

Moyle, Rt. Hon. Roland

Booth, Rt Hon Albert

Garrett, John (Norwich S)

Newens, Stanley

Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur

George, Bruce

Noble, Mike

Bottomley, Peter

Graham, Ted

Oakes, Gordon

Boyden, James (Bish Auck)

Grant, George (Morpeth)

Orbach, Maurice

Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)

Hamilton, James (Bothwell)

Orme, Rt Hon Stanley

Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)

Harper, Joseph

Ovenden, John

Buchan, Norman

Harrison, Rt Hon Walter

Owen, Rt Hon Dr David

Buchanan, Richard

Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy

Palmer, Arthur

Campbell, Ian

Heffer, Eric S.

Pardoe, John

Canavan, Dennis

Horam, John

Park, George

Cant, R. B.

Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)

Parker, John

Carter-Jones, Lewis

Huckfield, Les

Pendry, Tom

Cartwright, John

Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)

Perry, Ernest

Chemitson, Ivor

Hunter, Adam

Price, C. (Lewisham W)

Cocks, Rt Hon Michael (Bristol S)

Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)

Price, William (Rugby)

Conlan, Bernard

Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)

Radice, Giles

Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)

Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)

Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)

Corbett, Robin

Janner, Greville

Robertson, George (Hamilton)

Cowans, Harry

Jeger, Mrs Lena

Robinson, Geoffrey

Cox, Thomas (Tooting)

John, Brynmor

Roderick, Caerwyn

Craigen, Jim (Maryhill)

Johnson, Walter (Derby S)

Rodgers, George (Chorley)

Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)

Jones, Dan (Burnley)

Rooker, J. W.

Cryer, Bob

Judd, Frank

Ryman, John

Davidson, Arthur

Kelley, Richard

Sandelson, Neville

Davies, Rt Hon Denzil

Lamborn, Harry

Sever, John

Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)

Latham, Arthur (Paddington)

Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)

Dempsey, James

Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)

Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

Dewar, Donald

Luard, Evan

Shore, Rt Hon Peter

Doig, Peter

McCartney, Hugh

Skinner, Dennis

Dormand, J. D.

McDonald, Dr Oonagh

Spearing Nigel

Duffy, A. E. P.

McElhone, Frank

Spriggs, Leslie

Dunnett, Jack

MacFarquhar, Roderick

Stallard, A. W.

Edge, Geoff

MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor

Steel, Rt Hon David

Stoddart, David

Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)

Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)

Strang, Gavin

Walker, Harold (Doncaster)

Wilson, William (Coventry SE)

Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley

Walker, Terry (Kingswood)

Wise, Mrs Audrey

Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)

Watkinson, John

Woodall, Alec

Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

White, Frank R. (Bury)

Woof, Robert

Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)

White, James (Pollok)

Wrigglesworth, Alan

Thorne, Stan (Preston South)

Whitehead, Phillip

Young, David (Bolton E)

Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)

Whitlock, William

Tierney, Sydney

Willey, Rt Hon Frederick

TELLERS FOR THE NOES:

Tilley, John

Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

Mr. Stanley Cohen and

Tomlinson, John

Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)

Mr. Frank Hooley.

Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.

Question accordingly negatived.

FOREIGN AFFAIRS
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mrs. Ann Taylor.]
4.5 p.m.
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Dr. David Owen): I know that the House is pleased to have two days to devote to the subject of foreign affairs. There must be few occasions in recent history when there has been so much genuine concern about the direction of foreign policy and such a questioning of the relationships between East and West.
I shall speak this afternoon mainly about Africa. I shall relate my remarks about Africa to the whole nexus of problems, particularly to East-West relationships and what we increasingly describe as detente.
Nobody in the House wishes to question the fundamental principle underlying detente—the need for a closer working relationship between the two major super Powers in the world, the United States and the Soviet Union. Although no doubt different opinions will be expressed in this debate as to how the process of detente should be managed, and although there will be different intepretations as to what each of us can legitimately expect to extract from our relationships in that process, particularly about the motivation of the Soviet Union in entering into detente, I hope that no voices will be raised in this debate asking us arbitrarily to stop the process of detente.
Certainly if that view were to be advocated, Her Majesty's Government would reject it decisively. There can be very few people who would wish to return to the situation that obtained at the time of the Cuban missile crisis, when Mr. Khrushchev said so graphically that the smell of burning hung in the air. For those of us who lived their early adult life through that experience, there can be no wish to return to that kind of dangerous situation.
Equally, although detente has made considerable progress, and although under successive Governments there has been a fair and broad measure of agreement as to how it should be pursued, there are still grave dangers in the world. I believe that it is vitally important that relations
210
between the two super Powers should be of such a managed quality that the element of risk and of danger is reduced to the bare minimum.
I believe that the President of the United States is totally committed in pursuit of that aim. I have no doubt whatever that, provided he can satisfy himself that he can negotiate a strategic arms limitation agreement which is fair to both the Soviet Union and his own country, an agreement that protects the vital interests of his partners in NATO, he will make the second strategic arms limitation agreement. I believe, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said yesterday that such an agreement will be negotiated before the end of this year.
Furthermore, I believe that the involvement of the United Kingdom Government with the United States and the Soviet Union in pursuing a comprehensive test ban treaty is a most important development. I believe that we are near to the stage of reaching agreement and that we should pursue that end.
In seeking that element of detente, in wishing to make a contribution to the discussions which are now taking place at the Special Session of the United Nations in our work in the detailed disarmament discussions, in pursuing a complete eradication of chemical weapons, and in advancing many of the initiatives put forward by the British Government, with the support of many of our allies in the United Nations, I am certain that there is common ground.
Furthermore, I am convinced that there is common ground in the Soviet Union. It is sincerely and deeply committed to detente and to the element of arms negotiations, particularly relating to nuclear questions. I am less convinced yet of the Soviet Union's determination to put the same effort into conventional arms negotiations as it is prepared to put into nuclear arms negotiations.
It is extremely important, as the world sees its scarce resources bound up in ever-increasing arms budgets, that we do not lose sight of the dimension of conventional arms and the extremely large budget which is now forming part of the Third World's budget on conventional arms, which it can ill afford, certainly often fuelled by Soviet Union arms supplies but also often fuelled by the Western World as well.

211
The first test of a real commitment to conventional arms control measures will come before the end of the year in the attitude of the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries to mutual and balanced force reductions. The negotiations have been continuing for some years. It is extremely important, if those negotiations are to survive and we are to build on the years of dialogue that have gone before, that we should move them off dead centre and make progress. When President Brezhnev visited the German Chancellor he signed a joint agreement with the Federal Republic which indicated that they were not seeking exact equivalents on all weapons systems but accepted parity in nuclear and conventional weapons. The acceptance of parity underlay SALT I negotiations and is part of the current SALT II negotiations. The concept of parity is essential in mutual and balanced force reductions.
Mr. Eldon GriffithsThe Minister says, I am sure with sincerity, that Mr. Brezhnev is anxious to achieve arms limitation. Has the Minister also seen President Carter's statement of this morning in which he said that the Soviet Union is now engaged in an extensive and excessive military build-up far beyond any legitimate requirements for her own defence? How does he square those two propositions?
Dr. Owen: It is always wiser not to give way too early in a debate. I was talking in terms of conventional arms. I drew attention to the fact that the degree of commitment to it has not been proven. I was isolating the lack of progress over MBFR. I was going on to say that during the time which we have been discussing MBFR and the concept of parity there has been an ever-increasing build-up in Soviet conventional weapons, particularly banks and particularly in the central front. There has also been the development of a new weapons system, the SS20, which though called a strategic nuclear weapons system and which therefore comes into the SALT negotiations, is strategic for all of us in Western Europe. It could be targeted on all the major cities of Western Europe.
During this time, particularly in the area of conventional weapons, there has
212
been no evidence of the same commitment to parity and to a readiness to accept arms control methods. I was to develop the argument. I believe that that requires a response from the West. When there is a clear trend of increased defence expenditure and increased quality of defence equipment across two alliances, it is extremely foolhardy for the Western Alliance not to respond.
Far too little publicity was given in the recent NATO Conference to the central achievement of that conference. It started when President Carter in the London NATO Summit a year ago called for a response from the West to the continued arms build-up of the Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact countries. Many people a year ago were very sceptical whether there would be a response. Over the last decade there has been an understandable reluctance—because none of us wants to increase our defence budgets—to match the increase. Each year people had thought that perhaps we could make progress on MBFR, or that it was simply the Soviet Union deciding that it wanted a world maritime role and, that since it was a major super Power, there was bound to be a rapid growth, building up its navy from virtually nothing in the late 1940s and going through the 1950s and 1960s. There were a lot of rational explanations.
When I was most involved in the balance of forces in 1969–70 there was some exaggeration of the imbalance then existing, but nobody, looking back over the last five or six years, can mistake the trend. We can argue about the percentage of gross national product and about particular weapons, but the trend is clear. It was that trend to which President Carter asked the Alliance to respond. Therefore, the long-term defence improvement programme was set in hand, and a contribution was asked for of a 3 per cent. increase in the defence budget from the member States. In Washington the decision on that contribution was taken. That was an important decision. I dare say that it was the first time in the history of the Alliance that it made a concerted response. That was the right and necessary response.
However, there is nothing incompatible between making that response and in Washington taking the decisions to make

213
that response effective in detailed planning of weapons' systems and the deployment of forces, on the one hand, and, on the other hand, the world and the NATO powers contributing to the debate in the United Nations on how we can do something about disarmament and arms control. It is consistent, given the present situation, that we should respond to an increase in Soviet Union spending and in the quality of forces but redouble our efforts to achieve balanced arms control measures and reductions in budgets, in numbers of men and in quantity of weapons. That has been the British Government's position.
On that aspect of detente there is a great deal of understanding between the Soviet Union and the West. The question for us is: why the Soviet Union, at a time of genuine commitment to nuclear arms control measures, has allowed this very large increase in its conventional arms in particular and the build-up of forces in Europe. That has been done at the same time as the Soviet Union has built up its forces on its border and in the immediate area around China.
There has always been the argument that the Soviet tendency is to over-insure. That is deep-seated in history and has not come about since the Second World War. There is the legacy and there are the memories of the Second World War, a subject referred to by President Carter in his speech. That is an obvious motive. Whereas when Khrushchev was in power we were always conscious that there was a debate taking place between the executive branch of the Government in the Soviet Union and the military about the relative spending and of the competing claims on scarce resources—an argument which is well known in all of our democracies—it is striking that that argument has not seen any obvious light of day over the last few years. I do not know whether this is a conscious decision, but the political leadership genuinely pursued detente in terms of arms control in nuclear weapons, and usually the closer one gets to nuclear weapons and the awesomeness of their power, the more there is felt to be a commitment to try to do something to contain them. If there is not a conscious decision, there is at least a seeming acceptance that the military should continue to expand and
214
to go for the weapons systems of its choice and that it should not be faced, as the military has to be faced in most of the Western democracies, with the balance of priorities between spending on defence and spending on other matters. One of the central issues that the Soviet Union will have to face if we are to make serious progress in detente is that it will have to come to grips with defence expenditure and with the arguments of its own military.
There are two other areas of detente where there would be nowhere near as much agreement. The first is human rights. This was an aspect which was put into the negotiations in Helsinki in 1975 and which is resented by the Soviet Union which feels that the West pursues this aspect of detente in a way which the Soviets would call almost aggressive. They would certainly see the West as giving an unbalanced priority to human rights. The other area is the extent to which detente operates outside Europe and worldwide. These are the contentious areas.
As to human rights, it may well be that in Western democracies, where there is an automatic assumption that most of those rights are both natural and self-evident, there may have been a tendency to believe that there would be more rapid progress as a consequence of the Helsinki conference than was ever likely or possible. I do not believe that Western democracies should shift one inch from their commitment to human rights. It has always been inherent in the process of detente that while we would make progress towards managing relations between countries in a more orderly way, there would not be a cessation of ideological disputes and arguments. The Soviet Union has never claimed that this was involved in the detente process. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said when he was Foreign Secretary, there is no armistice in the wars of ideas.
There can be no agreement to hold off discussion of central issues such as the weight we respectively give to democracy, to individualism as opposed to collectivism and to dissent as opposed to unanimity. Therefore, the Western world is bound to pursue those issues and those who hold a different ideology are bound to pursue their views.

215
As the process of detente continues, we are faced with the inherent contradiction that is implicit in detente. On the one hand, we try to widen the areas of agreement, but on the other, by the mere process of coming closer together, by working together in terms of industry and cultural exchanges and by the mere juxtaposition of our peoples, some of the different ways in which an individual lives his life in either of the two ideologies create tensions and conflicts. This is bound to happen. That tension is inherent in the detente process.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: Does my hon. Friend agree that we also feel strongly about what happens in relation to human rights in Chile, Argentina and Uruguay?
Mrs. Lena Jeger: And Czechoslovakia.
Mr. Heffer: I am talking for the moment about those countries that are not part of the East European bloc. There would be no suggestion on our part that we should go to war with those countries, but that should not stop us from saying that they should restore human rights and civil liberties at the earliest possible moment. In the same way, we say that to the Soviet Union, to East European countries and—Conservative Members should take note of this—to China.
Dr. Owen: I agree with my hon. Friend. That is why the concept of human rights is such a powerful concept in foreign policy. It does not discriminate between countries and ideologies. Those who hold dear the values of democracy are able and should uphold the values of human rights whether in Leftist Communist regimes or in Rightist Fascist regimes.
One of the most interesting developments in the House in the last few years is how the voices on both sides have increasingly tended to show concern for human rights under Left or Right extremist Governments. Two or three years ago, my hon. Friends were always being accused of selectivity in human rights. My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), by his concern about what has been occurring in some East European countries and with his well-known views about Chile and South
216
Africa, has shown the sort of balance that ensures that our voice carries more strength because it is not selective. It is directed at any abuse of human rights.
In the relationship of East-West issues, we should not disguise the fact that progress will not be as fast as we wish. It will be contentious and it will create tensions in our relations. However, having said that, I do not believe that we should back off or change our policies. It is right, though, to make the distinction that the Government have consistently made. There is a difference between the way in which a Government pursue the issue of human rights in direct governmental relationships and the way in which individuals pursue the issue.
The most powerful concept of human rights is that it works through the public and through the attitudes of a country to its foreign policy. No Government can have a foreign policy in isolation from the attitudes of their fellow countrymen. This is one issue which the Soviet Union must start taking more into account. If it pursues a policy that ignores the valid concerns of Western democracies about human rights, it will contribute to a build-up of public attitudes in those democracies to which every Government will be bound to react.
That is not to say that Government policy must be wholly reactive to public opinion. It must be prepared to lead public opinion, but if the public feels that the process of detente is all give on our side and that nothing is being returned from the other side, it will soon ensure that we do not make agreements that the Government may wish to make. We would be restrained. That is the sort of pressure that we are beginning to see operated in the limitations on the freedom of manoeuvre of the American President and it would soon be felt by a British Foreign Secretary.
The Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries must recognise that our concern over human rights is a legitimate part of detente. It is a matter that we shall pursue. But we must recognise that it is only one aspect of detente and we should not bring the whole process to a crashing halt because we are not making progress as fast as we may wish in this extremely delicate area which goes to the root of many ideological disputes.

217
I turn to the subject of Africa. Here again there has been a tendency, particularly in the last few months, for people to feel that detente is threatened. I do not think that any of us has denied that if detente is to gather momentum—and I have never believed that it is a passive process; there is a passive policy of detente, but there is also a dynamic policy—it must go into new areas and must take a managed relationship and greater harmony out into areas such as Africa.
There is little doubt that in the past year or more there has been growing evidence that some of the ideological disputes and East-West tensions have been taken away from Europe to other areas, particularly Africa. However, it would be a gross travesty and a corruption of the evidence and the facts to say that Africa is solely an East-West issue. It is not.
In going through each of the different issues that we face, I wish to say to the House why I believe that it is not the case. I believe that it would be gravely damaging for our policy and standing in Africa if we were to allow this to be portrayed as a purely East-West struggle, although there are elements of East-West tension within it. There are elements of East-West competition within most of the trouble spots. But the Government stand absolutely firm on their belief that African problems are by far best dealt with by African nations.
We stand firmly behind our support for the Organisation of African Unity, which faces some extremely difficult problems. This is a grouping of 49 countries with diverse economies, diverse religons and diverse languages. It would be extraordinary if they were able to have the degree of unity, for instance, that we manage to get within the Community of the Nine. We may think that our own unity is not strong but it is certainly envied by many other nations. We have shown an abilty in the European Economic Community to come together and make collective decisions over a wide range of areas. Many other regions envy this and are far from being able to achieve it.
I turn to Zaire, which is the most immediate issue facing us. What should the response of the West be in Zaire? Let us go back in history to the spring
218
of 1977, when there was a similar incident on the borders between Angola and Zaire. At that time the French Government responded to a request from a sovereign Government to fly troops from Morocco down into Zaire. The troops were requested of Morocco by Zaire, and Morocco asked whether France would fly troops down there.
At that time we had a political cooperation meeting in London and I was in the chair. The entire European Community supported the decision that was taken on that occasion. In retrospect, I think that we ought to have done more to try to stabilise the economic and political factors in Zaire. We were given a warning sign then, although I may say that a great deal of effort was made, particularly by the Belgian Government. This is an example of how deep-seated is the problem and how very difficult it will be to establish economic and political stability in Zaire, because so little progress was made during that time.
We have made a modest contribution, helping in every way we could, to the efforts to deal with the current problem in Zaire. I believe that, faced by the danger to the lives of expatriates in part of Shaba Province, the French, Belgians, Americans and British were right to do what they could on a humanitarian basis to save life. Tragically, we were too late for many people. I have no doubt that we were right about that action that was taken. I have also no doubt that the Belgians and the French, when asked to keep their forces in the area for a short period of time, to try to ensure the establishment of law and order, were right to keep their forces there. They have had our support.
The next question is much the hardest one. What should be done once the emergency is over? I believe that, through a combination of Press stories and statements, the West has been in danger of getting its priorities somewhat wrong. I believe that the first priority now for Zaire is political and economic stability.
In this connection a most important event has taken place over the last three days. The decision of President Kaunda to meet President Neto was extremely important, as was the decision of President Kaunda to meet President Mobutu. There is no doubt whatsoever that the three countries concerned—Zambia,

219
Angola and Zaire—will have to come together in a political agreement to settle this long-standing problem.
This is a problem that the world has known about for some time. The Congo is still with us and its legacy still lives on in Shaba Province. This is shown by the number of refugees. I was talking this afternoon to the High Commissioner who is dealing with the refugee problem, and he told me that there are over 200,000 Angolans in Zaire and Zaireans in Angola. There is a lesser number of refugees in Zambia. Those three countries have a deep-seated political problem which has its roots in the Lunda tribe. The problem has a long legacy. There is much suspicion and much fear, and a very enlightened political leadership will be required in order to resolve these problems. These political problems cannot be resolved against a background of military and economic instability.
With regard to the economic instability, a meeting is to take place in Brussels, called by the Belgian Government, on 13th and 14th June. This has been in prospect for some time. It is a meeting between the Government of Zaire and other concerned countries, and the International Monetary Fund, to tackle the economic problems of the area. The Paris meeting was also addressed to the question whether five of the Western countries most concerned could develop an economic and political policy, and also a policy on some aspects of the security position, in order to try to stabilise Zaire. Unfortunately, we allowed the military aspects to dominate the headlines. We allowed the military issue to come first, important though it is. It is immensely important to try to get the key technicians for the copper and cobalt mines in Shaba to stay. This is the key to the economy of Zaire. They will not stay if they think that their security is threatened. In that respect the security position has to be addressed.
Mr. Frank Allaun: As three of the Governments represented in Paris are intervening militarily in Zaire—and the British Government have rightly disavowed this intervention—will the British Government withdraw from the gang of five? If next week at the Brussels conference there is any sugges-
220
tion of military intervention, will the Government dissociate themselves from it?
Dr. Owen: I do not think that my hon. Friend has followed my argument. I said that I thought that we were right in sending RAF Transport Command to Zambia. In fact, it flew into Zaire at one stage. This was for the purposes of humanitarian assistance and it was part of a collective response. My hon. Friend said that three Governments are involved. Only two Governments are involved on the ground. The Americans were involved in transport. The Belgian Government have today made a decision about withdrawal, and so have the French Government. The French Government have said that they would withdraw. The United States Government have been faced with the problem that the Government of Zaire have asked them to do what the French Government previously did—that is, to fly Moroccan troops down there to replace the departing French troops—and the Americans agreed to do this. I do not think that they could have done anything else in the circumstances.
I want now to move on to the longer-term problem—
Mr. Robert Hughes: Without any reservations whatsoever I condemn the killings in Shaba Province of whites and blacks and condemn whoever was responsible for it, but will my right hon. Friend address himself to the question how we can ensure peace and stability in the area for the indigenous population, as well as expatriates, if we maintain by military support a corrupt regime, whose record of killing of people in Angola and in Shaba leaves us all with feelings of great horror? How can we provide any stability if we support corrupt regimes by military means?
Dr. Owen: This is one of the greatest problems that we face. We have to live with the Government who are there. I believe very strongly that the problem which my hon. Friend puts forward is a central one. If the West's support for Zaire—and I stress that it is for Zaire—was not to be contingent on certain conditions, we would be making a great mistake. I believe that our economic support and all other forms of support now must be clearly and deeply contingent on a monitorable plan for economic assistance, economic reform and restructuring

221
in that country to ensure that the money goes for the purpose for which it is allocated and for which it is given and also that it is accompanied by a readiness to look at political solutions to problems and, if possible, a widening of the decision-making structure and political involvement in that country.
I want to stress that I believe that we have an opportunity to create a strong Zaire. But if we do it in a way which says "This is carte blanche to do what you like" we shall make a grave mistake. I am not in favour of too much paternalism, but in this case I believe that it will be necessary to ensure that there is an agreed economic plan which is kept to and a degree of political commitment and widening out.
This is one reason why I am particularly against seeing these issues as an East-West struggle. If we see it as an East-West struggle, we shall be dragged in day by day to supporting purely a particular regime or a particular group of individuals, and we shall lose sight of our central objective, which is to support Zaire and the stability of Africa in that region.
As for the question of military intervention—and I deal with it because it is a serious problem—would that it were so easy and would that it were possible for security to come purely and simply from the indigenous forces of that country. That would be by far the easiest solution. But I believe that it is reasonable for troops from other African countries to be called in by other Governments if they wish to do so.
Here I come to this suggestion of a Pan-African force, and I must say that I still have great difficulty with what this concept is. I see a European Community which in 1954 failed to agree on a defence community. I do not know what people think of or mean by a Pan-African force. Are we asking the OAU to have a structure, and a command structure, or are we asking for a collective response? Certainly I think that we should involve the OAU as much as we can in any military questions which are being asked. I think that any questions which are being asked about military support there are more likely to come not from Africa collectively but from the region, and that it would be helpful
222
if the type of military response was always seen as a response by a Government asking for support from other Governments. For instance, in 1964 in East Africa when this arose, it was an emergency action initially and then one other African Government came in and put their troops at the disposal of the Government. That was a decision taken at an OAU meeting.
If we are to have that sort of response, I think that it should be geared to Zaire and Zaire's problems. There is no African country which will put troops at the disposal of any country. They will judge each one on its merits. They will ask themselves "If we put in our troops, which country, under what circumstances, and what are the arrangements?" If some permanent military defence structure for Africa comes, it will come from the OAU. The belief that such a structure can be built up by us in the West, with a lot too much talk of NATO involvement, has made some of the sensible security arrangements which ought to have been made over the last few weeks much harder to achieve. Now, by standing back a little, let us hope that we can provide a sensible security structure which will be seen to be supporting the Zaire Government and not polarising the issue into East-West relations and which will allow for a political framework.
We ought not to forget that the OAU has attempted before—recently not always with a great deal of success, but in the past with considerable success—mediation and conciliation, and I believe that we should encourage that process now. In the last Shaba incident in 1977, Nigeria worked very hard to try to achieve conciliation.
Concerned involvement from the West is helpful to Africa. Many African countries want it, and we should not be ashamed to demonstrate it. But it is the way that we do it and the manner in which we do it which is important. If we see it as being to help Africans solve African problems, I believe that it will meet with a response. But if it is seen as the West intervening in Africa, I believe that we shall not get the sort of response that is wanted.
I should like now to say a little about Francophone Africa and Anglophone Africa. Recently, I have tried to develop

223
closer relationships with many French-speaking African countries, and I believe that it is in British interests to do so. Similarly, I believe that it is in our interests that France should show more interest in the Commonwealth African countries, and I am glad to say that they have been doing so. There has been a considerable degree of discussion.
It does not matter if the West's response is not always identical. It is one of our strengths in dealing with the East that the West, because of its diversity and because of its pluralist democracy, does not always have an absolutely unified response. Someone said that the Soviet Union can sing in unison but that the West must try to sing in harmony. Sometimes we shall have different emphases and different shifts. It is helpful for the West—for the United States, for us, for the Federal Republic of Germany and for France—to work closely together in Africa, but not just exclusively. When Belgium has, as it has, a very intricate knowledge of Zaire, we should work with the Belgians. We worked with Canada in Namibia as part of the five-power initiative in the United Nations because of our membership of the Security Council. We worked with Italy over Somalia and Ethiopia.
Here again, I come back to some of the debates in this House of very recent memory and to some of the urging which I received, especially from the Opposition, that we should have intervened with arms supplies to Somalia, when I stood firm by the OAU principle that we should respect the territorial integrity of the countries and that we should not put ourselves on the side of those who would run down the easy route of trying to change the map of Africa by force. It might look easy for a few weeks, but it would result in total havoc for Africa—a Pandora's box.
At this Dispatch Box day after day I had to defend our decision to defend the territorial integrity of Ethiopia, not because I approved of what was going on in Ethiopia then, not because I approved of that Government's human rights record, but because I did not believe that a decision like the Ogaden and a dispute as deep-seated as the Ogaden could be supported by force, and I was not prepared to put the West on the side of the wrong on the issue of principle. I believe that
224
it has greatly strengthened our ability now to respond in Zaire that we did not put ourselves on the wrong side in that dispute.
Equally, I believe that by singling out Eritrea, which was an internal dispute, as an area in which the Cubans would be very ill-advised to intervene, in marked contrast to their previous support for the Eritrean Freedom Movement, and by questioning their non-aligned status, we contributed to a rethink of the Cuban position. I believe that Cuba now is finding some difficulty in establishing itself with others in the non-aligned world as truly non-aligned. I believe that that worries them, and well it might, because their actions have not been the actions of a concerned non-aligned country. They have followed slavishly the line of the Soviet Union. If they wish to re-establish their non-aligned credentials, I believe that they must now show their willingness to withdraw or at least to reduce their forces in Africa. They have a perfect example to reduce their forces in Ethiopia. The issue of the Ethiopia-Somalia border dispute which they went into is now, we hope, being resolved. The Minister of State is now visiting Kenya and will be visiting Somalia. I wish to improve our relationships with Somalia, but I do not wish at the same time to have no relationships with Ethiopia.
At this stage I would like to suggest what the West can do, and why I believe that the last few weeks have shown a lack of confidence in the West's policies in Africa. Over the last few years, I believe, the West has improved its standing, its position and its ability to influence in Africa. I do not take the defeatist view of our lack of influence in Africa.
We shall carry influence in Africa by sticking to principle. It will be achieved by pursuing, even through long-drawn-out negotiations, the negotiated path to independence in Namibia and by doing the same thing in Rhodesia and bringing Zimbabwe to independence. It will not be achieved by having a foreign policy that flutters around on the wind of editorial policies that often change three times in ten days. It will be achieved by having principles and sticking to them, by refusing to simplify extremely complex issues and by being prepared to take one's stand on principles.

225
Because it has been prepared to condemn abuses of human rights in Africa—not just South Africa and apartheid, but in Uganda and action over the Central African Empire—the West will have some influence long term on that pattern of government.
I believe that if we hold steady, even on Rhodesia, in dealing with the problem that has bedevilled us for more than 12 years, there is a prospect of a negotiated settlement. I believe that the atmosphere in that country and around it is coming close to a recognition that there must be negotiations between all the parties and that the round-table talks must take place. Given persistence, given that we stick to our principles and are not backtracked into other parts of Africa, and given that we do not damage our standing in other parts of Africa, we can achieve the settlement that we all want to see in Rhodesia.
That settlement will not be achieved by going down one side or another or by embracing the internal settlement, which has many features that are inadequate and will have to be negotiated. It will not be achieved by attending meetings of the internal settlement. It will be achieved by holding our position on principle and by being prepared to bring together all the parties, those outside and those inside. I believe that that could happen. The settlement will be achieved not by being thought to be, or being seen to be, supporting any one group of nationalist leaders but by letting that decision be taken by the electors.
In Namibia and in Rhodesia we have the chance of an internationally acceptable solution as a result of fair and free elections, with United Nations peacekeeping and involvement if necessary. That is a great prize. It is a prize which the Soviet Union has never been able to contribute to Africa. We want to achieve that type of high-level commitment to a negotiated settlement, to peaceful objectives and to the principle of an African solution. We ought to help with aid—
Mr. Michael Brotherton: Aid to guerrillas.
Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman can always be guaranteed to introduce that sort of comment. I suggest that he should ask himself about his own contribution to Africa. Given the position of demo-
226
cratic countries and our policy of not supplying arms to freedom movements, he should ask himself whether in standing aside from them altogether, having no relationship with them, and not giving any form of humanitarian help, we would not do the very thing that the hon. Gentleman so dislikes—push them ever further into the arms of the Eastern European countries and the Soviet Union. One of our greatest problems is that because we do not supply them with arms and other countries are prepared to do so, we lose influence and we have to redouble our political efforts.
It is wise for us to put economic aid into these countries. I am not at all apologetic to the hon. Member over the fact that we have an aid budget for Mozambique. I believe that it is a great mistake to believe that one influences countries by cutting oneself off from them. It is very rare that one can totally cut oneself off from countries which have governments which are recognised in the United Nations and free and sovereign governments recognised by the OAU. The fact that we have relations with Angola and Mozambique helps us to influence their policies.
Mr. Brotherton: While conceding that the Foreign Secretary may be convinced by his own argument, I want to press him on how he can reconcile his high-minded argument about principle with giving money to people in Mozambique and Angola in order to enable them to murder blacks and whites alike in Zaire and Rhodesia.
Dr. Owen: Of course we are not giving money to them for this purpose and all the money is contingent, qualified and carefully selected so that it cannot be given for such purposes. If some of it slips in the wrong direction, I would be very grateful to have information about it and I will do my utmost to stop it. But given the choice, it is wise to keep relations with those countries, to keep our influence with them and to try to ensure that they remain non-aligned so that they are not driven ever-increasingly into a Marxist ideology and total alignment with the Soviet Union. I believe that same policy is applied elsewhere.
I am perfectly prepared to believe that wherever possible one should open a dialogue. I know that there are some

227
hon. Members who criticise us for not holding a dialogue in the Middle East and there is some substance in some of those arguments. It would be very much easier if some of the groups with whom hon. Members think we should have a dialogue would at least recognise the state of Israel. It would be very much easier to have a dialogue if that formal recognition could be given.
I have tried to relate in a whole variety of different parts of Africa these complex issues of East-West relations. They are very difficult. There is no doubt that it is not in our interests to see a Marxist ideology spread across Africa. I do not believe that it is in Africa's interests either. Many people in Africa know this.
We should be more confident about the whole of our aid budget. The Soviet Union spends less than 0·1 per cent. of Soviet GNP on foreign aid. In fact the value of Soviet aid to developing countries has declined since 1973–74. The Soviet Union makes no contribution whatever to the North-South dialogue. The Soviet Union is not making friends in many of these countries. Where the Cubans have involved themselves they have often found themselves very soon in dispute with the country into which they have gone. In the Horn of Africa the Russians supplied arms to Somalia and to Ethiopia. Both those countries were under Soviet influence but, hopefully, one of those countries will come increasingly into a friendly relationship with us now that it has withdrawn to its own boundaries.
In acting as we have in this matter we have retained the friendship of Kenya which, at one stage, could have been gravely damaged had we followed some of the advice that some right hon. and hon. Gentlemen urged upon us in the House.
There is no simple easy one-paper policy for dealing with Africa. But I believe that if we apply principle, if we have courage and steady nerves, we shall have a policy for Africa which will enrich Africa, contribute to that continent and its future and in the process increase the standing of Britain, increase our export effort and our industrial involvement in that continent, and bring greater peace to the world.
4.59 p.m.
Mr. John Davies: I can certainly agree with the Foreign Secretary about the extent to which his speech has concentrated upon the problems and the areas of confrontation between the Soviet Union and the Western world. It is all too evident. As we look around the areas of tension world wide, it is very rare to find one where the Soviet Union's finger is not somewhere in the pie.
I realise, of course—and the Prime Minister said so yesterday—that not all these problems are matters of straightforward East-West confrontation. We know that underlying them in so many cases there are many ancient arguments and discussions, some which—in Africa certainly—pre-date the colonial period. They go back to tribal origins of which we are all well aware. The fact is that in each of them we see appearing the finger of Soviet involvement, to the damage of both the people themselves and certainly of our Western way of life.
If we review the areas of tension we think of Southern Africa. We need not dwell on that area because the Foreign Secretary has said a great deal about it. However, the extent of the involvement of the Soviet Union is all too evident. It is all too evident in the Horn of Africa. We have the recent events of Afghanistan. I am far from being able to state—I doubt whether many people would be able to do so—the exact nature of the situation in that country. However, there can be little doubt that there again the long tentacle of Soviet interest has been reaching out.
There is the problem of South-East Asia. There is the problem even of the South Pacific. In a different sense entirely there is the extraordinary effect of the build-up of the USSR merchant marine, with its predatory effect on the whole of the world's merchant shipping. All these factors are evidence of the Soviet Union's reaching out to damage not only us but so often the countries concerned.
There is a great danger that we may adopt and accept some sort of false hypothesis that there is an equivalence of threat from us to the Soviet Union. That is not true. It is totally unrealistic to ascribe to the West a desire to disrupt and overthrow the Russian way of life. That has not been our objective, and it

229
is not so today. There is a great contrast between the West's approach, which seeks to achieve change by its example and experience, by demonstrating that it runs things in a way that works better, and trying to convince others that as a result they should adopt our way of life, and the approach of the Soviet Union, which seeks to achieve exactly the same objective so often by force.
Mr. Heffer: The right hon. Gentleman does not understand what is going on in this world. Has he not read the recent revelations of what happened in Chile with the involvement of the CIA? There were measures taken to try to assassinate certain political leaders. That sort of thing was going on the whole time. Some of us condemn what the Soviet Union does, but it is about time that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends stopped mouthing rubbish about what happens when the CIA and others involve themselves in the internal affairs of countries that sometimes have elected leaders democratically, only to be undermined by the so-called Western standards of the CIA and others of that sort.
Mr. Davies: That interjection is totally wrong as regards what I said. Is the hon. Gentleman trying to tell the House that it is the purpose of the West deliberately to disrupt and undermine the life of the Soviet Union?
Mr. Heffer: Yes.
Mr. Davies: I do not know that, and I do not believe it to be the truth.
Mr. Heffer: You are a fool.
Mr. Davies: There is a total contrast between the attitude—
Mr. Heffer: What about Greece and the colonels?
Mr. Davies: I have endeavoured to answer the hon. Gentleman.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine): Order. I understand that the hon. Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Heffer) might want to catch my eye at a later stage in the proceedings. He is not doing very well at present.
Mr. Davies: The contrast to which I have referred is starkly revealed in the whole of the Belgrade review of the Helsinki Final Act. The whole effort of
230
the West was to reduce tension and to improve relations by a systematic reduction of the causes of conflict within international relations generally within human rights, within normal humanitarian interchanges between States and within information on troop movements and the like.
What was the response? It seems that it was as near to a complete negative as it could be. The reality is that the Soviet Union pursues ruthlessly the imposition of its own brand of ideology worldwide. Indeed, in President Carter's speech he said:
"To the Soviet Union, detente seems to mean a continuing aggressive struggle for political advantage and increased influence in a variety of ways."
That seems to be a just and correct statement.
It is necessary that we seek to ascertain what is happening in the Soviet Union's approach to the whole of its relationships with the Western world. I make some contrast with the analysis that the Secretary of State outlined. It seems that over many years the Soviet Union has been concerned with achieving equivalence or, where possible, superiority in its military preparedness, both in the strategic area and in conventional armaments, in the presumption that once that has been achieved it may argue from a position of strength and always ensure that negotiations with the West will so preserve either its superiority or at the worst equivalence, allowing it to act in other ways in regard to its own interests.
I ask the House to take note of the fact to which the Secretary of State refered, namely, the whole conduct of the mutual and balanced force reduction discussions. That conduct has been based upon the presumption that nothing could be lost to the Soviet Union by loss of time. During the whole of that period conventional arms were being built up, so the certainty of superiority was assured. By that means the negotiations could be protracted. I fear that exactly the same approach is to be repeated in respect of the strategic arms problem. There is no change acceptable within that framework that is acceptable to the Soviet Union, and thus its superiority is either preserved or reinforced.
Having achieved that position disarmament becomes desirable. It is obvious

231
that when one is assured of at least equivalence, and perhaps superiority, there is every interest in pursuing the whole objective of disarmament. I do not believe that the claim made recently by Russian leaders that they wish to achieve disarmament is false. I believe it to be a true claim but one which would preserve the Soviet Union's superiority or at least equivalence.
Mr. John Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is right to emphasise the increase of Warsaw Pact forces in the Central Region. However, will he concede that if we take the totality of the forces and equipment available to the Warsaw Pact forces and the totality of forces and equipment available to NATO it is clear that there is parity in a large number of areas, with distinct superiority to the West in many others?
Mr. Davies: That superiority has been eroded to a large extent. If we consider the totality of the balance, it is quite clear that it has shifted the other way. The balance of force has changed and a new phase of Soviet strategy has now emerged. From the time that there has been a change in the balance, objectives have been pursued by the Soviet Union by indirect intrusion rather than by the threat of overwhelming force. The exploitation of any potential weakness worldwide that reveals itself is part of the Soviet Union's scheme. It watches out for cracks in the whole armour of global security and inserts itself in them.
It is wrong to imagine that the Soviet Union's whole purpose is to secure dominant situations of threat to the West. I do not believe that to be so. In many instances the internal disruption of key areas is equally as effective as the adoption of a dominant position. If it is possible to undermine areas that have an essential contribution to make to Western interests in future, as much is achieved as if a military superiority or a philosophical one had been attained. The Soviet Union has adopted a quite different approach to the problems of progressively asserting its own ideology and imposing it worldwide. The confrontation now is not a contemplation of a head-on assault but rather one of sapping the resources and morale of the West by indirect means.
232
The analysis and recognition of the problem is in no way warmongering or the resumption of the cold war. That is far from my mind. Still less is it a desire to break off contact and to reject negotiation. That, too, is absolutely absent from my thoughts. However, as the Prime Minister spoke yesterday he would dangerously mislead us into seeking to infer that the true appraisal of the real confrontation is in itself evidence of belligerency. In my view, it is quite the opposite. It is reminiscent of the days of appeasement of the 1930s to suggest that a revelation and recognition of the dangers surrounding us constitute a provocation.
It is equally dangerous to reveal dangers and to be unprepared to take what steps are possible to improve our negotiating status. Yesterday the Prime Minister, perhaps not uncharacteristically, was long on sententious utterances but, as usual, rather short on positive steps to strengthen our negotiating stance. Yet both are available. There are means of doing both. There are the instruments at hand to do so and there are the things which want doing for that strengthening.
As regards NATO, yesterday I was concerned to hear the Prime Minister say:
"But there is no intention that NATO should become involved in Africa."—[Official Report, 6th June 1978; Vol. 951, c. 29.]
But NATO is involved in Africa. It happens to be involved in Africa by its very proposition that its operational limits reach down to the Tropic of Cancer. Apart from that, it is involved in Africa because from Africa emerge many of the dangers which can provoke the very confrontation which NATO is there to face. Therefore, it is not right to try to eliminate NATO's role from the whole of this important and fundamental area.
Of course, I understand that there is no desire to extend the operational zone of NATO, seeing that already the disparity of forces makes the existing zone overstretched as far as we are concerned. Indeed, as regards the United Kingdom, that is all the more sorrily true when we think of the immense reductions in our own force capabilities which have taken place in the last few years. How unhappy it is that the incapacity of NATO to live up to its own necessary

233
commitments should have been so largely caused by our failure to maintain that level which we should maintain.
NATO is undoubtedly the linchpin of Western defence. Therefore, it must take account of the causes of danger which arise globally. It cannot restrict itself to a limited zone of interest.
Surely there must be a need for the improvement of the assessment and alarm system which detects areas of incipient danger before they arise and concerts plans to meet them. It must be done. Where else would the overhead strategy be engineered to ensure that the whole mechanism of response becomes more effective were it not within NATO itself? This surely is a sphere of action to which the Government must give more attention. It is important that NATO should be involved deeply in the constant forward analysis of those areas where tensions arise and where, as I said, the Soviet Union is so prepared and quickly able to insert itself to the damage of us all.
Mr. Robert Hughes: Could the right hon. Gentleman say in which areas of Africa recently he has been surprised at developments where there has been tension?
Mr. Davies: I think that the changing situation in the Horn of Africa could be said to have contained a number of surprises for many people, not least for myself, I freely admit, for many countries and certainly for the Government. There are areas where changes take place. The switching of allegiance has caused intense problems. Indeed, the Secretary of State referred to that matter earlier. In the framework of all these spheres, the interrelationships which exist between the SALT II and the MBFR talks and the whole question of nuclear disarmament, in whatever form it takes, need some point where the correlation of the West's attitude and response to the issues concerned can be thrashed out. To my mind, it is useless to imagine that NATO has not got a fundamental part to play in that analysis.
Mr. Roderick MacFarquhar: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Davies: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to continue, I shall give way to him later.
234
Another instrument which has been inadequately used up to date is the Community. I think that the political cooperation system which was developed in the Community to seek to concert political action within the member countries has found itself too much involved in simply mouthing utterances of exhortation and philosophy which have had extraordinarily little effect on the real outrun of events.
The use of the Community's negotiated arrangements, either through the Lomé Convention or its association arrangements with many other States, is an area where much greater involvement of the Community in the political stability of the countries with which it is dealing can be achieved.
A further instrument may be the OECD. The OECD has been concerned within the West and amongst the Western industrialised countries in seeking to procure certain rules of order amongst them. How much more important that it should do so in relations between Western and Eastern countries. It is ridiculous that we should find ourselves offering terms of contract and credit to the East for the purchase of ships and other materials which we would by no means offer to our own industry. Surely this is an area where again instruments are available and can be turned to the advantage of the West.
Of course, the Foreign Secretary dwelt at considerable length—I understand it—on Africa. Africa is a case study in itself of the current confrontation. The Secretary of State spoke a great deal about the Zaire problem, and I understand that.
Mr. MacFarquhar: Before the right hon. Gentleman leaves the whole question of Western instruments, obviously there are three levels at which these can be discussed in the new way. There is the level of rhetoric, and I assume that he does not wish to limit himself to that. There is also the level of analysis. The right hon. Gentleman talked of NATO being able to provide analysis. But I think that the rght hon. Gentleman has to go further, especially as regards NATO, if he means that NATO has got not just an interest but the means of doing almost anything in Africa, which would mean that the NATO treaty should be changed.
Mr. Davies: I said earlier that I doubted whether NATO's operational zone could be extended for want of the capacity effectively to handle it. At the moment that must be the truth. But its importance in terms of correlating the activities of either groupings or individual States which may be involved seems absolutely intense and needs to be most actively pursued.
The Secretary of State dwelt particularly on the issue of Zaire, and I understand that. But the problem is far more generalised. It seems unquestionable that Europe and Africa are irrevocably bound up with one another in a mutual interest. Europe's deep dependence on Africa's natural resources, be they mineral or food, is one side of the equation. But Africa's equally deep dependence on Europe's contribution to its development and management is no less serious. These two continents have got to find means of helping one another and they have to engineer, through their institutions, arrangements to ensure that help. Either deprived of the other's contribution becomes precarious or worse.
One has only to see the problem in many countries in Africa today when, either by their own will or by some accident of fate, they have deprived themselves of the input which the Europeans can and should effectively make. It is tragic to see it. We must find means round this immensely difficult problem.
In no sense is what I am talking about a kind of neo-colonialism. It is not that, whatever. There is a state of interdependence which is fundamental. When the Foreign Secretary speaks of methods of monitoring the adequacy with which aid moneys and the like are utilised, of course we are immediately faced with the smack of neo-colonialism and the paternalism which he condemns. But it is necessary to find methods by which this interflow of materials and products resources on one side and of knowledge and ability on the other is preserved and improved.
It suffices only for the disrupter to disrupt that interflow—to disrupt the ability of those countries to be able to count on the continuing movement and source of their own needs—for the whole situation to be damaged beyond repair. It is not necessary to instal hostile regimes. The spread of Marxist
236
philosophy is not necessary, provided one can so ruin the countries concerned that they can neither take advantage of the Western input of ability nor provide the resources which are their principal source of prosperity.
The evidence is all too easily available of just the kind of deterioration of which I am speaking. In the last few days I have been speaking to several major employers of European staffs in Africa. I spoke to both African and European employers. They ask—and I understand why—"what chance is there now of getting our people back into these areas?" I believe that 30,000 Belgians are employed in Africa. Many of them are leaving because they have no assurance of the future in that continent.
Unless we take urgent steps to help, the same will happen in Rhodesia. All those people upon whom the development and prosperity of that country depend will find it impossible to retain their livelihoods there and they will seek to go elsewhere. This is a role for the European Community, perhaps within the framework of the renegotiation of the Lomé Convention.
Surely the Community could find some way whereby it interposes itself, on the one hand, to guarantee Europeans against massacre—and that involves the question of whatever forces are required—and to guarantee them against being deprived of property and unreasonable political interference; and, on the other hand to guarantee the Africans against exploitation, which they fear, and external domination which they also dread and which they see as a continuation of overbearing colonialism.
A composite approach to the problem is required involving not only firefighting forces, although they are necessary. Without such an approach we shall not persuade people back into Africa. It must also provide technical and managerial pools and financial guarantees.
Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: The right hon. Member is right to concentrate on the political and economic stability. But in a significant passage he said that there must be protection for Africans and Europeans alike. I accept that we have seen certainly a Cuban and possibly a Russian involvement, the presence of Belgian and French troops, an

237
American airlift and a Chinese interest in Zaire, but what form of firefighting force has the right hon. Gentleman in mind? He says that NATO is overextended. Does he have in mind a European force, a United Nations force or an OAU force?
Mr. Davies: In my view such a force, particularly in Africa, would be formed within the framework of the discussions between the European Community and the African members of the Lomé Convention, in order to give the mutual guarantees that both sides ardently require. I do not know whether it should be formed entirely from African sources, entirely from European sources, or from both sides. Within the framework of that convention, the whole purpose of which is to do what I ardently plead for—to try to make Europe and Africa combine for their mutual advantage and protection—it must also be possible to provide for that type of security.
Dr. Owen: The right hon. Gentleman is developing an interesting argument about the use of the Lomé Convention. I am sure that he knows that this suggestion would be strongly opposed by our European partners who are currently opposed even to a human rights clause in the convention. They believe that the convention should not involve any form of political interference. The British Government have argued for an ability to intervene on human rights. If we were to extend such intervention to political and defence issues we should be met with considerable resistance, not least by the French Government.
Mr. Davies: I understand. But two things must be said. First, the inclusion of the human rights clause, which I applaud, is a unilateral proposal. What I am proposing is something which has benefits for both sides. Secondly, there has been a substantial change of mind in the last two or three weeks because of what has happened. I find it remarkable that it was the French Government who earlier this week were trying to feel their way towards some composite form of safeguarding force. That is a new attitude for the French Government. Let us take advantage of that new mind, if it exists.
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the human rights
238
clause for the convention is being opposed by the frano-phone countries and many others in the Community because it would interfere in the internal running of the countries which are signatories to the convention? But a non-aggression pact would not be open to the same criticism.
Mr. Davies: The mutuality of what I am suggesting has a strength which the unilateral approach does not seem to have.
There are many other spheres in which the European Community can be advantageously deployed if there is determination and effort. Undoubtedly, in strengthening and reinforcing the growing and more encouraging developments in the countries covered by the ASEAN agreement there is an opportunity for action by the European Community which it has not yet adopted and has not been encouraged to adopt.
It has a less evident but significant role to play in Middle Eastern disputes. The same is true in the Greek-Turkish dispute. The instrument of the Community can, by political will, be turned not only to consider the economic interchange but the political difficulties in the areas concerned. The Community must be led to take a more positive view of the need to take action to assure the maintenance of the great outposts of Western life in the South Pacific, Australia and New Zealand.
There is much action which should be taken and which is positive and useful. It is fine to stand on principles. I thought that what the Secretary of State said was of a noble-sounding character. But it sounded as if he were standing off from the problem. We have to stand into the problem and really get to grips with it. Our complaint about the Government is that they seem to vacillate while the President of the United States has today reiterated his more positive and determined attitude to resist the inroads into our Western way of life. I believe that the world can be made a safer and more prosperous place. We have a part to play. We can and must play it.
5.28 p.m.
Mr. Colin Jackson: I hope that the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) will not be disturbed if I do not follow his interesting arguments. But I know that

239
many hon. Members wish to speak and I wish to limit my comments. I shall concentrate on some of the developments in Africa and some of the interesting items in the news from the Near East.
It is easy to discover what is wrong with Zaire and Africa but it is more difficult to find a solution and discover how to put things right. In the United States there are three different points of view at the highest level. There is Mr. Brzezinski. It is interesting that those in history who have been oppressed in Eastern Europe have a most indelicate attitude to those who have been oppressed elsewhere. Mr. Brzezinski is the cold war warrior—one is always safe when one is a good distance away.
There is Mr. Andrew Young, shooting from the lip and using all the jargon which we on this side of the Atlantic do not understand—"Let it all hang out"—whatever that is supposed to mean. There is President Carter and his well-known attitude of being determined to be undecided. It depends which day it is what the policy is. But he is always concerned about human rights, forgetting Mississippi. He never makes a comment about the situation in Israel. I shall be able to rectify that omission later.
Brzezinski's policy is crazy. It is about as crazy as Molotov's policy was some years ago, and that got short shrift. Dr. Kissinger could have been right. But, strangely enough, I think that Mr. Andrew Young, of whom I shall have one or two unkind things to say later on, has it about right with the Russians. The Russians are rather like some French wines. They do not travel well. I have seen the Russians at work in Egypt. I have seen them attempt to suborn the independence of that country. I have seen them with their heavy-handed imperialism. After all, they are the last imperialists left. One has only to ask the Czechs to clear that point up. I have seen them try to take that ancient country of Egypt and turn it into a satellite. With all the problems that Egypt faced, perhaps they did not have much option. Nevertheless, the Russians were asked to leave, and they left.
Recently I was in the Sudan where the same kind of narrow imperialism was attempted by Moscow. Its attitude was "We give you the arms and we tell you
240
what the policy is." The Russians were asked to leave. The Chinese are much cleverer in their policies abroad and in influencing other nations. Now the Soviet Union has lost out in Somalia.
I do not encourage overseas bases. I believe that people should be allowed to run their own countries. But the Soviet Union was stupid. It had an excellent Red Sea port at Berbera, not to mention the bases elsewhere in Somalia. It threw them all away with its greedy and grabbing attitude when it thought it was on to a good thing in Ethiopia. But the Russians plunged themselves into a quagmire. They have been trying to balance themselves on the top of a pin that has been collapsing. They have lurched from one disaster in Somalia to the humiliation which will arise in Ethiopia, particularly when Eritrea gets its freedom.
Like Mr. Andrew Young I think that if the Soviet Union is given time it will evict itself from Angola and Mozambique. After all, these people did not wait 500 years to get rid of the Lisbonites just to invite in the Muscovites. Both of them are equally stupid from a different point of view in the political spectrum. I am not a great believer in "wait and see", but I have the feeling that in time the inevitability of independence and pride will require the Russians to leave. The Cubans are lackeys. One cannot describe them in any other way. I am sorry if other hon. Members do not agree with me, but the Cubans cannot do the work of a nation like the Soviet Union and avoid being viewed in most parts of Africa with contempt. Of course they, too, will go.
I turn now to the British view about the present position in Zaire. I agreed with a great deal that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary said about this troubled land. My memories go back to when the Congo was handed its independence by a despairing, desperate and greedy Belgium. I was BBC correspondent in Katanga and Elizabethville. I recall the cannabalism which destroyed the Baluba. I remember, too, the desire of Tshombe for the separation of Katanga from the rest of the Congo. Later we had debates in the House about the independence of Biafra. It was interesting to see who supported Katanga and who supported Biafra—the Portuguese and the South Africans.

241
Now there is injustice in the situation in the Ogaden. I do not believe that we shall improve things by trying to move that frontier again. A mistake has been made with British, Portuguese and Belgian imperialism in setting the boundaries for the Shaba people, who desire a home, but who, through this imperialism, could find themselves fragmented. We cannot now go back. I am most encouraged by the meeting today between the leaders of Zaire and Angola and our good friend President Kaunda. They will tackle the political side of something on which we cannot go back. They will stabilise it.
The British view is based on seeking economic stabilisation. One does not have to be an imperialist to see that we need, copper and cobalt. It is clear that the materials of the world must be properly provided for the rest of the world. We need also rubber and tin, but we do not have to be held up to blackmail. The economic stabilisation in Zaire should be furthered under the general encouragement and umbrella of the Organisation of African Unity.
The contribution of the outside world also must be made. No mention has yet been made of the IMF or the World Bank. The intervention must come on an international basis so that the copper and the cobalt supply, through an international agency, with the encouragement of the OAU, can develop and succeed. Britain will be playing a considerable and proper role if it concentrates on economic stabilisation.
It is difficult to look around at the Governments of the world, at Chile and Uganda, for example, and decide which should have first prize for the most discredited regime. However, Colonel Mobutu would be pretty high up in the stakes for corruption, for torture, for suppression and for his Swiss numbered bank account activities. I imagine that he will go just as a great number of other corrupt dictators have gone. But if there is an economic underpinning, whoever replaces him will find that his country has been serviced or provided for not by some NATO intervention or some strictly Western group but by an international body with the OAU acting as the central force.
I turn now to the Near East. I do not have a fixation about Mr. Andrew Young,
242
but I should like to commence these remarks with another of his malapropisms. The late Senator Hubert Humphrey, of whom I was a great admirer, was said to have approached every problem with an open mouth. One cannot help feeling that Mr. Young, who is a great democrat, has become one of the less pleasant aspects of the Democratic Party.
He said that Britain walked away from crises—he seems to have a fixation about the British walking out, but usually we drive out—whether in Rhodesia or the Middle East. Coming from an American, albeit an adopted American, that is an extraordinary remark. Let us look back to the events directly after the Second World War, and at the 1947 story. There were elections in New York. Harry Truman was frightened that they would be lost to the Democrats. He had a great friend of a certain faith in Main Street, Kansas City, that led him to ask Mr. Lewis Douglas to tell the then Under-Secretary, Mr. Christopher Mayhew, that it would greatly help the United States to make a loan available to Britain if we would allow a large extra contingent of people of the Jewish faith into Palestine. What might have been a peaceful settlement was sabotaged, for the most discredited domestic political reasons, in the United States. Here we have Mr. Andrew Young telling us that we walked away. To put it truly, we were pushed out under the most unfortunate circumstances.
What can one say, incidentally, about a State that has as its basis a religion? I have always believed that countries that are based on religion have the wrong start—Ulster; Pakistan in India; and Israel. I cannot help asking what there is in common between someone such as General Dayan and some of the great international spokesmen of the Jewish will in years gone by.
But the situation now is that there seems to be a lack of concern, a lack of feeling of urgency, about the present position. We are told "Why do we not wait? Why do we not leave it to the Americans?" But I am afraid that time is not really on our side.
We have to ask ourselves what kind of Government are now in control in Israel. Whatever prejudices we have—we all have certain attitudes and certain ideas—there is no doubt in my mind that the Government of Israel is led by a

243
man who at one time, undoubtedly, was a leader of terrorists, and a man who, at present, does not believe in responding, for example, to the approaches of President Sadat, but who believes in closing the door.
We fool ourselves if we think that we have a lot of time left. The world has experienced four wars. The fifth war could be the last one, and a fatal one.
For personal reasons, I have known this part of the world for over 30 years. Far from becoming more stable, it has become less stable. I am astonished at the patience that someone such as Sadat has shown. He offers the hand of peace, and what does he get back? A slap in the face. I am astonished that King Khalid and the Saudis have been as patient as they have with the United States lobbies.
Slightly to change a phrase of Dr. Johnson, I think that he might have said "A shortage of gasolene clarifies the mind wonderfully". I am afraid that the United States will have to face up to the fact that in a fifth war there will be no question of, as Dr. Kissinger said, moving troops in to stabilise the situation. The oil wells will be imploded. Anyone who knows the Near East well enough, as I think I do, will know that that is what would be the minimum reaction of people such as the Saudis.
I believe that we in the United Kingdom have to adopt a more positive policy. It is no good saying "Leave it to the Americans". After all, there are these two super Powers. I am always slightly amused by the United States when told that Britain is no longer a first-class Power because she has not got the capacity to blow the world 10 times or a thousand times to smithereens—although we may have the best scientists in the world. But the nations that have ruined the Middle East are the two super Powers—the Russians, with their cynicism, moving into Egypt and into Libya because of the feeling of frustration that the Arabs have about the position of Israel; and the United States, for domestic political reasons, backing up Israel.
Sixty per cent. of the funds for the Democratic Party come from people of Jewish origin. Forty per cent. of Republican Party funds come from Jewish origin. I have nothing at all against people of
244
the Jewish faith, but, of course, that makes for a biassed policy by the so-called leader of the West.
We want free Europe to play a much bigger part. After all, in history, in culture, adversary and friend, what two closer groups have there been than the Arab world and the Europeans? Sometimes the light has been in the Arab world, sometimes in Europe. It is not right or corect to say "Leave it to the Americans." Chancellor Schmidt has said that he believes that the Palestinians have a right to self-determination, just as any other nation. If he can say that, I hope that the United Kingdom and our Government will say that. There is no need to be ashamed about it.
Israel has been talking about rights. Israel is a nation that has flouted the rights of citizens in Jerusalem. By an unanimous vote, the activities of the Israelis in Jerusalem have been condemned in the Security Council. I have been there and seen their activities, when the shops in Old Jerusalem had been closed at times of Israeli celebrations. The ironic thing—I am sure that the young Israeli soldiers did not realise this—is that the shops that had been closed in protest had a yellow sign on the outside of them. Some of the fathers and mothers of those soldiers might have remembered another time, before the war, when yellow signs were put on doors.
The Israelis cannot claim any great advance in the world when they continue to occupy land which does not belong to them. Even worse than that, of course, with this gentleman Mr. Begin, they are putting in new settlements, building hostages for tomorrow and the day after.
I hope, therefore, that Europe will play a more positive role in the Middle East. We do not have to apologise. Trade, commerce and education are always there to be developed. But to say "Wait for someone else; leave it until tomorrow", is wrong. If one spends a lot of time talking about international relations, one tends to acquire a habit of seeing how things are likely to turn out. Everyone knew that Vietnam would not remain in the hands of General Thieu, and that Formosa would not be China for ever. Everyone knows that, indefinitely, the Middle East will not allow the injustices to the Arab people to be perpetuated. If

245
we wait and if we leave it to someone else, the fourth war will be followed by the fifth.
I have a great fascination for the period after Sarajevo, when time was running out. As A. J. P. Taylor said, in the end it was easier to have World War I than to stop the mobilisation of trains. We are drifting into that situation today, and I hope that Britain and Europe will play a more positive role. Otherwise, Israel—in whose right to exist we believe—will vanish, and so will Egypt vanish, with an atom bob on the Aswan dam. Shall we then ask, "How did it happen?". We shall not say that because, the world will be involved in the conflagration, and the great Powers will be brought into it. Then we shall all wonder why we said "Let us wait and leave it to someone else."
5.50 p.m.
Mr. Maurice Macmillan: I take the view—and I hope I am not alone in doing so; certainly I am not alone on this side—that there can be only one objective for the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government. That is to protect the realm and further the interests of the British people. That and that alone is the function of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office.
The Foreign Secretary said a great deal with which I can agree, but he talked as though foreign policy were a factor of ideology rather than one of power. I take the view that for the Soviet Union ideology is but a cloak with which to make more respectable an imperialism which far antedates the work of Marx and the development of Communism.
It has been said that war is but an extension of foreign policy. That is true of States which have the military or economic power, or both, which have the will to use that power, regardless of the effect it may have, entirely in their own narrow interests and which have the ability to define and pursue a single object, knowing precisely what results they are trying to achieve. That is true of the Soviet Union today—as true as it was of Tsarist Russia.
It is worth remembering that one of the major factors in this country's foreign policy—both direct from the United Kingdom and carried out through the
246
foreign policy of the Indian Government—was to prevent the penetration of Russia into the Middle East, into Central Asia, including Afghanistan, and into the Mediterranean, the Persian Gulf and the Indian Ocean. Essential British interests were regarded even then as threatened by any advance of Russian power or even influence in those areas.
That was before we in Britain were quite so dependent on oil and raw materials from those areas and from Africa, and in the days when the British Navy was dominant. Now, the high seas of the entire world are dominated by the Soviet Navy. We are seeing an extension of Soviet influence—whether through insurgency or through the use of advisers or surrogate troops. We have seen it in Afghanistan, whatever the situation now is in that confused country, and in the South Yemen and in Iraq. Iran is surrounded by the Soviet's friends. We have seen it in Ethiopia, and in the rest of Africa.
I would say to the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson) that perhaps the Soviet Union does not always stay for long, but, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) said, it is the disruption that it causes as much as its continued presence which damages our interests. We have seen this in Angola, in Mozambique and in the potential threat to Rhodesia.
It is that which makes me question the validity of detente as defined by the Soviet Government. It is that which makes me believe that detente as pursued at the moment is beginning to look very similar to appeasement as pursued by the British Government before the Second World War. If it is true that war as an extension of foreign policy, the reverse is equally true but often forgotten—that countries which are not strong militarily or economically must rely for their defence on a skilful foreign policy.
That applies to the United Kingdom. Our sole protection is our diplomatic ability, our capacity to use such economic strength as we have, our ability to make alliances and to maintain them, to extend them and to use our friends throughout the world for our joint interests. That is something which does not seem to be fully understood by the West generally, except perhaps by France.

247
Like my right hon. Friend, I hope that, in the present situation in Africa and elsewhere, we can use the European Community as a means of achieving concerted action—concerted, that is, with those African States whose interests are so closely allied to those of the countries of Western Europe. I know that the Foreign Secretary has said that that is not on at the moment. But it is one of the roles of Her Majesty's Foreign Secretary to take an initiative—not to sit back and wait to see whether someone else will make it possible for the British Government to co-operate but to try to use our position within Europe and NATO to influence our friends and allies so that we may work together in our joint interests.
It is likely to lead to a far better and more genuine form of detente if the Western countries in general and the EEC in particular will realise, as France recognises in her actions, that their foreign policies, both political and economic, must be seen as adjuncts to their defence, and perhaps its main instrument.
I accept that that requires a certain moral courage and singleness of purpose. We must have the skill to identify the threat and the willingness to admit it. We have to be prepared to treat for the time being as allies those countries which are the enemies of our enemy, whether we approve or disapprove of their internal regimes.
Mr. John Lee: I am listening with interest to the way in which the right hon. Gentleman has treated, rather undiscriminatingly, the concept of ally. Is this not an ironic repetition of the very policy which was pursued in 1941? Would he have said then that we should have nothing to do with the Soviet Union? That might have been the right thing to do, but is this a repetition of that policy?
Mr. Macmillan: I think we had to deal with the Soviet Union in 1941 because it became the enemy of our enemies. That was the basis of the alliance with the Soviet Union. The mistake was made later, at Yalta. It lay in not realising that the situation by then had changed and was changing fast. That is why I referred to countries which "for the time being" are on our side.
248
I think for example of South Africa, a potential ally and help in Africa—
Mr. Lee: Hitler's friends.
Mr. Macmillan: There could be no threat there to the United Kingdom, the United States or the rest of Europe, or to other African countries.
I agree with the Foreign Secretary and not altogether with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Brotherton) about aid to Mozambique. Let us remember who else is helping Mozambique: South Africa as much as the United Kingdom, for perfectly valid reasons according to South African policy.
Therefore, we cannot afford to be choosy about with whom we work from time to time, although we should of course maintain the main structure of our longertenn alliance. Also, we must be able to define clearly the national objectives that we need to achieve and the national interests we need to defend, regardless of what may be the effect of them on the domestic situation and electoral pressures in our country or in others.
Until the Soviet conception of detente includes a non-interventionist attitude to the Third World, our foreign policy must include some element of countering the revolutionary and insurgent pressures which are being exerted directly or indirectly, by the Soviet Union because world revolution has been expressly excluded by the Soviet Union from all processes of detente.
People like to be on the winning side. I believe that our failure to give a lead and our failure to see that detente is a two-way process, our willingness to give and go on giving and obtaining precious little in return, will have certain effects. In the longer term—perhaps this is the more dangerous alternative—we shall face the danger of giving an incentive to our allies—an incentive which they have not yet got—to do a separate deal. We have seen this beginning to happen in Turkey where the implications of recent statements have been quite clear, and from out point of view increasingly dangerous: "Perhaps the others are a better bet than you are." It is our fault if this is the Turkish view.
If the worst came to the worst, we could face similar problems with Japan. which is as dependent as we are on oil

249
from the Middle East, on minerals and raw materials from Africa and whose sea route is a good deal longer. If the Soviet Union were in a position to interrupt the flow of raw materials to that country, it would produce an incentive for Japan perhaps to take the view that some accommodation with the Soviet Union would be better in Japan's own interest. Who would blame them if that were to happen? We could even reach the situation, if Western Europe and the NATO Alliance gets into a weak enough position, where there would be an attraction for West Germany in the reunification of a neutralised Germany.
But in the shorter term I think that our weakness in foreign policy will result in a lack of credibility in the existing alliance, perhaps leading to a collapse of the political will within the Community and the ending of the Community as a political entity. That process would also contribute to the despair of those behind the Iron Curtain who are known as dissidents and who do not agree with the idea that Marxism is an excuse for operating outside the rule of law.
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary pointed to the importance of the fact that policies of principle should gain the adherence of those who live behind the Iron Curtain and of people in the Third World and elsewhere. It is true that high principles are important, but it is also true that high principle, without the courage to stand up for them do not give much encouragement to others to adopt those principles.
The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister made a valid point when he said that Soviet imperialism was not the sole African problem, but I believe that it is a large part of it. It plays a large part in preventing the development of domestic solutions to the problems of African countries and is beginning to drive out the white experts, the technologists, on whom the development of African economies depends. Therefore, Soviet imperialism impoverishes and destabilises the independence of African nations. I believe that both the Prime Minister and his right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary ignore other aspects of Soviet imperialism, linked as they are to the situation in Africa, in developing pressures in Asia, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, and the Indian Ocean.
250
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary said that the pursuit of the ideological argument should be allowed to take place freely and that there was nothing we could do about it. He was right to take that view, but I object to his implication that the Soviet Union has a right to carry on the ideological argument by physical means, because that is something we cannot tolerate. The right hon. Gentleman and the Prime Minister for one reason or another seem to me to be guilty of failing to tell the whole truth. Furthermore, they fail to encourage, and indeed even take active steps to discourage, that element in the United States Government which is beginning to see that the interests of the United States, of the NATO alliance and of Western Europe are best served by helping the African countries to counteract the Soviet-inspired insurgence against African Governments.
When the Foreign Secretary was describing what he thought should be done about Zaire, I was reminded about what in fact was done in Malaya. That was a long process; it did not require massive military intervention, but it required skilled military advisers, help to organise the police forces, a heavy aid programme and a monitoring process to ensure that aid was used to develop the country economically and was not misdirected. If that is in the right hon. Gentleman's mind, there is a great deal to be said for that kind of policy, but it must be pointed out that it will take a long time. In Malaya the process took 12 years. However, it is a process that can produce eventually a stable and firm Government with a stable economy.
Nobody will argue with the Foreign Secretary's view that the situaton is difficult, but what he did not appear to realise, or was unwilling to admit, is that Soviet policy has as its object the aim of making things more difficult. The point of that policy is to prevent these political and economic problems from being solved—to prevent the difficulties in Zaire, Angola and Zambia which he quoted being settled except on the basis of the establishment of client States in Africa which are hostile to the West, and except through the support of one particular form of government that meets with the support of the Soviet Union and is willing to act in its interests.

251
The right hon. Gentleman the Foreign Secretary is right to stick to his high principles, but by themselves they throw up a danger. The danger is that they will encourage those who are seeking solutions to act not through the ballot box, but through the rifle and the bullet.
Looking back at what has happened, one can say that where countries with difficult, unstable, sometimes corrupt and inefficient governments have been threatened by the forces of insurgency within and have sought help from outside, there has been a mixture of success and failure. I believe that Vietnam was a failure because the attempt was made to rely too heavily and almost exclusively on military power.
The Foreign Secretary's policy in Africa may well fail because he has underrated the Soviet role in forcing an East-West conflict in Africa and therefore underrated the need for the sort of military force which my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford suggested in his speech. There is, therefore, a solution on the lines proposed by my right hon. Friend, but I suggest that there is another way in which pressure could be brought upon the Soviet Union through the ordinary processes of negotiating detente.
The Foreign Secretary said that there was a need to concentrate a little more on conventional arms. Why, if we are worried about Soviet conventional arms and influence in Africa and about Soviet penetration in other parts of the world, do we subsidise it? Why, when the Soviet system is unable to feed its own people, do we feed them? Why do we give them cheap credit and cheap technology when all they do is use it to build forces which are primarily used for aggression? Why do we play their game?
Lenin in 1920 prophesied that we would play the Soviet's game when he told his Foreign Commissar that there was no need to worry about money because the capitalist countries would pay for the rope with which they would be strangled. Must we make that prophecy come true? I suggest that we should think a great deal more carefully about our general economic and political policy towards the Soviet Union and relate it to a concept of detente which is
252
nearer to Western interests and not solely in accordance with those of Soviet Russia.
The danger which we are facing goes back far beyond 1920 and far beyond the Russian revolution. The whole history of Russia shows it to be a country which has grown through imperialist expansion, by conquest, frequently by genocide, by subversion, by disruption and by increasing political influence by every possible method open to it. That imperialism has in no way been altered by the Communist revolution. All that the Communist revolution has done is to give it a phoney ideology with which to clothe this naked imperialist policy to oppose which must be the main object of the foreign policy of Her Majesty's Government.
6.13 p.m.
Mr. John Watkinson: Having listened to the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) speak about Africa, it is hard to realise that it was his father who made such a distinguished contribution to the resolution of the problems of African affairs in that celebrated "wind of change" speech. Had Portugal and Belgium listened more closely to those words of wisdom, perhaps today we would not have the problems that we have in Zaire, Angola and in the southern part of the continent of Africa generally.
The right hon. Gentleman seemed to be burying the policy of detente. That policy was finished, according to him, and we were back on the path to cold war. I cannot accept that. I reiterate the remarks of the Foreign Secretary in his opening speech when he urged upon the House the necessity not to kill off the policy of detente, because the only other policy is a return to cold war politics and cold war confrontation. None of us wants to see that. I agree with the right hon. Gentleman that detente is in danger. It is at risk.
Mr. Macmillan: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that the argument that he is putting forward is similar to that put forward, I regret to say, by a large element of the Tory Party about the Nazi occupation of the Rhineland, the Austrian Anschluss, and the invasion of Czechoslovakia?
Mr. Watkinson: The right hon. Gentleman is being over-dramatic. Europe is

253
not faced with this degree of problem. Nor is the world. I hope to show this during my speech.
I should like to deal with the attitude of the Soviet Union to the question of human rights. The Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have said that the Government must take a certain position beyond which hon. Members may feel that they would like to go. I certainly would like to go beyond the Government position. I condemn outright the attitude of the Soviet Union to dissidents within the USSR at present. The whole world is outraged by the trial and sentence of Yuri Orlov. The whole world awaits with grim expectation the fate which could befall the dissidents Shcharansky and Ginsberg.
It would be bad enough if these events were taking place within the ambit of conventional Soviet policy. What makes matters worse and places a special burden upon persons such as ourselves is that the USSR is a co-signatory with ourselves and many other nations of the Helsinki agreement. In that agreement the obligations placed upon those co-signatories are spelt out clearly. It says:
"The participating States will promote and encourage the effective exercise of civil, political, economic, social, cultural and other rights and freedoms all of which derive from the inherent dignity of the human person …"
This is precisely what the Soviet Union is denying to the dissidents at present and the Foreign Secretary is right in saying that the Soviet Union must misunderstand the impact of public opinion in the West if it believes that the trials of these solitary individuals do not have a marked and significant impact upon opinion in the West.
On occasions I find disquieting and even nauseating the response of Conservative Members to persons such as my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) when he seeks to promote and defend human rights in the West and in the East. My hon. Friend seeks, as do many of my hon. Friends, to uphold human rights in whatever country those rights need defending. I have had the pleasure of working with my hon. Friend in seeking to uphold human rights in Iran. My hon. Friend and his colleagues have condemned abuses of human rights not only in so-called Fascist States, but in Communist States. It does no credit
254
to the Conservative Party to pour scorn upon the rightful demands of my hon. Friends that these human rights should be upheld.
The crucial point in relation to detente is the effect that the policy is having upon public opinion in the West, particularly in the USA. The USA faces mid-term elections at present and Congressmen will be very sensitive to the demands of the people of the United States. We must accept that these trials perhaps more than anything else present to the West the inhuman face of Communism and must undermine public support for detente. It is in the interests of the East and the West that such support should be maintained and that detente should continue. If the Soviet Union pursues dissidents in the possible further trials of Shcharansky and Ginsberg, it cannot but damage itself in the eyes of the world and actively undermine the policy of detente.
I turn to the question of arms buildup which has been referred to on both sides of the House. Any reasonable person must accept that there has been a massive build-up of forces in the central region of Europe. It is well known that in this region the Russians have three times as many tanks and one and a half times as many men as NATO and that they have created a new tactical offensive air force in this region. As the Foreign Secretary indicated, it is clear that the forces of the Soviet Union in the central region go way beyond what is necessary for any defensive strategy.
However, there is a danger of becoming totally obsessed by the central region. If we study the totality of forces and equipment available to the respective alliances, we find that, in many areas, NATO's troops and equipment are well in excess of those of the Warsaw Pact. While the combined number of persons in the armies of NATO and the Warsaw Pact are about equal, NATO has twice as many men in its navies and one and a half times as many men in its air forces as have the Warsaw Pact countries. If we go through the various elements, we see that, in the totality, NATO numbers exceed the Warsaw Pact in the men available for defence and in many areas of equipment.
However, I do not wish to belittle the threat that has emerged in the central

255
region. The threat is there and it cannot be ignored. I also accept that the Soviet Union responds to power and I believe that peace in Europe has been maintained by a balance and, reluctantly, I have to accept the necessity for us to build up forces in central Europe.
The Foreign Secretary was right to refer to the paralysingly slow development of the MBFR negotiations. Clearly, it is in our interests and in the interests of the Soviet Union, if it is sincere about the policy of detente, that these negotiations should take on some impetus. The delays in the negotiations in dealing with this vital area of the central front have been scandalous and I welcome the Foreign Secretary's initiative in proposing that the negotiations should be raised to Foreign Minister level. I hope that this initiative will inject a drive into the talks.
In the past, there has been difficulty over the concept of parity and its meaning in the context of the negotiations. The Foreign Secretary slid over the problem. The Soviet Union has always taken the view that there should be equal reductions in numbers, while we have said that there should be parity in the form of a common ceiling.
In the central region, it can be claimed that, in terms of numbers and quality, the Soviet Union is the equal of NATO. The Russians' argument that they needed greater numbers to counteract our superiority in quality no longer exists, and I hope that there can be speedy improvement within the MBFR talks.
The Opposition seem to get obsessed by the Soviet Union. I am not denying that there is a threat, but the Opposition have an obsessional attitude. One can see that, in the global context, the Soviet Union is confronted with problems. For example, I would cite four areas where it could face potential difficulties. It cannot rely upon the Warsaw Pact alliance in the same way that we can rely upon NATO. The Soviets do not know that they can ultimately rely upon their client states. The fact that their alliance is based on a tyranny means that the forces within that alliance do not have the same motivation or commitment as the forces within NATO.
The fact that the Soviet Union is spending such vast amounts on defence equip-
256
ment puts its own economy under strain. There are well-founded economic arguments to indicate that within a matter of years the Soviet economy will face insupportable strains as a result of its vast defence expenditure.
Fourthly, the Soviet Union faces the possibility, however remote, of war, not just on one front, but on two. It has problems in the West and in the East. We should not over-estimate the stance of the Soviet Union in world politics. We shall do so to our disadvantage and shall undermine ourselves by so doing.
I turn briefly to the problem of Africa. I agree very much with the analysis presented to us by the Foreign Secretary. The Prime Minister has stressed the importance of analysing the situation. If one analyses the historic circumstances, particularly in Angola, one can see disturbing interventions by the CIA there. These revelations have come out in a book by Mr. Stockwell and have been confirmed by Mr. Colby, a former director of the CIA, before a Congressional committee when he said that, were it not for the intervention of the CIA in Angola, it would not have been necessary for the Cubans to intervene. In the build-up of the problems of Africa, the CIA has not been guiltless.
A second point is the scepticism shown by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary about the possibility of a pan-African force and the dangers of such a force with European involvement. This comes out especially in relation to Zaire. It has been pointed out that the regime there is, tragically, one of the most corrupt in Africa. Indeed, it is a regime that many of us would rather not be put in the position of having to defend.
When we read in reliable publications of the amount of the gross national product of Zaire that finds its way into the pockets of Mr. Mobutu and his immediate family, it must be a cause of enormous concern and I remain sceptical about my right hon. Friend's view that an injection of funds can save that country. Not long ago the IMF came back from Zaire and reported that the economy of that country was in such a state that it was beyond repair.
There are enormous dangers for Europe in getting involved in a pan-African force. We could find ourselves coming to the

257
aid of regimes that we could not morally defend. It is a truism, but we must learn the lessons of Vietnam. We cannot afford to get involved again as we did in South-East Asia.
As the Prime Minister has accepted, there may be short-term advantages to the Cubans in Africa, but it is doubtful whether they will be long-term gains. The essence of African politics is that they are the politics of nationalism and I believe that nationalism will re-assert itself in Africa.
I endorse the view that it is incumbent upon us to uphold the territorial integrity of States within Africa, but it serves our interests and those of Africa if African problems can be solved by Africa itself.
6.30 p.m.
Mr. Raymond Whitney: In the few weeks that I have been privileged to be a Member of this House, I have come to learn quite a lot already about the traditions and the conventions which govern our proceedings. The more I have learned, the more clearly I have come to appreciate the practical value of those conventions.
Especially at the moment I am conscious of the appropriateness of the custom whereby a Member rising for the first time should ask for the indulgence of this House. I am quite sure that few new Members have stood more in need of such indulgence. There can be none who has arrived here with less experience of the political arena. Having spent all my working life in the public service—and therefore subject to the rules of political neutrality which that so rightly involves—such practical experience and knowledge as I have of the proceedings of this House have largely been gained in the two or three appearances that I have made, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in the Box just behind your right elbow.
My apprehension in rising this afternoon might also be increased if I contemplate the experience of someone who, in that he lies buried in Hughenden churchyard, I am proud to claim as a deceased constituent of mine. As you will know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, when Disraeli made his maiden speech in this House he was given such a hostile reception that he was obliged to resume his seat, with that prophetic shout
258
"Though I sit down now, the time will come when you will hear me."
I hope that those outside critics who are disposed, on the basis of the broadcasting of this House, to deplore the decline in our standards here will pause to compare the treatment which Disraeli suffered in 1837 with the courteous way in which, so far at least, right hon. and hon Members have listened to my remarks.
The sense of privilege which I felt on arriving here was greatly increased by the fact that I did so in succession to the late Sir John Hall. It is not just as a matter of parliamentary convention, important though that is, that I should like to pay tribute to John Hall's memory. It would be presumptuous of me to comment on the high standing that John Hall had in this House, but I should like to record the tremendous respect and affection felt for him by his constituents in Wycombe, whom he—and to an extraordinary extent his wife—served with such devotion and distinction for over a quarter of a century. Indeed, the memorial service in Wycombe parish church, which was filled to capacity, was an occasion which was unforgettable for those who were present, and a tribute to a fine man and a great Parliamentarian.
The electors of Wycombe recognise that they were fortunate in being served here by John Hall. They also recognise their good fortune in living in a part of England which, even in today's conditions, is able to combine beauty with relative prosperity. Nevertheless, they feel rightly worried about a number of issues which I hope on future occasions to have the opportunity to raise in this House, such as the preservation of their education system and the need to improve the climate for small and medium businesses on which the prosperity of the Wycombe district so heavily depends.
With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to offer a few very general thoughts on various aspects of foreign affairs, which seems to me to be a subject of rather greater concern both to many of my constituents and, I suspect to many more other British citizens than the Government or the national or the local media usually seem to be prepared to believe. If I may use the jargon that was current a few years ago, the British people are very well aware that they cannot stop the world and get off. They

259
know that they are on it to the end, and they want a say in the direction in which we are all going.
It is my impression that we in London have all grown accustomed to exchanging platitudes about the shrinking globe caused by improved communications, about the need to get out and increase our exports, and about the increase in military and other threats posed to our national interests overseas. The same messages have penetrated the national consciousness outside the confines of Westminster, Whitehall and Fleet Street. There is a deep-seated unease, and there is a message coming back to us here in Parliament. That message can be put in just a few words. It is "Stand up and speak for Britain." It is a message which I should also like to bring to this House from my years of service in the Diplomatic Service.
For too long Britain's voice has been muted, uncertain and nervous. We can all offer our explanations of why this has happened. The famous gibe of the former American Secretary of State, Dean Acheson, that we had lost an Empire but had not found a role, was very much resented when it was made in 1962, but it contained a good deal of undeniable truth. Our poor economic performance, compared with other industrialised countries—and even compared with many developing countries—has gravely damaged national morale, the latest manifestation of that being the dismal premise on which Sir Kenneth Berrell and his colleagues in the Think Tank based their profoundly disappointing review of our overseas representation.
We have even seemed to be losing the ideological battle, which is not precisely the same thing as the battle of ideas. The very intellectual fertility of our own society, where all ideas and attitudes have long been subject to challenge and attack, have made us seem to foreigners even weaker and more divided than we have seemed to ourselves. Here the universality of the English language, which can help so much to advance the principles for which we stand, has tended to work against our interests. Every note of discord struck in our society is more likely to echo round the world just because it is carried in English. By contrast with the maelstrom created by all this questioning
260
of the old verities here in Britain, people in many countries have found the misleadingly rigid certainties of Marxism and other authoritarian doctrines to have more appeal.
We have lost our nerve and with it our power to influence world events. I am conscious that to use such a phrase today in this House as "influence world events" may well strike some right hon. and hon. Members as anachronistic and as an unjustified harking back to some Imperial heyday. As a practising diplomat until a few weeks ago, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I assure you that such a concept is not just a piece of unrealistic jingoism. This country—and, indeed, Western Europe as a whole—has a great deal more to offer than it has offered in recent years in helping the nations of the world to strike a proper balance in their relations with each other.
If we are to do so, we must first rid ourselves of many of the complexes which have afflicted us for so long. We have generated some of these complexes our selves. Others we have allowed to be thrust upon us. Let us at last have done with the so-called guilt of Empire. Let us stop falling or permitting ourselves to be pushed into the trap of the Leninist myth about our alleged role as the capitalist exploiters of the underdeveloped countries—a myth which has been peddled so widely and with such baneful effects both for the Western and for the developing world. Let us stop castigating ourselves as being a nation which is fundamentally more racialist than any other.
For too long we have allowed such complexes to inhibit and bemuse our performance on the international stage. It is high time that we took another and much more positive look at what we have achieved and what we can offer the world.
Over the centuries, we have created and preserved a functioning democratic system which has provided a legal framework to protect the basic liberties of the citizen and a mixed economy which still offers a standard of living far higher than that enjoyed in most countries. Of course, it is a system which is much less than perfect and which is now, as indeed it so often was in the past, under threat. But even now it remains the envy of many in the world. They want to believe in

261
our system and its efficacy and durability in the hope that the best elements of it can be transplanted to their own societies. But their inclination to do so is undermined gravely when we appear so often to lack faith in ourselves and in our traditional values.
The most organised and aggressive, although not the only, threat to these values comes from international Communism. Over the years, whatever the current state of the attempt to reach detente, the Soviet leaders have never made any secret, by their words or by their actions, that for them what they choose to call the international class struggle and the world revolutionary process goes on. A whole catalogue of events since, for example, the Helsinki conference testifies only too clearly that this is a fact.
But there are other challenges to British and Western standards and interests. In the countries of the Third world, for example, these have been reflected in the campaign of some of their leaders for what they are calling the new international economic order. I believe that if those leaders achieved all their declared objectives—for example, with regard to the operation of multinational companies—the consequences would be harmful not only to our interests but also in many respects to the interests of millions in the developing world.
But this, my maiden speech, is not the occasion for me to become involved in a detailed critique of the negotiation of a new relationship between the developing and the industrial world. I wish only to make one simple appeal. It is for an approach to all the problems of international relations which speaks more boldly, more consistently and more clearly for Britain and for British values.
Let us resist the temptation to which we have succumbed all too often to elevate compromise into a fundamental principle in the conduct of our foreign affairs. Let us be more aware of the dangerous hypocrisy of double standards. Let us be readier to speak up for and to act upon those principles in which we believe and which have served well so many generations of our countrymen.
We must not be afraid if such an approach is called provocative by those who are opposed to democratic values, to justice and to the rights of the individual.
262
We must be prepared to face those accusations by those on the Left and on the Right of the international political spectrum.
We must not be detracted by charges of cold war or even, to use Mr. Brezhnev's latest concoction, lukewarm war. We should remember that the Soviet manipulation of the very term "cold war" was one of the supreme examples of how words can be used to permeate the thinking of a whole generation.
Of course, we live in a complex world. There are inevitable conflicts between the interests of the nations. Bargains must be struck. But we let down ourselves and those in the rest of the world who still look to us for the projection of our traditional values if we show that we are ready to yield our position before we start.
I believe that the timing of this foreign affairs debate is extremely fortunate. Events which have occurred during the past few weeks have caused the whole international kaleidoscope to be shaken up. New factors are emerging. New positions are being taken. There is great uncertainty and increased tension. What better time could there be for the voice of Britain to be heard more clearly once again?
It can be no exaggeration to say that never before has the world presented such a difficult terrain over which Britain's foreign policy must be conducted. The destructive capacity of the super Powers hangs like a shadow over us all. But the very precariousness of the balance between them provides its own opportunities for countries like our own. New international trading relationships must be evolved. World problems of energy, food supply and population increase have yet to be tackled effectively. National, racial and tribal issues in Africa and human rights problems across the globe threaten to concern us all.
This is already a formidable list, but I am convinced that Britain can make a much more positive contribution in all these areas if only once again we are prepared to believe in ourselves and to speak and act with courage and with a sense of realism. Of course, if we are to be effective we shall need the support of other nations. But there have been few moments in our history when this has not been true. I am certain that a

263
stronger British voice on the international scene would be welcomed by those who sent us to Westminster, by our allies and by many others in the rest of the world. It is time for us to shake off our self doubt and to put our collective experience to the more effective service of mankind.
I am most grateful to the House for listening to me with such tolerance and courtesy and for sparing me the reception given to my deceased constituent, Benjamin Disraeli.
6.48 p.m.
Mr. Stanley Newens: Although my standpoint is very different in a number of respects from that of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney), I have great pleasure in congratulating him on his maiden speech. With his expertise and knowledge of international affairs, I am sure that he will have much to contribute to our debates on foreign affairs in the future.
On one issue I am certain that the whole House will agree with the hon. Member. It is in the tribute which he paid to his predecessor, Sir John Hall, who was widely respected on both sides of the House. Sir John Hall was well known for his knowledge of economic matters and for his participation in Treasury debates. Many of us who did not agree with him very much regreted his passing, and accordingly we look forward with pleasure to the contributions which his successor will make in the House on future occasions.
A number of other right hon. and hon. Members who have spoken already in this debate have dealt with some of the issues which I wished to raise. I refer especially to the increasing alarm which has been expresesd from the Opposition Benches, not only today but over recent years, about what is regarded as the growth of the Soviet threat in Europe, in Africa, on the high seas and elsewhere in the world.
Many of us who sit on these Benches below the Gangway as democratic Socialists have been critical for many years of different aspects of Soviet policies. We condemned the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968, and we continue to give support to those who stand for Socialism with a human face. We deplore the harassment and persecution
264
of Soviet dissidents, and we disapprove of the Soviet Union's acceptance of the imperatives of the arms race.
However, it is necessary to examine the allegations being made about the nature of the Soviet threat with a little more care than that which has characterised the speeches from the Conservative Benches today. Claims have been made that militarily the balance is shifting decisively in favour of the Soviet Union. Undoubtedly, in terms of conventional forces stationed in Europe the Warsaw Pact has a quantitative advantage although there are many reservations about the quality of their arms. In terms of the strategic balance, however, the West continues to have very great superiority in deliverable nuclear warheads.
Furthermore, the United States remains well ahead in technological terms, as is demonstrated by the development of the cruise missile and in other respects. Last year the director of the CIA, George Bush, told the United States Congress:
"The Soviet Union does not have a single weapons system that demonstrates technological superiority to the United States. On the other hand, the United States has many weapons systems that the Russians cannot duplicate."
If one considers arguments about Soviet naval prowess, no one can doubt that the West as a whole is still more powerful at sea. The arguments of the Opposition are based on a considerable exaggeration of Soviet strength. I contest very strongly the conclusions that many Conservative Members have drawn from the arguments they have advanced.
In Africa the charges of Soviet aggression have been such that the uninitiated might be forgiven for concluding that the first foreign troops ever to set foot on the African continent were Cubans and that the first attempt by a great Power to influence African events was made by the Soviet Union. The uninitiated might imagine that up to now the Africans had enjoyed many years of sturdy independence and Ruritanian bliss and that now rudely, for the first time, they were being threatened by an alien incursion.
The truth is slightly different. Africa was subjected for centuries to the most ruthless acts of aggression, the most rapacious exploitation and the most flagrant atrocities against human beings.

265
Although history refers to the involvement of the nationals of Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Belgium, Italy and the Netherlands, there is precious little mention of the Russions or the Cubans before the last year or two. Of course, some of the ancestors of the Cubans probably were involved in some of the events in the remote past of Africa, as victims of the slave traders who shipped them across the Atlantic. That was years ago and they certainly were not the aggressors.
If one examines the history of the last few decades, by which time most countries in the West officially accepted the right of Africans to rule themselves, despite some glaring ambiguities in Southern Africa, the notion that Africa has been free from military intervention and great Power involvement apart from the Soviet Union and Cuba is utter nonsense.
Take the case of Zaire, which became independent as the Congo on 30th June 1960. It was then under the premiership of Patrice Lumumba who had emerged as that country's leader—I remind the House—in elections supervised by the Belgians. There was a revolt against the new Government in Katanga, in what is now known as Shaba Province, which was nominally led by Moise Tshombe but which was sustained, even against United Nations policies, by European mining interests and an army of white mercenaries drawn from Europe, Rhodesia and South Africa.
Lumumba himself was the objective of a clandestine assassination plot organised by the United States CIA under the auspices of Allen Dulles which is documented in detail in the hearings of the United States Senate Select Committee chaired by Senator Church in 1975. I was surprised to learn that the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) apparently has not heard of these assassination plots and I strongly recommend that he goes to the Library and reads about the sort of policies which were pursued by the CIA in that period.
In fact, Lumumba was afterwards murdered with two of his Cabinet colleagues, Maurice Mpol and Joseph Okito, in February 1961 in Katanga. The subsequent ill treatment, atrocities and massacres of those who had supported
266
Lumumba and many others continued for years.
To give an example, on 11th January 1965, The Times reported that 500 suspected rebels had been executed at Stanleyville since the town had been taken by Government forces. The Observer of 29th August 1965 reported that senior mercenary officers had produced a set of pictures showing atrocities committed by his men. One was published and I have it with me today. I will show it to any hon. Member opposite who doubts me. It shows two so-called Simbas being led through the street by ropes around their necks with smiling mercenaries contending for the privilege of "stringing them up".
The bloodstained course of the history of the Congo, subsequently Zaire, from the date of independence was fundamentally determined by external Western interests—the CIA, white mercenaries and others. It is totally hypocritical of those who were silent then to affect a humane horror at the notion of outside involvement by Cubans and Russians elsewhere in Africa today.
Recent events in Zaire flow from the sort of intervention which took place in the period to which I have referred. Anybody who does not recognise that the present Government of Zaire is an extremely unpleasant one, about which we should have no particular pride, should do some reading and find out what we are letting ourselves in for by backing that regime.
Of course, intervention by the United States by covert action, by support for reactionary military coups and by involvement of United States' forces has occurred regularly throughout the developing countries up to the fall of President Nixon. The record in Guatemala. Iran, Vietnam, Cambodia and Chile, not to speak of the Bay of Pigs in Cuba itself in 1961, hardly demonstrates a principled distaste in the West for greater Power intervention. It should be made clear that many of the events that have taken place where the Cubans and others have intervened may not have taken place had the West's record been different from that which history shows it to be.
For example, in the case of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea Bissau, NATO

267
continued to accept Portugal as a member of the organisation and to supply arms to it throughout its efforts to suppress the movements in those countries for self-government. Following the Portuguese revolution of 1974, when the independence of the colonies was conceded, the United States Central Intelligence Agency intervened in Angola and paid out about 31 million dollars to the FNLA and UNITA in a bid to prevent the MPLA, previously recognised by the British Labour Party and many other sections of the democratic movement in the West, from gaining power.
The Opposition should study some of the documents that relate to that history. The story is revealed in the report of the Select Committee of the United States Congress chaired by Congressman Otis Pike in 1975, which was leaked to the Press. Some of the money that was paid out by the CIA was probably used to recruit mercenaries such as one of my constituents who was subsequently murdered, apparently at the behest of the Greek Cypriot mercenary nicknamed Callen. Furthermore, Angola was invaded by South African troops.
The West must realise, including Opposition right hon. and hon. Members, that if we align ourselves with and give moral and military support to those who are prepared to prevent the mass of the African and other Third world peoples from achieving their full national, political, economic and social independence, their leaders will turn elsewhere: to Cuba, the Soviet Union or to anyone else prepared to give them succour and aid. Before we blame them for taking that course, let us remember that Britain and the West were prepared to be allied with the Soviet Union to overthrow Fascism and racialism in Europe nearly 40 years ago.
In many instances Opposition Members have been prepared to co-operate with and even to support regimes such as those of Rhodesia and South Africa, which have existed on the basis of discrimination and tyranny. I am sad to say that even the Government were prepared to provide military sustenance to the regime of the Sultan of Oman, which is totally undemocratic and in no way recognises the values for which we claim to stand in the House.
268
If we identify ourselves with the forces of reaction against those who will take over inevitably in future in other countries as their peoples become more educated and demand their democratic rights, we cannot grumble if we lose out to Cubans and others of that sort who are prepared to take a different view. I know a little about the Cubans, and anyone who writes them off as mere puppets of the Soviet Union and discounts their genuine commitment to the ideals of national liberation is turning away from the realities of the situation.
The policy of the West, and above all that of a Labour Government, should be to recognise the cause of the peoples of the Third world and their right to rid themselves of regimes that deny them the freedom, democracy, human rights and economic emancipation that the British people struggled to achieve and obtained.
In that respect I pay tribute to many of the statements made today by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs. I believe that the Government are at least cognisant of many of the issues and are moving in a direction that I regard as being decidedly better than that which we have followed frequently in the past. Those who want to consider what would occur if the Opposition should come to power should study carefully the contrast between the views expressed by the right hon. Member for Knutsford and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary.
We have the duty, together with all other Powers in all parts of the world, to press for peaceful settlements. I hope that the Government will use such influence as they have to seek to bring a peaceful end to the fighting and internecine strife that has characterised the position in the Horn of Africa over the past year or two. I am disturbed by the present Ethopian regime's record on human rights. I would not approve of any support being given to an Ethopian reconquest of Eritrea by force of arms. I hope that the Government will do all that they can to prevent an injection of further arms into that area, and will enable the deprived peoples who live there to turn their attentions to the real problem that is facing them, that of starvation.

269
In the circumstances that prevail, there is no case for a revival of the cold war hostilities that has been expressed by many Opposition Members over recent months. Those who seek to engender war fever and to stoke up the arms race in a world in which the major enemy for all mankind is still primarily economic—that means hunger for hundreds of millions of people—will in the light of history be seen ultimately as the real enemies both of our people and of humanity as a whole. I hope that we shall rededicate ourselves to the cause of disarmament and detente. I hope that we shall stand firm by the principles of human rights, whether in the East or West, and shall resist to the utmost the bellicose calls that have been made by the Opposition over the recent past for a return to cold war postures.
7.8 p.m.
Mr. Dennis Walters: May I first of all pay a warm tribute to the eloquent speech made by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney). It was an impressive maiden speech. I hope that we shall hear many more from him and benefit from his wide experience in foreign affairs.
The hon. Member for Harlow (Mr Newens), like the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, concentrated almost entirely on Africa. I do not think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree with the hon. Gentleman in dismissing so speedily the danger of the Soviet and Cuban threat in Africa. I do not intend to speak about Africa, but I make one comment about the right hon. Gentleman's speech. I regret that greater encouragement and support has not been given to the internal settlement, which would make it much more likely to succeed. The cold, critical and negative response that it has received has lacked imagination and statesmanship.
I shall direct my remarks to the Middle East. I was surprised that the Foreign Secretary did not mention it apart from making one oblique reference. The high hopes of October 1977 have been extinguished by Mr. Begin's intransigence. As a result, the prospects for peace have receded and a dangerous situation could develop relatively soon.
As the blame for lack of progress towards peace so manifestly falls on Mr. Begin and his Government, in my view
270
it was a serious error of judgment for President Carter to welcome the Begin proposals for the West Bank as a constructive response to President Sadat's initiative and misguided for the Foreign Secretary tamely to follow that particular lead from Washington.
As it was inconceivable that the Arab side could ever make peace on the basis suggested, the proposals were a destructive, not a constructive, response, and their general effect has been to wreck the Egyptian President's dramatic initiative. They are designed to shift the whole basis of negotiation away from the principles previously approved by the international community, including the United States and Europe, as the framework for a just and lasting peace and to establish an entirely new basis incompatible with all that has been agreed over the past 10 years.
It is impossible to produce a reasoned statement reconciling the Begin proposals in their essence with Security Council Resolutions Nos. 242 and 338, with the Security Council's consensus statement of November 1976, with the joint United States-Soviet statement of October 1977 and with the various EEC declarations ending with that of June 1977.
The attitude adopted by both Washington and London to the Begin proposals was bound to raise doubts about their constancy in sticking to the principles previously approved for a peace settlement. That being so, there was all the more ground for hoping that the recent NATO Summit Meeting in Washington would have adopted a resolution along the lines of the proposed American draft. That called for full Israeli withdrawal from occupied Arab lands and recognition of the legitimate rights of the Palestinian people.
As no resolution emerged from the meeting—only an absurdly platitudinous expression of hope that efforts towards peace in the area would continue—it would be interesting to know what happened to the original draft. Perhaps the Minister, when he replies, will inform the House what action was taken by the British Government to try to stop that resolution from vanishing into thin air.
Moreover, I hope that Ministers will henceforth stick firmly to the well-tried formula that we stand by the Security

271
Council resolutions and the EEC declarations and that our policy is to see them implemented. That may not catch the headlines, but it is a great deal safer and a much more effective contribution to the search for peace than off-the-cuff comment which may be interpreted as indicating that the British Government are shifting their ground.
It is also highly desirable, especially after the mystery of the disappearance without trace of the American resolution at the NATO meeting, that we and our European partners break the strange silence that we have maintained over the past year since Mr. Begin began floating his schemes for sidetracking the search for peace and trying to lead it towards condoning Israel's illegal seizure and colonisation of Arab land.
Last year Mr. Begin made much of the appeal that he made to the Prime Minister and to the British Government to use their influence against further statements by the European Nine on the grounds that that would damage the process of negotiation and the prospects for peace. If in fact Her Majesty's Government did yield to Mr. Begin's pressure and so obstructed any joint or concerted action by the European Nine, that was an error of judgment. The past few months were a period when we in Europe ought to have been reasserting with all possible vigour the principles on which we have taken our stand and which we believe must regulate a peace settlement if it is to qualify as "just and lasting."
Perhaps we can do something now to repair the omission. Since the June war in 1967, one of the wisest and most constructive statements that has been made on the search for peace was that made by William Rogers, then the United States Secretary of State, in December 1969. I have quoted it before, but I believe that it is worth repeating. He said:
"We believe that while recognised political boundaries must be established, and agreed upon by the parties, any changes in the preexisting lines should not reflect the weight of conquest and should be confined to insubstantial alterations required for mutual security. We do not support expansionism. We believe troops must be withdrawn as the resolution (242) provides."
Sadly, that admirable statement, although it stands on record and has not
272
been rescinded, has also not been reaffirmed by any United States Government since then. I believe that it would be timely and appropriate if the European Nine were now to incorporate that statement in a new reaffirmation of their position regarding the requirements for peace in the Middle East.
I should now like to turn to another point. Why has not the Arab side come forward with practical, constructive proposals of its own? The Foreign Secretary recently posed this question in almost exactly these terms, and he referred obliquely to the point in the one comment that he made this afternoon on the Middle East.
Part of the answer is the simple fact that on the Arab side there are five parties directly concerned. There are the four so-called confrontation States and the Palestinians. There are also other Arab States with legitimate interests in the search for peace. So, even in the best of circumstances, it is obviously more difficult for the Arab side to co-ordinate. Moreover, the sad and dangerous divisions which beset the Arab world at present make the task far more difficult and that has to be acknowledged.
Even so, it is a fact that a wide measure of agreement exists in the Arab world on the essentials of a peace settlement. This consensus includes the confrontation States and the mainstream of opinion within the Palestinian leadership and among the Palestinians generally. Some Arab Governments may dissent fundamentally from this consensus, but they are very much in the minority. Nor is it true that this consensus lacks precision and constructive formulation. The outline is perfectly clear and entirely adequate to serve as a statement of the Arab side's negotiating position.
There must be a total, or virtually total, withdrawal by Israel from occupied Arab territory, including Arab Jerusalem there must be a homeland for the Palestinians consisting of the West Bank and Gaza and they must be given the option of deciding their future for themselves within that homeland; and there must be a just settlement of the problem of the Palestinian refugees.
In return for satisfaction of these three requirements, there will be Arab recognition of Israel's right to live at peace and

273
in security within its pre-1967 boundaries; there will be freedom of navigation for Israel through the Suez Canal and other international waterways; and there will be guarantees of Israel's inviolability and independence, including the establishment of demilitarised zones. Demilitarisation of the West Bank is acceptable, and the proposal for a period of international control over the West Bank has not been ruled out.
All of this is of tremendous importance and significance. It means that the Arabs abandon their war against Israel and accept the legitimacy of Israel's existence. It means, moreover, that they are prepared to accept the fait accompli of Israel's possession of the large area of Palestine which Israel acquired by force of arms in 1948 beyond the boundaries proposed for the Jewish State in the United Nations partition plan. Before their victory in the 1967 war whetted the Israelis' appetite for other people's land, they would have been overjoyed to accept a lasting peace on this basis.
I should explain to the Foreign Secretary—although I feel sure that he knows already—why it is that the Arab side is not in a position to submit more detailed proposals for giving effect to the kind of peace that they are prepared to accept, although the consensus I have referred to is detailed enough. It is because the power to make peace is not in their hands. It is for others, not for them, to say how Israel is to be brought to accept those essential requirements without which there can be no peace.
Since the Arabs do not—for the time being at least—possess the means to recover their territory or to ensure respect for Palestinian rights, it is idle to chide them for failing to produce a detailed blueprint for the mechanics of making peace. The time to demand that of them will be when others have demonstrated that they are prepared, if necessary, to enforce Israel's compliance with the requirements for peace which have been endorsed by the rest of the world.
I urge the Foreign Secretary to turn his mind to what we and our European friends can do to create the conditions in which a genuine process of negotiation can take place before it is too late and before another war, immensely damaging to the interests of the West, becomes inevitable.
7.22 p.m.
Mr. Greville Janner: I apologise to the House for not being here at the start of the debate, but the Prime Minister of India was speaking in the precincts of the Palace at that time. This great, remarkable, kind and witty man was entitled to be heard by as many of us as possible. This man of 83 has not only the spirit of youth but apparently also the celibate secret of how to stay young for ever. He is a most welcome guest to the country, and I am sure that the House salutes him.
This is a month for presidential visits. The President of Romania, Mr. Ceaucescu, is due here in a few days. It is right that he should also be an honoured State visitor to this country where we do not choose our friends necessarily because they share our form of government. The Government of Romania have their own special problems, but they have managed with remarkable skill to preserve a degree of independence of thought and independence, especially in foreign affairs, which has enabled them to act in many respects as a catalyst in a sad world where people do not talk to each other and where they cannot disagree across the Floor of the House in the way that the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and I do It is when people cease to talk together that the troubles begin. Romania not only talks with most sides but has succeeded in many respects in bringing adversaries together. We shall accord a warm welcome to President Ceaucescu. We salute him and his small and embattled country.
We do our best to understand the problems with which other Governments must cope. I shall deal with those of two countries. First I turn to the remarks of the hon. Member for Westbury and my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson), concerning the Middle East. Then I shall suggest how this country may be of assistance to persecuted people in that country which is so very different from ours—the Soviet Union.
I listened with interest to speeches on the Middle East and waited to hear a tribute to the only democratic system in that area. It is true that many of us would never vote for the Government which came to power in Israel. But we are not citizens of that country. We must

275
recognise that in a democracy the Government of the day depend upon the support that they get from the people. Certainly in their General Election the Israelis were in no doubt about the support that they gave to their new Prime Minister.
I listened to my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough with his meanderings and his own rewritten, fantastic and, unfortunately, often offensive version of the history of the Middle East. I hoped to hear some remarks about the feudal and dictatorial empires which he apparently supports in preference to an elected democracy. There was no such tribute. I expected none from the hon. Member for Westbury, but I did from someone who claims to be a Socialist. From such a person one would expect at least a recognition of the results of social democracy.
I hoped that when talking about terrorism many years ago my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough would have mentioned terrorism today. I expected no such mention from the hon. Member for Westbury and there was none. When talking of constitutions and rights I hoped that my hon. Friend would mention the notorious covenant of the PLO which, even under pressure from the Americans, it has declined to alter in any way. I did not expect such a reference from the hon. Member for Westbury, and neither he nor my hon. Friend mentioned it.
We are concerned with the rights of all refugees. We know the miseries that are caused by war and its aftermath. I did not expect to hear of the million refugees from Arab countries who found refuge in Israel from my hon. Friend and still less from the hon. Member for Westbury, because in this House we come to know who will attack and who will defend. We come to know the lack of even balance which characterises certain people and of the type of attack on Israel which comes from some who sit here, well away from the bombs which blew up a bus last week, killing the usual favoured victims of the brave PLO—women and schoolchildren—in the Holy City of Jerusalem.
It is easy for us to criticise the elected Government of Israel because we are not 12 miles from the former border of the
276
West Bank area. It is easy for us to recommend that Israelis should give up sovereignty over that area. But if we lived in Natanya I suspect that we might take a different view. It is easy for my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough and the hon. Member for Westbury to say that there should be a Palestinian State on the West Bank. I doubt whether they would say that if their own wives and children were at risk.
We might disagree about what is or is not right in the Middle East, but there is a consensus in Israel which stretches from the Socialist Left to the Government Right which says that there can be no hope of peace, security and safety if there is a Palestinian, PLO, Arafat and probably Russian dominated State established alongside the borders of Israel.
There has been talk about returning to the borders of 1967 and we have heard emotive phrases from the hon. Member for Westbury about abandoning wars But the Israelis do not forget what happened in 1967, because they were involved. Hon. Members may tell them how to behave, but any Government in Israel that saw fit to agree to the establishment of a terrorist State on the West Bank would not survive in Israel's democracy. It has a democratically elected Government.
Mr. Frank Hooley: My hon. and learned Friend must be aware that there are important people in Israel who have been involved in the wars and fought in the conflicts who are advocating that there should be a Palestinian State.
Mr. Janner: I have just returned from Israel where I met a complete range of the people there. There are a few people there who hold that view. They are mainly Communists. Their share of the vote in the election was about 2 per cent. However, they have the ability to express their dissent in that country. My hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough said that he had been to Israel. Of course, he can go to Israel. It is a free and democratic country. Unlike the other countries in the Middle East it is a place where one can disagree with the Government. If my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Heeley (Mr. Hooley) can find me an Arab who will openly disagree with his country, I can

277
find him a platform any day of the month. But there are no such Arabs. They dare not openly disagree with their Governments in public. They would be shot.
Mr. Walters: Bearing in mind that Mr. Begin in his day was a peculiarly bloodthirsty terrorist, does not the hon. and learned Member think that there is a chance of reform for all terrorists?
Mr. Janner: There is even a chance for reform of the hon. Member for Westbury, with luck. People change their views in the course of time. The Prime Minister of Israel was an honoured guest of our Prime Minister a short while ago.
The hon. Member for Westbury referred to the blockage in the negotiations being "manifestly due" to Israel's alleged intransigence. Whilst without doubt the gesture of President Sadat in coming to Jerusalem as he did was dramatic and great, so equally was the reception he received there. This exenemy was received with all the respect and courtesy of the Israel State Government and people.
Afterwards, when President Sadat left, regrettably in no area was he prepared to give way an inch in his policies. Negotiation for peace means that both sides move. Mr. Begin, with all his faults, without pausing long enough to allow the opposition in Israel to voice its complaint, conceded sovereignty of Egypt over 98 per cent. of Sinai and left the rest for negotiations which still continue. Strangely enough, the criticism in that country of Mr. Begin is not, in that area at least, for being inflexible, but for being too flexible too soon. It is indeed an odd world.
I turn now to one area which I should like to think unites us all in this House. It concerns the problems created for those of us who are concerned with human rights in the USSR. I believe that those rights—everybody's rights—the rights of Orlov, of Ginsberg, of Ida Nudel; the rights of Baptists; the rights represented by people such as I who are founder members of the International Commission on Human Rights in the USSR; the rights championed by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) throughout the country and in the National Executive of the Labour Party, of those who wish to form free trade
278
unions in the Soviet Union—all these rights are today more at risk than they have ever been.
The cosy way in which we in this country are able to enjoy the delights of democracy and the freedom to speak our minds is not experienced in the Soviet Union. The trial of Orlov was a travesty. I appreciate that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State staunchly expressed not once but often this deep concern about Orlov. But I greatly regret that the Government did not see fit to send anyone to his trial. The Americans and Canadians did so. We should have done the same if only as an expression of our concern.
Orlov and two other members of the Moscow Helsinki monitoring group have been held incommunicado in prison for over a year. It is rumoured that Ginsberg is coming up for trial probably next week, and that Shcharansky may be tried the week after. Another member of this group, Vladimir Slepak, was arrested last week, and the House will forgive me if I refer to this latest episode with deep pain. This man is a friend of mine. I have not been allowed into Russia to see him and he is not allowed out, although he has been waiting longer than anyone to get out. Last week, with his wife, Masha, he stood on a balcony in Moscow holding out a banner which read "Let me join my son". It was torn out of his hands. From above, boiling water was poured on to the head of Vladimir Slepak. But it is he who is now charged with malicious hooliganism—an offence which carries a maximum sentence of five years. They are charging his wife also with malicious hooliganism. Their son, who has been waiting to come out with them, expects to be arrested because he is not prepared to go into the Army. He wants to leave with his family.
This embattled family has become symbolic of the fate of Jews in the Soviet Union. But by Slepak's membership of the Helsinki monitoring group, he is symbolic also of the fate of all others in the Soviet Union who are desperate for the breath of freedom in their nostrils.
We who are deeply involved in these movements recognise the need to keep separate the campaign for people to come out from the efforts to change the way of life within. But we are equally concerned about both, and we recognise that

279
today is the time when either the Soviet Union is to be accepted into the community of nations and when it will do right by people who are asking only that it should abide by agreements it has entered into, or it will seek to crush for ever the freedom of its peoples.
My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, in answer to a Question I put last week, said that we must live with or die with the Soviet Union. I wholly agree with him. He said that we must not cut off diplomatic communications with the Soviet Union. I entirely agree. I have never asked for that. The Soviet Union does not seem to appreciate that many of those who most deplore its methods are those who remember best the days when it was our ally in war and have the greatest, not the least, affection for the Russian people.
However, the Government must recognise that we must find some way in which to make our feelings plain. It is for the Government to consider in what way. If they are not prepared to come out openly and say so but prefer to use other methods, that may be well and good. But would the Government suggest to our scientists "Yes, we have to live with you or die with you, but we do not have to have scientific conferences with you"? Will the Government suggest to the Russians that we have to live with them or die with them but that we do not have to play with them in their country and frolic in the regatta of Tallinn or on the fields of Moscow whilst Orlov has served only two years of his 12 years' sentence? What will the Government suggest? Something must come from us other than mere words of scorn, distaste and passionate dislike, as the Prime Minister called them.
He said quite rightly that we on the Back Benches can sometimes spark off action. But it is for the Government, who speak with the voice of the nation, to express the views of the British people. It is also for the Government to represent us on the Back Benches and to take our views to the conference table and to those who visit from Russia.
I hope that at least on this issue this House is united in believing that freedom in the Soviet Uion is as important to us, if not now then in the future, as is our
280
own freedom in this country where we are also privileged to serve.
7.39 p.m.
Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: It is a pleasure and privilege to follow the second half of the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner). I regret to say that I cannot agree with his partiality in the first half of his speech, which would seem to me to demonstrate, perhaps, the fallacy of seeing only one side of an issue. But it is a great pleasure to associate myself with his remarks about freedom in Russia, because I believe that freedom is indivisible. It is indivisible wherever the ideals which this country, of all the Western countries, probably represents more than any other, as was so eloquently expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) in his maiden speech, are under threat. If they are under such threat, freedom is under threat here at home.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) often makes the point that there is an abuse of human rights in Argentina and in Chile. I dare say that there is an abuse of human rights in most of the lands on the earth. Tonight, as we sit here, there are, alas, very few peoples who live under the privilege of democracy. Some live under authoritarian regimes which are more beneficent than others, and some live under totalitarian regimes which are abominable.
Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam have been three examples of nations where the genocide and abomination that has followed Amercian retreat has been in stark contrast to the alleged humanitarian concern which echoed from the campusses of the free world when the Americans were there.
There is one distinguishing characteristic of the Government of Soviet Russia, dominating, as it does, so many other peoples. That is that of all the countries on earth, of all the totalitarian States or authoritarian States, they alone have a declared, avowed, total and continuous purpose to destroy Western ideals and Western civilisation wherever they are to be found and to extinguish the very human rights in other countries which they extinguish in their own. That is why I cannot equate Russia with all the other regimes of which I disapprove and

281
with all the other countries which extinguish the freedoms which we so value here.
Mr. Newens: I myself expressed strong views against the abuses of human rights and against all the terrible things that have happened in Cambodia. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman would mind giving the source for his statement that there has been genocide in Vietnam since the end of the war there, because I think that he is absolutely wrong about that, as distinct from the situation in Cambodia. Also, does he not agree that the bombings and the invasion of Cambodia that were carried out by the United States before the end of the war, together with all the other terrible things that occurred, also amounted to genocide against those peoples?
Mr. Fairbairn: No, I would not make that concession, for this reason: America was acting in the defence of freedom.
Mr. Martin Flannery: Nonsense.
Mr. Fairbairn: America had no territorial ambitions to invade the nation and to turn it into a prison camp—from which now a few fortunate citizens are managing to escape.
Mr. Flannery: The Americans did not manage it, anyway.
Mr. Fairbairn: There in Cambodia, in Laos, and in Vietnam—one can call it genocide, arbitrary murder or arbitrary death—there have been abominable numbers of deaths brought about by the regimes that have taken over. Hon. Members may have objected, but we note the silence of those who claim to be so interested in the human rights and the dignities of Western civilisation whose vanguard is on the campuses of the universities. It is the absence of their voices when that is happening in those countries which is in such stark contrast to the attack upon a Western country which attempted to prevent the establishment of such horrific standards in those countries.
Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke earlier about even-handedness and looking at only one side of the problem. Is he not aware that in recent times there has been evidence coming forward that the people who
282
handled the defoliants that were spread liberally across Vietnam by the Americans are suffering from cancer? What does the hon. and learned Member think will happen to the Vietnamese who had this horrible stuff sprayed over them? How can that be a defence of freedom and civilisation? It is acts such as those that destroy the very values which we pride ourselves on trying to foster.
Mr. Fairbairn: All weapons of war have always caused wounds and have always been intended to do so. I do not intend to get into an ideological argument about what is a nice thing to be hit or struck by and what is a nasty thing, because I think that it is an unproductive argument.
The Government of Soviet Russia, certainly since 1917—one need not go back before then—certainly since 1940 and increasingly since 1942, have been singularly and solely minded to achieve the collapse of Western civilisation. At Question Time yesterday the Prime Minister said that his Government understood the nature of the threat. He did not spell out what the nature of that threat was. But I think that we should not imagine that Russia is to be equated with all other nations which merely wish to defend their territorial ambitions. I do not believe that there is a country on earth that threatens her territory, or her integrity or her Government, but I believe that she has ambitions on all other countries.
Let me just read the remarks of Admiral Gorshkov, the Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy, which were written just a month ago
"Soviet sea power has become the optimum means to defeat"—
to defeat—
"the imperialist enemy and the most important element in the Soviet arsenal to prepare the way for a Communist world."
That is their intention. It is to create in the whole world the very frightfulness of which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West so eloquently spoke.
That is the nature of the threat against the society and the values for which we stand. It is a threat which is not posed by other authoritarian regimes that have similar and detestable denials of human rights.
At present, in Soviet Russia, and in the nations of the world, plans are being laid, schemes are being developed and

283
ideas are being looked at for the destruction and the rotting of all the regimes, governments and systems in the world, by which they can bring about the collapse of Western ideals wherever they exist. That is the extent of the threat.
The simple concepts that we take for granted, of civilisation, of the genius of our ideals which produce freedom, tolerance and equality under the law, are things unknown in Russia, a country now so confident of its barbarism that it could stage what the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West called a trial, but I would call an inquisition, of Orlov, in public, in defiance of every Western value and for the purpose of demonstrating their contempt for us.
I believe that the system that they have invented, its internal strength and wickedness, is probably the most evil system that has ever been invented for the exploitation of the individual and of mankind. What is happening to Orlov now as we speak? What is he eating? What is his treatment? What has he done today? How many hundreds of thousands of others are there who have disappeared, gone without trial, gone with the mockery of a trial, gone because they offended the system? How many others of whom we do not hear, who do not have the bravery and the courage and, perhaps, even the luck to be heard in the West, are now suffering in torment tonight?
Mr. Flannery: In other countries, as well.
Mr. Fairbairn: Yes, in other countries as well, but in other countries which do not intend to try to put their system upon our country and upon all the other free nations which do not presently have to suffer under it. That is the distinction which I wish to make.
It is important to remember that ranged against that Sovet intention is a West in disarray. Ever since 1945, there have been spurts and spasms in the expansion and in the bravado of Soviet expansion. Except where they have merely made treaties of co-operation, if such they can be called, wherever their grip has extended it has never yet been released. Any attempt to loose it, as in brave Hungary, Poland, Czechoslovakia and East Germany, has been summarily
284
crushed, without much significant protest or assistance, by their military machine.
The Russians' avowed intention of bringing down the West by their denial of its oil and materials in Africa and Arabia and so on has had further advances in Afghanistan. They are already making interested moves for the secession of North Pakistan, Baluchistan, and they are already fomenting trouble in the Yemen. Iran, with the withdrawal of Turkey, is isolated.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, nothing is more dangerous than that those countries which have to live beside the Soviet tyranny should have to say to themselves, "Had we better treat with the tiger than try to form an alliance to protect our house and our family from its depredations?" That is the danger of Turkey. Next will be the danger of Iran. Next will be the danger of Arabia. That is the plan for our subjugation.
What is ranged against this formidable, purposeful, unremitting campaign by intrigue, by truth, by falsehood and by propaganda? I do not know whether anyone in Russia has read Marx, but they have certainly read Freud and they know how to undermine Western morale.
Against the Soviets, we have had for some time an America unsure of her purpose, uncertain whether she should guard the ideals for which she stands in her own homeland or in Europe. Now, thank God, America, the leader of the free world, is seeing the real risks and the danger of the Soviet intention worldwide. Alas, in response to that, our Prime Minister has said, "Tut, tut, you must not be nasty to Russia."
Against that, in this country we have constant defence cuts. It is not surprising to me that the Secretary of State for Defence, being a Defence Minister in a Labour Government, has not much chalk. It is not surprising to me that he fell asleep during a review of what is left of our forces. It is more surprising to me that anyone could tell that he was asleep.
Today we have heard of warnings from two distinguished naval leaders of the West that the Russians have such a superiority in mining and we such an absence of minesweeping that our sea routes could not be defended. We have heard of another warning from another

285
distinguished naval officer that the West has never been in greater peril at sea—even at the height of the U-boat campaign in the last war.
These are real threats and they are backed by a system which means to carry out its purpose of creating a Communist world. Some Labour Members, one might say, are at best ambivalent, at second best neutral, and at third best—
Mr. Flannery: Steady.
Mr. Fairbairn: —at any rate not against our deadly enemy, who have as their guest Shelepin and Ponomarev, the principal instruments of the brutal regime of which the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West complains.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe that if we do not promote the ideals in which we believe, if we are not seen to stand for them and for a belief in their superiority and excellence, we shall not be able to defend them against the attacks which are upon them. Detente was useful for Russia. It was Goethe, I think, who said that every bird of prey wanted peace and freedom in order to devour its booty in comfort.
We now have a situation of great danger. We have been warned and warned again by Solzhenitsyn and many others in Russia that if the West does not stand for its ideals, they will collapse before her efficiency. Her strength is military. Her weakness is her evil. Within her confines are people bursting to get out, seeking freedom, people who, in East Germany, in Czechoslovakia, in Hungary and in Poland, want the ideals and freedom for which we stand. That is her weakness, and her system can never overcome those virtues so long as we are willing to stand by them.
But if we in Great Britain are not willing forcibly to be the champions of freedom, constantly to expose the Soviet technique of talking disarmament while rearming, of talking detente while doing nothing about it themselves, if we are not willing to stand for our values and for the things we believe in and against the things they perpetrate, no one else will—and their triumph will arrive.
Several Hon. Members Several Hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton): Order. It would be very much in the interests of the House if I
286
were to appeal for shorter speeches. May I suggest perhaps 10 minutes for each hon. Member?
7.58 p.m.
Mr. Robert Hughes: I shall not follow the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) into his perambulations and condemnations, very graphically though he may have expressed them. Nor will I take up his insults to our right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence—although one is tempted to trade insults with the hon. and learned Member One is tempted almost to describe him as a dinosaur when giving his political views, but there are a few things wrong with that description. One is that he does not have the bulk of the dinosaur—and I sometimes think that he does not have the brain of one either.
Also, the dinosaur is extinct. If the hon. and learned Member's views about the belligerence with which our foreign policy should be carried out were ever put into practice, the fate of the human race would be that of the dinosaur. It would be wiped out before long.
I congratulate the Foreign Secretary on a very thoughtful speech looking at the problems particularly of Africa. Far too often it looks as though the response of the Western Powers to events in Africa is the Pavlovian response of anti-Communism. We saw this with Dr. Kissinger's discovery of Rhodesia, like some latter-day Livingstone, during an American election year. The events of history repeat themselves time after time.
Just before Christmas last year, I came across a book entitled "South Africa: White and Black—or Brown?". It was written by a Colonel Silburn in 1927. In it, he argued for the precursor of apartheid in South Africa. He talked of the problems in different parts of the world. He said on page 113:
"The rumblings in India—reports of unrest among this or that frontier tribe; the insecurity of European lives in Egypt—seditious speeches of the political leaders of that country; attacks upon life and property of Europeans in China; insubordination of Native Chiefs in Bechuanaland; fanatical outbursts among certain small tribes of the Sudan and Somaliland, though widely separate geographically, can be traced to the same cause—propaganda from Moscow."
Fifty years later we find the same kind of things being said by Opposition

287
speakers. My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens), in a remarkably good speech, said that one would imagine that Africa had been a dark continent which only latterly had been discovered by the West, or by the Cubans and the Russions, and that until the present time nobody had ever set foot in Africa, apart from the native population. If we adopt this Pavlovian response, we are not doing the prospects of peace and stability in Africa any good whatever.
I condemn unreservedly the mass killings of blacks and whites in Shaba province in Zaire, whoever was responsible. Some refugee reports have suggested that much of the killing was carried out by Mobutu's army. I am not trying to condone what happened, and I am not trying to explain it or excuse it, whoever was responsible. What happened was wrong, and it is a policy which unfortunately has been fostered over many years in Africa. If we think that we can help those people in Africa by propping up, by economic or military means, a corrupt regime in Zaire, we have no right to talk about "foreign affairs". What has been almost totally absent from every Opposition speech in this debate so far is any expression of care for the indigenous population of Africa. The population is regarded simply as an appendage to Western economic interests, an appendage to our strategic interests and our reaction to Soviet or Cuban involvement. The Opposition have no care for the Africans at all. It is because of our imperial past and our imperial history—some would say our imperial present—that many people in Africa are looking away from what we would regard as the traditional values of the West and of democracy. The view is "What have capitalism, imperialism and democracy brought to us except disaster, murder and killings?"
Millions of dollars and pounds have been poured into Zaire and that money has been used by Mobutu to support his brother-in-law, Holden Roberto, in the FNLA. Anybody who has studied events in Angloa will agree that the butchery by the FNLA of the local population in Angola and on the borders of Zaire were unsurpassed by anybody. It has a record of savagery and butchery that is unparalleled, and yet that regime is still receiving the covert support of the CIA.
288
When we put forward these arguments when these things were happening, we were told that we were talking nonsense. When we said that the Americans were putting arms and equipment into the area, again it was said that we were talking nonsense. Yet in the South African Parliament one Minister admitted that he saw equipment being delivered from America to assist the FNLA.
We have done everything possible to destabilise that part of the world for our own economic interests. We have not cared about who was harmed in the process, and as long as we take that attitude people will turn elsewhere for their friends. Nobody denies that Cuban troops are in Africa or that they were brought in to assist the Angolans to defeat the South African invasion, and the Cubans do not deny their involvement in Ethiopia, but it should be put on record that they have in Africa many hundreds and perhaps thousands of doctors, nurses and teachers who are trying to do something to improve the life of the people there. It is that kind of effort that makes people realise that Cuba and Russia are greater friends of the Africans than we are in the West.
I remember when I was in Angola hearing President Neto saying that he had fought for too many years and had lost many lives in the name of freedom as a result of Portuguese colonialism for him and his countrymen to turn themselves into the subjects of outside domination. Although they greatly praised the assistance they had received from the Soviet Union, they made it clear that they had no intention of becoming the colonial subjects of Russia or anybody else. But we do not listen to such pleas; we do not believe them. We prefer to rest on the proposition that people such as President Neto or President Samora Machel, who fought very hard to free themselves and to try to give their people a decent standard of living, are no friends of the West because they are Marxists and Leninists and all the rest of it. That is nothing to do with the real arguments.
It is because of the fact that many in this country take the view expressed by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) that the object of our foreign policy should be as it has always been in the past—namely, the protection

289
of the realm and of British interests—that I believe that we shall fail in Africa and that we shall lose, if we have not already lost, the ideological battle about democracy, Socialism and human values.
All our history shows that we have never taken into account the interests of the people of the territories. If that had not been the case, there would have been a greater number of schools, medical centres, doctors and teachers trained by the imperialist Powers before they left the country. Unfortunately, that did not happen.
We are playing for high stakes. The people of Africa are naturally of paramount importance, but we must also bear in mind the future of the whole world. We are at last beginning to recognise what some of us have been saying for a very long time—that the key to the survival of mankind lies in Southern Africa. We are beginning at least to make some inroads into the problems of South-West Africa and of trying to solve the situation in Rhodesia. We have not done anything like enough, but I have not time now to go into this matter in great detail. We have not begun to think how we shall tackle the problems of freedom and democracy in Southern Africa.
The South Africans are playing the anti-Communist card very hard. They want to involve the West much more in a direct military way than we have been involved in the past. They want an ideological and military conflict. We should now be thinking about economic sanctions against South Africa as a method of trying to force the pace of change. If we take the view that people learn from history, we must also believe that people learn not only from the history of past generations but from recent happenings. People in Southern Africa and in South Africa itself look to the experience of Mozambique, Angola and Guinea Bissau and see the t the only way in which those people had any hope of obtaining freedom, and did in fact obtain their freedom, was by recourse to arms—in other words, by fighting for freedom.
If we cannot do something drastic to show whose side we are on, we are either on the side of the majority population of South Africa who have no rights in running the country and no prospect of democracy, or because of our economic
290
interests we are on the side of the whites. If we choose economic interests, we shall drive those people into the hands of the Russians. If we have an East-West conflict in Southern Africa, we shall put at risk the whole future of mankind.
Much has been said about pious speeches, United Nations resolutions and declarations on human rights with no resultant action. That to some extent is true. It is all very well for the British Government or the Opposition to say that we deplore the events in Zaire, Rhodesia or South Africa. But if we contrast those statements with what we actually do about the position, we still see that mercenaries are being recruited to assist the army of Zaire. Mercenaries are still being recruited to assist FNLA troops who are being used across the border. This has been widely advertised in this country and in the United States. What do we do about the situation? We say "Sorry, but we cannot do anything about it because one of the fundamental freedoms in which we believe is the right to go off somewhere else and butcher other people in the name of freedom."
I would point out to the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire, who has now left the Chamber, that if freedom and democracy are indivisible, if they mean anything at all, we should understand that if we are directly involved in maintaining corrupt regimes and supporting terrorist regimes, regimes that employ torture as everyday items of policy, we shall destroy the very ideals in which we say we believe.
My ideals of democracy and Socialism are not simply ideals in the abstract. Abstract philosophy is of no value. Only the direct application of the philosophies of Socialism will lead to a prospect of change in Africa and Southern Africa.
We have all too often made the mistake of choosing the wrong friends. If we choose the wrong friends now, the future is at stake not only of Africa but of the free world. If the free world can exist only by supporting the Mobutus and the Pinochets, some people—I am one of them—must wonder whether that is an ideal which we want to preserve.
8.11 p.m.
Mr. Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler: It is my pleasant duty to congratulate my hon. Friend the

291
Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on his maiden speech. He had a gallant and honourable career in the diplomatic service before he came here. Judging from the size of his majority, the House may be able to look forward on many occasions in the future to his experience being brought to bear in debates on foreign affairs.
Although, as the Prime Minister has recently pointed out, it is a new experience for our American colleagues to be involved in and directly affected by African affairs, this subject has been a major preoccupation with the House of Commons for over a century. There is a déjà vu quality about the subject which extends not only to issues but to personalities. Copies of Hansard in the early 1920s record the active interest of Members with names such as Churchill, Amery and Hurd, whose descendants' views are often heard in foreign affairs debates today.
Sir Winston Churchill, during his period as Secretary of State for Colonies, showed a greater understanding of the problems than most of his contemporaries and, alas, many of ours. He identified our task as ensuring that the native peoples of our African colonies should benefit from our administration. It has been the tradition of the Conservative Party from the beginning of colonial times that the colonial administration should show concern for the aspirations of the native peoples.
I have some apposite quotations to answer the misplaced charge of the hon. Member for Aberdeen. North (Mr. Hughes). Sir Winston Churchill, writing in 1908, in his book "My African Journey", which recorded his trio from Mombasa to Cairo in 1907, wrote of the natives of East Africa, through which he passed:
"Their care imposes a grave, and I think an inalienable responsibility upon the British Government. It will be an ill day for these native races when their fortunes are removed from the impartial and august administration of the Crown and abandoned to the fierce self-interest of a small white population. Such an event is no doubt very remote. Yet the speculator, the planter and the settler are knocking at the door."
How prescient he was when we think today of the current situation in Rhodesia.
292
Speaking in the Supply Committee on the Colonial Office Vote on 14th July 1921, Sir Winston Churchill said:
"I have some knowledge of these native populations in these regions, and certainly we are bound to regard them as the greatest trust that is confided to us, because they are the most helpless of the population, and it is for us to see that they are better and not worse, for our responsible charge of the country."
I wonder whether the people of Uganda today feel that we have discharged that trust.
Nevertheless, it was our broad concern for the well-being of Africans which enabled successive Governments to help to create the independent African nations which have emerged in the 1950s and 1960s. Our record compares favourably with those of some other European former colonial powers, but I regret that, unlike the French, we have been unwilling and increasingly unable to guarantee the stability of some of our former colonies.
Our comparative failure stems from a number of important misunderstandings as to the nature of African philosophy and history. Our insistence on handing over to democratic institutions has in many instances been counter-productive in so far as political conflict within the newly independent countries has detracted from the crucially important and difficult task of nation building and of securing economic advance.
In too many countries we have underestimated the importance of tribal rivalries and not foreseen the danger to peace and stability which has arisen out of those difficulties and led to coups d'êtat after coups d'êtat and the disruption of the stability which has resulted from Pax Britannica.
In too many countries our response to emerging African leaders has been to imprison them and to concede power to them only when the security situation became so difficult that it could not be contained by our own armed forces. In the colonies, where there were substantial European populations at risk in difficult security conditions, we have in some instances backed our kith and kin for understandable reasons to the detriment of the population as a whole. We have not always followed the advice of Sir Winston

293
Churchill who in that same speech on 14th July told the House
"… we must make a continuous effort to live up to the principle that racial distinctions do not determine the status or position of any man in the British Empire who is otherwise qualified to Occupy a position or exercise a function of responsibility." [Official Report, 14th July, 1921; Vol. 144, c. 1624.]
We have allowed the barriers of race and sex to prevent us from having a real understanding for and sympathy with the aspirations of the indigenous population until it was too late for our help to be acceptable.
How unsatisfactory a contrast this is with the French achievement. Race was never the barrier in French colonies that it was in the British. They identified native ability and developed it. Whilst we sent putative leaders to prison they sent them to the Sorbonne. As a result francophone African States have enjoyed and profited from extremely close ties with the former colonial Power. The French have provided stability backed up by military force where necessary. They have guaranteed the currencies, encouraged substantial private investment, given generous aid and technical assistance and made a major effort to provide appropriate education at every level, but especially for the senior cadres in government.
The results are astonishing. The Ivory Coast is a particularly good example. It has established considerable prosperity by African standards with neither oil nor mineral resources. It has favoured free enterprise, under the guise of State capitalism, and a liberal foreign investment regime. Africanisation has been deliberately slow but based on merit.
The country is the fifth largest market in Africa south of the Sahara and has had a healthy balance of payments surplus based on agricultural exports for several years. Its main exports are coffee, cocoa, timber, palm oil and tropical fruit. Offshore oil was discovered last year and this could make a further contribution to economic strength. Industrial development, whilst important, has not been pushed at the expense of the agricultural base and in general the contrast with other African countries, which have squandered their economic assets, is marked.
This record illustrates—this was a point made by my right hon. Friend the
294
Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) earlier—the importance of political stability and good management. Despite their close relationship with France, the Government of the Ivory Coast, in common with Governments in most francophone countries, are extremely independent and pursue policies which will benefit their own countries.
Nevertheless, some African States are concerned at the lack of will of European countries vis-à-vis their former colonies. They consider that the former colonial Powers have a responsibility to help protect them against attacks on their territorial integrity and their stability which disrupt the growth of our mutually important relationships in aid, trade and development. We recognise the importance of the Pax Britannica in creating stability for our colonies to make economic progress. We should also recognise that peace and stability are vital to economic and social development in Africa today.
Many of our partners in Africa would like to see Europe play its part in bringing this about. They recognise, as we do, our interdependence. They look to us for markets for their raw materials and a transfer of technology and finance to help them exploit those materials. We look to them for markets for our more sophisticated industrial production. They also recognise that the Soviet bloc's threat to these sources of supply and potential markets is calculated to do the greatest damage to our mutual interests.
The Soviet Union and its allies are the new imperialists in Africa. Political speculation and foreign mercenaries are its weapons. In addition, its record on development assistance is quite dreadful. Chancellor Schmidt in the Buchan Memorial Lecture in London on 28th October last year pointed out that in 1976 the amount of official development assistance transferred by West Germany alone—and the United Kingdom's record is at least as good, if not better—was two and a half times as high as the total transfer of the Soviet Union and all the Eastern bloc countries together. One European country in the EEC is making a transfer two and a half times as big as the entire transfer of resources made by the Soviet Union and her allies. The official development assistance of all OECD countries is 27 times as high as

295
that of the COMECON countries, including the Soviet Union.
On the other hand—and I am sorry that those who defended the Soviet Union earlier are not still in the Chamber—the Soviet Union is the single largest supplier of arms to the African continent. In a report published this year, Christian Aid estimated that there are more than 3 million refugees in camps or in transit to and from their own homes as a result of warfare in Africa. Its census shows that a registered refugee in some countries may conceal a dependent family of six to 10 people. This could mean that the total number of people displaced by violence in Africa is as high as 5 million or 10 million. The Soviet Union's arms supplies have created human misery in Africa on a massive scale. The Soviets are the merchants of death while we, the much-maligned former colonial Powers, are building roads, schools, factories, dams and giving project aid and technical assistance.
Our European bona fides are widely recognised in Africa now and we should not be afraid to develop our partnership with independent African nations to protect our mutual interests. In the past Britain's most successful bilateral agreements have included trade and defence. Although our resources are not now universally adequate for that purpose, the resources of Europe in Africa clearly are.
At the recent meetings of NATO and of the francophone African countries, a number of spokesmen have advocated a European defence involvement in Africa. I believe that the most appropriate way to organise such an involvement would be to seek agreement to turn the Lomé Convention into a trade, aid and defence agreement between the EEC and its ACP partners.
The current convention, commonly known as Lomé 1, expires in 1980 and the renegotiation for a successor convention will begin later this summer. The present convention includes 40 African countries south of the Sahara. Indeed, only six countries, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia. Rhodesia. Sahara and South Africa, are not members and Angola, Mozambique and Sahara will qualify for membership when the Community is enlarged and presumably Rhodesia and
296
Namibia will qualify when there has been a transfer to majority rule.
The EEC has special agreements with all the Mediterranean African countries except Libya. By the middle of the term of the next Lomé Convention, the EEC will have special arrangements with every country in Africa except Libya and South Africa. If the new convention were to include all those countries, it would provide the only sensible contacts for a Pax Europaea.
The British Government should seek to have a non-aggression clause included in the new Lomé Convention. The ACP countries should be required to ensure that they are not used as a base for aggression against a neighbouring ACP country. Observance of such a clause should be a condition to qualify for substantially increased aid through the European Development Fund. Such a provision would encourage all Member States to police their borders more effectively than they have in the past.
In the case of some of the larger and poorer countries, this duty could be beyond their capabilities. This fact alone should eventually justify the establishment of an EEC-ACP joint military force in Africa on permanent standby. Such a force should be based and trained in ACP countries and Africa and should be constantly available for frontier patrols and counter-insurgency measures at the request of Heads of State. Had such a force been established a month ago, the Kolwezi incident could have been avoided as both Zambia and Zaire, as ACP countries, could have called upon the joint force to deal with the insurgents.
Such an initiative would obviously cost the EEC money. Of those who question the sensibility of such a new burden, I ask what is the cost to the West of the Kolwezi incident? Africa and Europe have paid the price of Soviet, East German and Cuban involvement with lives, disrupted communities, interrupted production, substantial financial losses and poverty for the African people. While the Soviets used stockpiled cobalt, Europe is buying at inflated prices because of new shortages. How much more sensible it would have been to prevent such incidents. We can prevent them in future to, providing security with our partners within the Lomé Convention.

297
The EEC-ACP countries must be prepared to defend their own joint interest in Africa, as an American involvement will provide only a convenient excuse for further Soviet imperialism and extend the formal international confrontation to the detriment of us all.
8.29 p.m.
Mr. Eric S. Heffer: I feel that at the outset of my contribution to this debate I should say a few words about someone who is no longer with us. I refer to our old colleague John Mendelson, who was always a great debater and played a fine part in our foreign affairs debates. We shall ail miss him very much.
I wish, first, to comment on the two speeches made from the Front Benches. They could not have been in greater contrast. On the one hand, we had a very sensible and reasonable speech from my tight hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, expressing a positive approach to the problems of detente and of Africa and to the question of human rights in every part of the world.
Next, I am sorry to say, we had a rather negative speech, to say the least, from the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). I do not blame him, because I do not think that he understands foreign affairs very well. He is something of a newcomer to these matters Perhaps he ought to discuss industry. Although I do not agree with him on industrial matters, he is undoubtedly an expert in that subject—in the sense that he spoke for the CBI and so on, and he had some knowledge, although he did not always get things right.
I sense a dangerous mood developing on the Opposition Benches. In what I thought an excellent and knowledgeable speech, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) made the point that all the arguments and searchings for the influence of Moscow are not new. Of course, this idea is not new. Some people think that if a revolutionary situation is developing somewhere or there is a conflict in any part of the world it must be due to the Russians or it must be due to the Communists.
I do not for a moment deny that the Soviet Union, like the Russians of earlier days, prior to the 1917 revolution, is looking after the interests of Russia
298
and the Soviet State, trying to extend its influence wherever it can. Of course, it is, just as China is doing at this moment. Although both countries are supposed to have Marxist Governments and Socialist organisations, China also is looking after China's interests.
Indeed, we should be careful of some of the overtures at present being made. I was horrified by the speech of the Chinese Foreign Minister at the conference on disarmament, when he made the point that there would be an inevitable clash and conflict between the United States and the West, on the one hand, and the Soviet Union, on the other. That is a defeatist attitude which I hope that none of us in the House will share or support. It does not help when hon. Members from the Opposition Benches, such as the one who bears a very honourable name—the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Churchill) —make speeches of the kind that that hon. Gentleman is now making, speeches which are so damaging to the great objective of trying to secure peace in the world.
Of course, each country looks after its own interests—no one denies that—and to that extent Soviet policy is, in a sense, a new form of imperialism, like the policies pursued in other respects by the United States and by ourselves in the past, as well as by France, Spain and all the great imperialist Powers. Let us not get ourselves out of historical perspective.
Our great problem in the world today is the problem created by the presence of the nuclear Powers. At some time a false move may be made, the trigger will be pressed and the world will be destroyed. That is why we must always measure and temper all our arguments, all our words and all our international manouvring. With that thought at the back of our minds, we must make no step which could lead towards the development of the third world war. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, and the Prime Minister the other day, have made a first-class contribution in that direction.
I loathe and detest what happens to the dissidents and those who are in opposition to the Soviet type of Government. I loathe and detest it, and I shall fight for their rights on every conceivable occasion in every organisation to which I belong, whether here in the House of Commons, in the national executive of

299
the Labour Party, in my trade union or anywhere else. We cannot have double standards.
The hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) said that there was a great distinction between what was happening to people in Argentina and Chile and what was happening to people in the Soviet Union, because the Soviet Union wanted to impose its system on the rest of the world and the Argentinian Government and the Chilean Government did not. I have a horrible feeling that those who are now in prisons in Argentina and Chile, and those who have disappeared, do not quite understand the distinction. I have a feeling that they will not recognise it, and that from their point of view there is no such distinction—in other words, oppression is oppression is oppression. The destruction of human rights and civil rights is the destruction of human rights and civil rights, wherever it takes place.
The whole history of our country is one of fighting constantly towards the light of human freedom, and that is what we have always to set our minds upon. That is what our Parliament is here for. We have to fight anything that is out to destroy our basic democratic freedoms, and it does not matter what part of the world it comes from or what type of ideology it is. We have to be absolutely clear in relation to this question.
I am a Socialist and I do not equate what happens in the Soviet Union and Eastern European countries with Socialism. It is an authoritarian and bureaucratic type of society which unfortunately goes under the name of Socialism, and it does immeasurable harm to the views and beliefs of people such as my hon. Friends and myself. We want to build a society in which human freedom develops and extends, and not one in which it is destroyed. It is very important for us to have that in mind when we are discussing human rights and human freedom.
I should like to turn briefly to the situation in Africa. I suggested yesterday, in a Question to the Prime Minister, that we should not forget the role of the CIA. Immediately people said that it was terrible to talk of the CIA in that way because it is defending our freedoms. I do not know whether any hon. Members
300
saw the television programme "Tonight recently, in which Mr. Stockwell and Mr. Colby were interviewed. Mr. Stockwell was the principal agent for the CIA in Angola, and he outlined what he was doing there. He talked of the guns, materials and money that were being poured into Angola to support UNITA. The Chinese were also involved. It is very interesting to know of the unity between the CIA and the Chinese in supporting UNITA against the main group, the MPLA. Of course, President Neto could rightly say from his point of view that if the CIA was moving into Angola with its money in that way, he was perfectly justified, based upon what had happened in other parts of the world, in asking the Cubans to come in.
A great responsibility rests upon the CIA and upon Western Governments which have given any credence to that type of policy. We say that we do not want to see any interference in other people's affairs. We have to say it to the Russians, but we also have to say it to the Americans and to anyone else who interferes in the internal affairs of other countries, and particularly in relation to Africa. My hon. Friend was right to say that we had to concern ourselves with the position of the African people and their desires and not the desires of money, power, privilege, influence and economic interests that we had as a result of Western capitalism.
I touch on one final matter. I am afraid that this has been a slightly rambling speech. However, foreign affairs are not concentrated in one place. The subject of this debate is foreign affairs. Therefore, I have followed the example of both Front Bench speakers and moved around a bit, though you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will be happy to learn that I do not intend to do it at such great length.
I want to say a word about Israel. I am sorry that my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) has left the Chamber, because he spoke about Israel and prompted these remarks.
No one in this House who has been a Member for any length of time will doubt my support for Israel. At decisive moments I have made speeches in important debates supporting Israel in its fight for freedom, independence, and the

301
right to live in peace and to have secure borders. I do not go back on a word that I have said. However, I have to say to my Israeli friends that two wrongs never make a right. Their over-reaction to terrorist attacks on buses outside Tel Aviv was quite disastrous, in my opinion. They way that they moved in and destroyed the villages and towns of ordinary people in Southern Lebanon who had nothing to do with the attacks cannot be justified. I have to tell them that bluntly.
My hon. and learned Friend said that the only people in Israel who opposed this policy were Communists. He ought to know better. He ought to know that people such as Mapam, who are by no means Communists but part of the Labour Alliance, are very much opposed to what happened in Lebanon. My hon. and learned Friend should know that the reserve officers and young people who can be called up at any time and who organised that mass meeting are not Communists. They want secure borders for Israel and they want Israel to live in peace.
But they do not want the type of policy now being pursued by Mr. Begin's Government. They do not want unnecessary settlements established in areas which are a provocation. I have to say to my Israeli friends "As a friend, I tell you that we cannot accept it and that you must change your policies". The fact that the Israeli Government are democratically elected does not justify actions of that kind. On that basis, any terrible action could be justified because the Government were elected. After all, the Government of ancient Greece were elected but the slaves never had any rights. No one can argue along those lines. Certainly for me it is not an acceptable argument.
I say that with sadness. But I hope that the Israelis will change their attitude and put on more pressure of the sort that we are beginning to see in Israel. It is wonderful to see the reaction of the Israeli people, and it is not quite as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West tried to suggest.
I end as I began by saying that I trust that the Opposition will not use the problem of human rights in the Soviet Union to justify activities leading to a redevelopment of the cold war. It is too dangerous. It is too serious. By all means let us fight for human rights wherever
302
people suffer and are oppressed. Let us do all that we possibly can to help those who are suffering and to try by our pressure and influence to move the internal regimes in a more liberal direction. But do not let us get involved in a position where we could find ourselves setting light to the third world war. If we do, there is no future for any of us. Nevil Shute's novel "On the Beach" could come true and the world—or our world anyway—could be destroyed.
8.45 p.m.
Mr. Paul Channon: I have a great deal of respect for the hon. Member for Liverpool. Walton (Mr. Heffer) and I agreed with a great portion of his speech. However, there were other parts with which I disagreed, particularly when he refeired to the so-called dangerous mood on this side of the House. There is a very sombre mood on this side of the House because my right hon. and hon. Friends are deeply and genuinely concerned about the trend in East-West relationships at present. It is their duty to put forward their anxieties and worries in order to avoid the situation that the hon. Member for Walton described in the last few sentences of his speech.
Nobody in his right mind wants the remotest possibility of a third world war, and the only difference between the two sides of the House in that respect is about the best way of tackling an extremely dangerous and difficult situation that exists in the world.
It is very interesting to see how the euphoria about detente of a few years ago has largely evaporated. At the time of the original Helsinki agreement there were a number of cynics who were scoffed at by Labour Members because they were thought to be unduly cynical about the chances of genuine detente. Unfortunately, as time goes by it looks as if the cynics were right. There has been a great deal of talk, but very little action.
Today's debate has concentrated mainly on East-West relations and on Africa. There is a very important connection between the two issues. When he opened the debate, the Foreign Secretary said that he hoped no one would want to revert to the cold war of a few years ago. Of course, no one in his right mind anywhere in the world wants to revert to it if it can be avoided. But it is right for hon. Members to express

303
what they feel is the reality of the situation. If they feel that the reality is very grave—as many of us do—they nave a duty to say so, just as we have done this evening.
I shall concentrate on two points, the first of which is the question of human rights. This was mentioned by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner), and by the hon. Member for Walton. I think that human rights are important all over the world. But we must use what persuasion we can in the West, and state our disgust about the treatment of people behind the Iron Curtain. I believe that this disgust is felt by all hon. Members. In stating this, we do not derogate from the fact that there are grave breaches of human rights in other parts of the world by other regimes.
It is our duty to express this view about human right in the Soviet Union because all those people whom I have talked to from Iron Curtain countries believe that it is right for people in the West to express their views publicly on every possible occasion. We should continue to do so.
The Helsinki agreement of a few years ago, which in effect confirmed the status quo of European frontiers de facto, was a great help to the Soviet Union and its allies. Part of that package was the basket of human rights clauses and we are wholly entitled to express our views on that matter. This is not interference in the internal affairs of the Soviet Union and the Eastern bloc. In talking about interference, I am not sure that I will take lessons from the Russians on that topic.
Let us consider the situation in Czechoslovakia. The people of Czechoslovakia lose their jobs if they support the Charter 77 movement, because they support what was agreed at Helsinki. They are then accused of parasitism. They cannot get a job, but it is a criminal offence because they do not have a job. They are punished and they may be expelled from their country.
There are other examples, especially in East Germany, where many families are still divided. Over the past couple of years there has been an appreciable drop in the number of families being united or being allowed to leave East Germany.
304
Many of us have visited Berlin and we know the appalling nature of the frontier between West Germany and East Germany. It is unlike any other frontier in the world. There are minefields, barbed wire and the monstrous SM70 automatic shooting device on which so many people have been killed while trying to escape from East Germany. No one can condone that. We all wish to condemn it. I believe that that is the feeling in all parts of the House.
I need not weary the House by setting out the details of the Orlov trial. The issue has been dealt with fully by the hon. and learned Member for Leicester, West. The hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the barbaric sentence and the threat that other dissidents now face in the Soviet Union.
At the same time, we should give credit where credit is due. There is some credit to be given as well as condemnation of the appalling situation. There have been some improvements as well as deteriorations. In Hungary, Poland and Romania more people are allowed to leave and more families are being allowed to be united than a few years ago. That applies to not nearly enough, but the situation has improved. The number of Jewish people allowed to emigrate from the Soviet Union in 1977 was, I understand, about 2,500 more than in 1976. It is confidently expected that the number will again increase this year. That is to be welcomed, and we can only press for further improvements.
From my discussions with those who are concerned, I firmly believe that Western pressure—for example, speeches in Parliament, speeches in other fora, including other Western Parliaments, and Press publicity—is still worth while. It gives some hope to those who live behind the Iron Curtain who are only too anxious to leave or to see some change in their status.
The issue of human rights in Eastern Europe will not go away. As Labour Members have said, nor will it go away in other parts of the world. In the second half of the twentieth century the issue of human rights will become increasingly important, whether in Russia, South Africa or any other part of the world. It is something that those of all political parties in the House have a continuing duty to express. Let us not disagree

305
where we need not do so. On the whole, I think that we are in agreement on the issue of human rights.
I turn to the general issue of detente. It cannot be denied that there has been an enormous build-up of the Warsaw Pact Forces in Central Europe in the past few years. If Western superiority exists, it cannot be seriously denied that it is getting less day by day. The Soviet fleet is larger than can be needed for any normal defence reasons. Russia has been invaded many times, but I do not know of any successful naval invasion of Russia in the past. I doubt whether there will be such an invasion in future.
The tanks and the conventional forces of the Warsaw Pact in Central Europe are extremely worrying. These are genuine worries. We would be ill-advised to believe that somehow Europe can remain a peacful island in the centre of a stormy world. Detente, if it is to exist, must be genuine detente all over the world, or at least in the overwhelming mass of the world.
Mr. Hooley: If we want a more peaceful world, why are we building up a massive armed force in Iran, immediately on Russia's border?
Mr. Channon: If there could be mutually agreed disarmament, nothing could be more beneficial to the world as a whole. Until we can get proper disarmament on both sides, the West is in grave danger if it does not heed the enormous build-up of Warsaw Pact forces.
As I said, we cannot imagine Europe being a peaceful continent when we see what is going on in Africa. There are also the fears of many Europeans about the apparent immobility of the American Administration. The inability of Congress to act causes fears in many parts of Europe at present.
The Russians, in the draft communiqué that they proposed at the end of the Belgrade Conference in January, stated that
"the Final Act, signed at Helsinki in 1975 … makes it necessary that efforts be exerted to make detente both a continuing and increasingly viable and comprehensive process, universal in scope".
If they mean that, surely no one can be more delighted than the West. Unfor-
306
tunately, there is no evidence at present that that is so.
In the circumstances, are not the Opposition right—I believe this view is shared by many Labour Members—at least to put a serious question mark against events at the present time? Is it not right for us at least to say that it is madness to cut our defences and that it is important for us collectively to strengthen the defence of the West? Surely it is important, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies) urged, that the EEC, whenever it can. should use a joint approach to try to tackle these crucial problems which otherwise will haunt us all in future.
I turn now to a topic which has not been mentioned in the debate. I ask the Minister of State: what is the timing of the negotiations for Spain, Portugal and Greece to enter the EEC? Whatever the economic arguments, I believe that the political arguments for strengthening the EEC with the inclusion of those three countries are overwhelming and that the timescale should be as short as is humanly practicable.
I believe that the situation in the world is extremely sombre. People have begun to wake up to this situation in the past month or so. It is a dangerous situation which can be resolved, but it is dangerous for us all on whichever side of the House we sit. Those of us who are nervous about what is going on in the world have a right and a duty to speak out. The onus on any reasonable-minded man is to point out that it is not the West, but the East—the Russians and the Warsaw Pact—which is causing the troubles in Africa and other parts of the world. Therefore, it is for us to look to our defences in future and to take what common stand we can to protect our own interests and those of the Western world.
8.57 p.m.
Mr. Martin Flannery: It was very good to hear the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon) espouse the cause of human liberty wherever it has been violated. I am sure that he will agree that most Labour Members uphold that view. But the hon. Gentleman deviated somewhat from the double standards which obtained in most of the speeches which have come from the Opposition Benches.

307
For instance, the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) began his speech by saying that our aim—as though it could be taken for granted—was the protection of the realm and the furtherance of British interests. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is a democrat. I remember voices from the past saying that their aims in foreign policy were the protection of the Reich and the furtherance of German interests. That seems to be a very narrow definition of the policy which we are debating today. It is because of the narrowness of the standards set by the right hon. Gentleman that we have to try to infuse into the debate the protection of peace throughout the whole world and to prevent, for instance, the gunboat mentality which kept peering through the speeches to which we have listened today.
My hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) laid bare the hypocrisy—I hesitate to use that word, but it must be used when we talk about Africa—of what happened in Africa in past years. Only recently we saw pictures of the Belgian Congo so-called. It was common for workers who did not work to the standards laid down by their masters to have both hands chopped off. Those pictures are on record. That happened in the country now known as Zaire.
My hon. Friend also referred to pictures taken some years ago of men of the Simba tribe being led away by mercenaries and to competition among the mercenaries to hang those men. They literally drew lots to hang them. That appeared in The Observer. Those mercenaries sent home to their relatives photographs which showed them doing these dreadful things. No Cubans and no Russians had been heard of in Africa. But the Western civilisations have done the most dreadful things to Africans.
Does anybody think that these people will easily forgive us for the deprivations, slaughter and carnage by so-called civilised people? Of course they will not. The people will struggle.
The idea is being propagated that the Russians are about to attack Western Europe. Does anyone in his right mind think that with every hydrogen and atomic weapon pointing at Moscow—there are thousands of them which could blow mankind skyhigh—an attack will
308
be launched to bring all those weapons onto Russia and destroy the whole world? I cannot believe that anybody would think that. This idea is being used as an excuse by every reactionary in the establishment to whip up all types of diversions from the real problems.
My hon. Friends and I have repeatedly denounced the tyranny that masquerades under the name of Socialism in the Soviet Union. It would be better if the Opposition, instead of concentrating on the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe and intoning that they believe in liberty everywhere, would use the examples of what is happening in Chile and Argentina where the "disappeared ones" have caused hunger strikes throughout the world.
We can give chapter and verse of individuals with British passports, such as the man who was put on a plane in Argentina and sent back to Chile. That man has a double passport from both Britain and Argentina. Our Government have done their best in that case. Why do not the Opposition refer to such cases? For instance, when will they protest about the case of the general secretary of the teachers' union in Argentina? That involves a man whose whole life has been devoted to teaching. A publication in this country reported the other day that he has disappeared. It is said that no one knows where he is, although his friends were with him only a fortnight ago. Trade unionists and liberals of all types are disappearing.
We condemn Soviet tyranny. We condemn the Orlov trial. But it would be helpful if the Opposition would mention individual acts of tyranny and brutality in countries other than the Soviet Union.
What is the basis of the struggle throughout the world? The reality is that the struggle of the oppressed and downtrodden is accelerating and striding ahead with seven league boots. Although most of the world lives under abysmal tyrannies the struggle continues. All over the world people are raising themselves. The peasants and down-trodden are no longer willing to put up with tyranny, whether it is in Bangladesh or in Burma.
In the last few days I have asked the Soviet Embassy to receive a delegation of some of my hon. Friends and myself. I doubt whether we shall be received. I have led delegations to the Chilean,

309
Argentinian and Peruvian embassies. I feel deeply about Czechoslovakia and those countries which suffer tyranny. If the Soviet Embassy does not accept my colleagues and myself, we shall denounce it. But we shall have made the effort. We shall have focused attention on the tyranny and lack of human rights in the Soviet Union. We want to do that at the same time as we struggle for human liberties everywhere else in the world.
No longer are the poor and the starving willing to be oppressed. In Bangladesh, in areas where I was a soldier during the war and saw people streaming out of Burma, these poor people are once more streaming out. I am sure that we shall try to help them. But they are moving away from a tyranny in Burma into a tyranny in Bangladesh. We have to raise our voices about these matters instead of pretending how sentimental we are and doing nothing about them.
It is no longer possible to discuss Africa without discussing the peace and progress of the whole world. I wish to refer briefly to the struggle in Rhodesia because although our Government have a very enlightened opinion about this matter, they have committed themselves to saying that the so-called internal settlement is an advance. In my opinion it is the last attempt of reaction to hold back the march of human progress in Rhodesia. No solution is possible in Rhodesia without the Patriotic Front. Muzorewa, Sithole, the so-called Chief Chirau and Smith would never have moved an inch but for the presence of the guerrillas. That is why these men have been forced to join forces to create a system in which 3 per cent. of the white electorate can decide whether Byron Hove shall be kicked out, as he was kicked out. Almost nothing was said from the Opposition Benches about that.
Smith is still in power and he is utilising these three Uncle Toms in order to force the pace. In the background, however, is the Patriotic Front, and no democratic solution is possible without taking these people into account. It is terrible to witness the agony of the Conservatives who cannot rid themselves of the old imperialist shibboleths. They cannot face up to the concept of one man, one vote in Rhodesia. They adopt that attitude and ignore the real political issues of Rhodesia.
310
As sure as I stand here, the Patriotic Front will struggle for elections but it will not give up and concede defeat to Smith who is still firmly in the saddle, held there by these men who will steadily lose the support of the people who have been gulled into supporting them at the moment.
The seeds of world war exist in Zaire. If the old mentality of the gunboat, of sending the troops and so on pervades the Opposition Benches, that will deepen the problem. Who is Mobutu? He slaughtered Patrice Lumumba. We have reason to believe that he has slaughtered a great number of his opponents. This is the man who has seen thousands of millions of dollars poured into his country, but who has no moral attitudes about mankind. He has plunged his country into the most terrible circumstances. That is a fact even though he may travel in an aeroplane with the BBC and 35 other television organisations to prove what a modern man he is. When a country is pushed into chaos like that there will be a revolt.
We cannot discuss Zaire without discussing Rhodesia, South Africa, Zambia, Angola and so on, because they are all component parts of the same struggle. Therefore we must adopt an enlightened attitude towards Zaire. None of the old imperial attitudes will solve the problem. The problem will not roll up and go away. We are talking about the struggle for democracy.
Of course, the Cubans are in the area. Whether or not they fought in Zaire remains to be seen, but we know that in that area was a bloodstained and brutal tyranny, and that at some point, if democracy had not overtaken that area from within, it would have been overtaken from elsewhere.
The right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition is now making pals with Marxist China. Does she think that the Chinese will not use her? Here are the Chinese, supposedly at one time en the same side as what has been known as Socialism, suddenly supporting a brute like Mobutu who is a mass murderer with a brutal regime. He is utterly bankrupt, politically, economically and militarily. He could not possibly defend his own borders. He is just like the Shah of Iran whose armaments have been turned on the people on the inside under

311
the guise of turning them towards the Soviet Union.
Those are the harsh realities that Opposition Members must face. They will have to rid themselves of the old imperial ideas because those ideas will solve nothing.
The harsh reality that we all have to face is that we live in a changing world. The speech by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary today was an enlightened and civilised speech. It stood out in stark contrast to the speech of the right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies). That speech, made on behalf of the Opposition, harboured every one of the old ideas. In a changing world, in which we have to face these harsh realities, whether or not we like it, that speech came from deep down in the bowels of the most backward-thinking of the imperialists on the Opposition Benches.
Those are the facts of the matter. Hon. Members can look aghast, but I would dread it if they were the Government when events such as what has happened in Zaire and Rhodesia were taking place, because their only argument would be to send in British troops. Then Armageddon would be on the agenda. Thank heavens for a Labour Government and an enlightened Foreign Secretary.
9.11 p.m.
Dr. Alan Glyn: In the very few minutes that I have at my disposal, I should like, first, to pay a tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) on his maiden speech. He is a constituent of mine.
The debate has turned much more on defence than on foreign affairs. I think that the reason for this is the one given by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), namely, that people are beginning to realise that the real danger that this country and the Western world face is the Soviet menace and the very rapid increase in Soviet defence forces. It is not like the old balance of power, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said. There is a difference from the old balance of power. We now have the nuclear threat hanging over us. I entirely agree with what the hon. Member said.
312
The most dangerous thing of all, I believe, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said, is that there is a new threat from the Soviets, a threat that is different from that of the Tsars. The Tsars wanted to expand. But the Soviet Union wants to impose its regime on every other nation upon which it is possible to impose it. That threat is very realistic and it is one of which we have a duty to inform the people of this country. It is a danger to ourselves and the whole Western world.
The Secretary of State was very fair when he talked about the nuclear test ban treaty. He mentioned the inclusion of chemical warfare, but he never said anything about biological warfare. Any agreement that is made between the East and the West must be comprehensive and relate not only to conventional forces but also to bacteriological weapons and chemical weapons, because no other agreement is of any use.
It may well be that the Soviet Union has taken a very long time over the dialogue because that probably suited it very well. However, the Soviets have now developed the SS20. As the hon. Member for Walton said, it is a very powerful weapon. They have increased the number of their tanks. In fact, they have reduced from three weeks to three days the timescale that has existed between peace and war. That is a very dangerous matter indeed. Soviet tanks can penetrate right through our defences at the same time. If they wish to do so, they can destroy practically all our supplies.
If the Soviets continue with their policy in Africa, we must look at two vital matters. First, we must look at the sources of our supplies, which are limited and many of which come from the African continent. Secondly, what happens if the technicians in those countries are no longer able to operate? We shall be faced with a situation in which, even if there are reasonable regimes in Zambia, Angola and Zaire, they will get no technicians at all to work there unless they have a guarantee of security.
The time has come when NATO and the whole of the Western world must think in terms of a strategy which includes not only protection in the West against the enormous Warsaw Pact forces but also protection for our sources of supply,

313
wherever they may be. We must watch carefully what Russia is doing in regard to expansion, and not only in the Middle East, Turkey and Iran, from which we may well need the oil, but in every other area of Soviet expansion. We cannot rely on the military influence of China in restraining Russian expansion.
I read in the newspapers—I hope that it is right—that today President Carter has said "We are ready for peace and we are ready for war." I hope that, in the interests of the world, the Russians will begin to realise that there is nothing to be gained by warfare. Let us hope that they will see sense and make an agreement and that we may at last have some form of peaceful settlement.
9.15 p.m.
Mr. Peter Blaker: It is rare that a former member of the Foreign Service should have the good fortune to be able to congratulate another former member of the Foreign Service on his maiden speech. I am sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) cannot be in the Chamber at present, but it is with great pleasure that I congratulate him. He was witty. He was provocative without being controversial in party terms. He told us how Britain looks from overseas. We look forward to hearing him again in future foreign affairs debates and I hope that he has the opportunity to speak in such debates more frequently than the rest of us in the last few years. We look forward to hearing him on other matters as well.
In a vigorous speech, my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) said that ideology for the Soviet Union was only a cloak to make Russian imperialism respectable. I agree about the importance of the Russian imperialist element in Soviet policy, but I would go further than my right hon. Friend. I think that ideology is more than a cloak, that it is in effect thousand-league boots. It is this ideological element which enables the Soviet Union to leap mountains and oceans and to establish client States thousands of miles from home in a way which the Tsarist empire could not do.
It is anxiety about the present state of the Western world vis-à-vis the Soviet Union which has run through the speeches
314
of most of my right hon. and hon. Friends today. I believe that the greatest danger to peace and to the survival of democracy at present is the weakness of the free nations. They are weak partly because they do not understand what the Soviet Union intends. Because they do not understand, they do not have the unity, the strategy or the resolve which they should display. Unless they acquire those things, and soon, I fear for the future of Western Europe. It is undoubtedly Western Europe which is the main target of the Soviet Union.
There has been a good deal of discussion today of detente. One of the Soviet Union's weapons is words. It uses them to deceive—and "detente" is a good example. We believe that detente is an end in itself, a relaxation of tension. For the Soviet Union, detente is a tactic in the strategy of peaceful co-existence—and "peaceful co-existence", again, is not what it sounds to Western ears. It is in fact for the Russians a continuation of the struggle between the Soviet system and free societies by all means—ideological, political and economic—short of a fighting war, until the final victory of the Communist system on a world scale. That is more or less the definition which appeared in the programme of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union in 1961, and which is still valid.
Detente, therefore, is a tactic which fits into that strategy. The object of detente is to lull the Western world into a state of torpor, to exploit our longing for peace and to extract for the Soviet Union at the same time the technology, the grain, and the credit from the West which it needs to rescue its inefficient economy.
In that tactic, the Soviet Union is succeeding very well, but one thing that it has made clear from an early stage is that detente will not prevent it from continuing its arms build-up or its support of wars of liberation, as it describes them, in the Third world. Thus Angola three years ago was not a freak. It could be readily foreseen that it would be followed by further Angolas, and indeed it has been. We now have in the continent of Africa seven or eight wars taking place, mostly encouraged and backed by the Soviet Union. We must expect further wars of that kind in the continent of Africa and elsewhere unless we make

315
clear to the Soviet Union that it is not worth its while to foment them.
My analysis of Soviet doctrine is not surmise but based on what the Soviet Union says. It is spelled out by Marx, Lenin, Stalin and Khrushchev. The House will remember that he said "We will bury you", referring to the free world, and I think he meant it. It has also been spelled out by Brezhnev and others since Khrushchev's time. Solzhenitsyn said when he came out of the Soviet Union that he was astonished that the Western world, despite the fact that it was totally literate, did not seem to appreciate that this was the intention of the Soviet Union. He said it seemed that the Western world did not want to understand. We have a situation which we can compare with the failure of the West to read "Mein Kampf" in the 1930s, perhaps because it found the contents of that book too remarkable to be credible. I think that the West views the Soviet doctrine in the same light as the West viewed "Mein Kampf" in the 1930s.
If we have any doubts about Soviet intentions, we need not read only their theories or note what they write or say. We can, in Aneurin Bevan's words "Read the book." The Soviet Union has since 1939 acquired parts of Poland, Finland, Romania; the whole of Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia; parts of East Prussia, Ruthenia, the Kurile Islands, and half a dozen countries in Eastern Europe, culminating in the Prague coup in 1948, engineered by the Soviet Union. It conducted a blockade of Berlin in defiance of its treaty obligations in 1948. In the late 1960s and 1970s, it conducted, or certainly encouraged, a war in Oman—of which the hon. Member for Harlow (Mr. Newens) has a distorted view.
Mr. Newens: Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear whether in his denunciations he applies double standards? As he knows, a number of hon. Members on the Labour Benches have made it clear that we deplore interventions such as that conducted by the Soviet Union in Czechoslovakia. Does he equally deplore interventions by the United States and by Western forces in Angola, Vietnam and many other countries?
Mr. Blaker: I have the same view of human rights world-wide, but on the subject of Oman—
Mr. Newens: Answer my question.
Mr. Blaker: I believe the hon. Gentleman suffers from the mistake of confusing one sultan with another. In his speech earlier he described Oman in critical terms as being a tyrannical State. The great thing about the present Sultan —and I have been to Oman—is that he is moving in a democratic direction and I think deserves encouragement rather than censure.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery) referred to gunboat diplomacy. Surely the greatest expert on gunboat displomacy, with the extension of the Soviet fleet to its present enormous size, is Admiral Gorshkov, who spells out his version of gunboat diplomacy in his book.
That, then, is the situation we face, and we need a robust Government. The object of having a robust Government is to persuade the Soviet Government to make detente real. The world is too dangerous a place for the Soviet Union to go interpreting detente as it has until now, which allows it to go in for wars of liberation in the Third world. I believe that we shall have a better chance of persuading the Soviet Union to make detente real if we are robust than if we are feeble. I have some experience of negotiating directly with the Soviet Union, and I have found that the way to persuade them to be more reasonable is to be firm but reasonable oneself.
The British Government are not at present robust enough. Indeed, I think that they are incapable of being robust enough because they are fatally handicapped. I remember Andrei Amalrik, the distinguished Soviet exile, saying to me that it appeared to him that Marxism was a stronger force in the Labour Party of Great Britain than it was in the Soviet Union, where the Soviet people and their rulers had discovered how catastrophically it worked in practice.
We have a Labour Party here which has a national youth officer who is a Trotskyist. We have a situation in which the report by the Labour Party national agent, Mr. Underhill, which was sent to the national executive committee of the Labour Party, describing the entryist tactics of the Trotskyists into the Labour Party, was shelved by the national executive committee.
Mr. Heffer: I happen to be on that committee, and I must tell the hon. Gentleman that the internal matters of the Labour Party are for the Labour Party and have nothing to do with foreign affairs. If the hon. Gentleman cares to suggest that some people in our movement are Trotskyists, he can say what he likes. Let him suggest that people are Trotskyists, Communists or anything else. That is our business, and it has nothing whatever to do with foreign affairs. It is just more of the slanders and smears whic hwe are getting used to—from the hon. Member in particular.
Mr. Blaker: I wish it were true that these matters were of no concern to the people of Great Britain. In fact, they are of vital concern to the people of Great Britain, and they are closely relevant to foreign policy, as I shall seek to show. For example, I have here a copy of a statement by the Tribune Group, carried unanimously on 23rd January 1978. As it was carried unanimously, I take it that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) subscribed to it. It says:
"Western European socialists need to agree upon active support for a policy of nonalignment with the great Powers."
Does the hon. Gentleman deny that—non-alignment with the great Powers? That is the straight Soviet line. That is what the Soviet Union is calling upon us to do.
Mr. Newens: That is not the Soviet line.
Mr. Blaker: The conference of the Labour Party—held in my constituency, so I am well aware of what occurred there—passed a resolution calling for a further cut of £1,000 million in our defence budget. That may be a party matter, but is it of no relevance to the people of the United Kingdom that that should be the official position adopted by the Labour Party national conference? The hon. Gentleman will have to do better than he has done to convince me of that.
The Foreign Secretary has my sympathy. He has a difficult problem. He is not a Marxist. I believe that he wants the survival of the sort of society which I myself want. But he has 80 millstones round his neck in the form of the mem-
318
bers of the Tribune Group, and that cannot but affect his credibility abroad.
Mr. Newens: What has this to do with foreign affairs?
Mr. Blaker: It is certainly very relevant to the policies which the Foreign Secretary is able to adopt for our country. He is bombarded daily from the Left with pleas to seek to reduce tension by removing the causes of misunderstanding. I am using the common plea that one hears from the Left. That plea, when expressed in that way, implies that the West is as much to blame for tension as is the Soviet Union., That is a very moderate statement coming from the Tribune Group. Much worse statements have come from it.
The truth is that the West is not responsible for misunderstanding. The Soviet Union understands the West only too well, and it understands the Labour Party only too well, too, and that affects the way it treats the United Kingdom.
Mr. Heffer: We understand the hon. Member only too well, too.
Mr. Blaker: The Russians understand that when they have a slogan to peddle they have a lot of willing tongues in the Labour Party who will take that slogan up. We saw it in relation to the neutron bomb only a few weeks ago. The Soviet Union knows that it has a lot of willing tongues in the Tribune Group, who say that if people in this country take the view that we should adopt a more robust attitude towards the Soviet Union, we shall risk losing detente. This is nonsense. Was detente a present to us from the Soviet Union? Not at all. Detente was something which the Soviet Union adopted very much in its own interests. If Conservatives call for, a more robust policy towards the Soviet Union, we are accused instantly of calling for a return to the cold war. That has happened three or four times in this debate. It is absolute nonsense.
Mr. Heffer: That is what the hon. Member is doing.
Mr. Blaker: I do not know what experience the hon. Member for Walton has had of negotiating with the Soviet Union, but what we have been saying from these Benches would not be regarded by the Soviet Union, in reality, as offensive,

319
dangerous or a return to the cold war. It would be recognised as a sensible, robust position.
What should our policies be? The main thing that we have to do is to display to the Soviet Union that we have will. There are many measures in the political area that we could take. I do not have time to go into them all, but I am glad that the Foreign Secretary said that he would continue to support the dissidents and the movement for human rights in the Soviet Union. Respect for human rights is relevant to peace in the world. Those are not my words; they are the words of the Helsinki Final Act, and nowhere is that more true than in relation to the Soviet Union.
We should also be considering what action we should take in our economic relations with the Soviet Union because there are levers here which we are not using and which, if properly used, could induce the Soviet Union to adopt a more reasonable policy towards the West. I do not understand how it can make sense for Western countries to compete against each other to provide technology, some of it very important technology, grain and other things to the Soviet Union at low rates of interest and to compete in reducing that rate of interest. It helps the Soviet Union to put more effort into arms, to subsidise the activities of Cuba in Africa, which it is doing in a big way, and to maintain tyranny at home.
The House knows that I have been critical for a long time of the £950 million line of credit which the right hon. Member for Huyton (Sir H. Wilson) offered to the Soviet Union in 1975. I was interested to see that I am backed by Mr. David Warburton, who is reported in today's newspapers as having complained at the conference of the General and Municipal Workers' Union that goods are coming into this country from the Soviet Union at unfair cheap rates as a result of the factories that have been built there by British companies. He has criticised those companies, but he is directing his criticism in the wrong direction. He should be criticising the right hon. Member for Huyton, who offered the Russians that line of credit and encouraged British businesses to take it up.
320
I suggest that we should examine with our friends and allies how it is possible to use the leverage that our economic power gives us to persuade the Soviet Union to adopt policies that are less hostile to us and less dangerous to peace. This problem will stay with us and will become more important as the economic difficulties of the Soviet Union increase. My proposition is not simply negative. If the Soviet Union were prepared to alter its policies towards the West, the economic assistance the West could give would help the Soviet Union to raise the standard of living of its people—something which is badly needed.
Much of the debate has turned on Africa and the points that have been made fall under four heads. First, there is the importance of a united Western policy. I believe that the role of the Prime Minister so far on this subject has been destructive, especially in recent weeks. He started off by heckling the French and the Belgians about the timing of their withdrawal from Zaire. He then went on to insult the national security adviser of the United States President, in Washington. He did this at a time when the United States needs the support and encouragement of its allies, in view of the psychological and political problems caused by Vietnam and other events. The contribution of the Prime Minister to Western unity on the subject of Africa so far has not been very impressive.
Secondly, the events in Africa have given powerful confirmation to the case for a concerted foreign policy within the EEC. Africa has what Europe needs and Europe has what Africa needs. The Lomé Convention already provides the framework for co-operation. The Western and EEC countries provide the world's most powerful trading unit and its members are among the main aid givers in the world. As has been said in this debate, the amount of Soviet aid is derisory.
Taking all these elements together, there must be material for constructing at least one part of an EEC policy to cope with or forestall further Zaires. My right hon. Friend the Member for Knutsford made several suggestions and these were enlarged by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) who suggested a non-aggression pact. I hope that these

321
suggestions will be studied carefully by the Government.
Thirdly, my hon. Friends and I reject a policy of doing nothing. The advice one gets to that effect—the do-nothing advice—comes in a number of forms. It is claimed that Africa will be Russia's Vietnam. I would not count on that The opponents of the United States in Vietnam were continuously and heavily armed by the Soviet Union.
The next advice that one gets in support of a do-nothing policy is that it does not matter whether Africa goes Communist. It is pretty clear that it does matter. If Africa went Communist there would be at least a serious interruption to supplies of minerals which would result in much higher prices. But it is clear from the experience in Zaire that it is not necessary for a country to be taken over by the Communists for supplies to be interrupted. They can be equally well interrupted simply by terrorist attacks which force the Europeans, who are essential to the economy of many African countries, to flee.
Another piece of advice is that Communism will not be accepted by the Africans, or in the words of the hon. Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson), the Russians do not travel well. I imagine that the same thing was said about Cuba before Castro.
The fourth point is that the Prime Minister has been telling us that the problems of Africa must not be seen solely in terms of East-West conflict. That is a statement of the obvious but it is no substitute for a policy. I was very much in doubt while listening to the Prime Minister yesterday what action, if any, he thought should be taken in the event of further aggression by the Soviet Union or Cuba as in the case of Zaire.
I was reassured to some extent by the Foreign Secretary today. At least he seemed to recognise that it is not acceptable for the West to appear to be allowing the Soviet Union and Cuba to win by default. If they are seen as the winners they will be seen as useful allies by any ambitious African who is greedy for power and is willing to adopt the language of Marx. Indeed, if countries in the Middle East were to see the Russians and the Cubans winning in Africa, there would be serious implications for Governments friendly to the West in the Middle
322
East. Finally, let us remember that before he places his bets, the African, just as much as any other person and perhaps more than most, makes a judgment about who is going to win.
I believe that even now, if the West is united, it has the means, whether political, economic or military, to persuade the Russians and the Cubans to stop their adventures in Africa. What the Africans, the Russians and the Cubans will want to know is whether we have the will.
9.41 p.m.
The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. John Tomlinson): May I say at the outset how sorry I was to be absent from the Chamber and unable to hear the maiden speech of the hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney)? I understand that he made a good speech which reflected well on the valuable work that he did in his former incarnation. His message, I understand, was that we should stand up and speak for Britain. I hope that he will be reassured when I tell him that the Government will long continue to do just that. I hope—as I am sure the whole House does—that the hon. Gentleman will have suitable future opportunities to speak for the people of Wycombe. I am sure that many hon. Members will look forward to hearing from him on future occasions.
May I say en passant— because I do not think his speech was worth much more than that—a few words to the hon. Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Blaker). His speech was, I believe, so wild that it seemed to me first to indicate that there must have been a Gallup poll indicating something good for the Government today. He seemed to be flaying out in all directions, many of which had nothing to do with the subject matter of the debate. I think that he reached a new low in desperation. It made me reflect that, much as he may be appreciated by the right hon. Lady the Leader of the Opposition, he will not be missed much in the process of diplomacy.
The hon. Member talked about defence and some of the things that might have been said at Labour Party conferences. He was conspicuously mistaken when he referred to what the Government had done. He seemed to prefer to talk about the myth of a £1,000 million reduction in defence expenditure rather than the

323
reality of the Government policy which has been put through this House.
The hon. Gentleman pursued at great length his obsession with Reds under the bed in the Labour Party, or the allegation of their presence, but seemed to forget that the Leader of the Opposition seems to be spending half her time trying to jump into bed with Reds of the Chinese variety. It was a speech of so many contradictions that I am sure that if my right hon. Friend—who was insulted earlier by one of the hon. Gentleman's Back Bench colleagues—were here he would have been excused for taking a sleep during the course of it.
Mr. John Page Mr. John Page (Harrow, West) rose—
Mr. Tomlinson: I shall not give way. The right hon. Member for Knutsford (Mr. Davies), in his speech—which in some respects was, I thought, much more constructive than the speech of the hon. Member for Blackpool, South—referred, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Watkinson), to the problems of mutual and balanced force reductions. We regard these negotiations as being very important for the process of detente and for the strengthening of peace and security in Europe. The West's proposals, with parity as a goad, would help to stabilise the military position in Europe and reduce the overall level of forces without damaging the security of any country.
It was to inject fresh momentum into these talks that the West, on 19th April, tabled a new initiative. That initiative is designed to take account of legitimate Eastern concerns. We look now to the East to respond positively. We hope that it in turn will take account of our concerns and the Western concerns.
At the recent ministerial meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Washington, at the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, the Heads of State and Government of NATO countries involved in MBFR demonstrated their concern to see progress made in the talks by making an important new proposal. This was that as soon as there had been progress in the negotiations—and here the Eastern response to the latest Western initiative will clearly be very important—they would suggest that a
324
session of negotiations should be held at Foreign Minister level. I believe that a meeting of this kind, building on progress already achieved, could help to shift the negotiations decisively towards agreement.
The right hon. Member for Knutsford—and here I agree with him—referred to the disruptions to aid and other economic factors in Africa as being sufficient to disrupt the economies of African countries and the progress of their economies. Here I am in substantial agreement with the right hon. Gentleman. But I must disagree with him when he continues along the lines followed by his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler) and puts forward proposals for the renegotiation of Lomé 2.
It is inevitable that the general subject of defence of European interests in Africa will remain under active consideration by all the countries concerned. However, I do not believe that this is a question which can be considered properly within the context of Lome. Although it is true that member States as well as the Community are parties to the Lomé Convention, fundamentally the convention itself is economic in nature, and it would be inconsistent with its character to try to include within it or within any successor arrangements proposals such as those put forward by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West.
It is clear that the competence of the Community does not extend to defence. Defence matters so far have customarily been excluded from discussion even within the framework of political co-operation. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West went as far as saying that the renegotiation of Lomé should lead to an arrangement for trade, aid and defence in Africa. That is a proposal which I am sure, on more sober reflection, the hon. Member would not wish to pursue.
Mr. Brocklebank-Fowler: The Minister is quite wrong. On quite sober reflection, which took place before I made my speech rather than after it, I am determined to pursue my advocacy of this cause. We are not talking about European interests in Africa, as the Minister suggested. Does not he agree that we are talking about African and European interdependence in Africa? Does not he agree that it is that which is

325
threatened by Soviet activity in that continent?
Mr. Tomlinson: I recognise readily the interdependence. The line which is proposed by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West in the end would lead to a position which did not assist the process of interdependence but would be very divisive.
The proposal that a non-hostility clause could be included in a new convention does not need to be taken any further. One has only to consider that in the present convention there is a preambular reference to the principles of the United Nations Charter, which themselves refer at some length to matters to do with peace and security.
I cannot as readily as the right hon. Member for Knutsford appears to do draw the distinction between what he called the mutuality of his proposals and the unilateral aspect of any proposed human rights element in Lomé 2. The present convention already contains an indirect reference to human rights in the same way, through the reference to the United Nations Charter.
I believe that the recipe which has been put forward by the Opposition is a recipe for disaster, and I hope that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West, who said that he had given sober consideration to this before putting it forward, will perhaps reflect further and come to different conclusions. He has a recipe there which will be extremely damaging to the economic interdependence of Africa and the European countries.
The right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) spoke in generalised terms about the objectives of foreign policy. I think that we all agree with him about those generalised objectives as he expressed them. The protection of our national interests and the proper defence of the realm are objectives from which no one will seek to dissent. But from such a premise to lead on to a view such as that which he expressed about the process of detente is quite incomprehensible, in my view.
The right hon. Member questioned the validity of detente, and I understand that he likened it to pre-war appeasement. This is a view which all sensible right hon. Members will want to resist
326
vigorously. Detente is not an easy process. It is a long, hard process with the objective of getting more and better managed relationships between the super powers. Within this process we shall continue to pursue our essential interests. Some people—I suspect possibly the right hon. Member for Farnham—must have started out with unrealistic expectations of the process of detente. They now show unrealistic and excessive depression at the rate of progress.
Others of us were more cautious in our expectations but perhaps more insistent on ensuring that the process succeeds. Those who felt that the Helsinki Final Act would suddenly end ideological conflict are already disheartened with the process, but such expectations were always unrealistic.
The right hon. Member for Farnham also raised the question of the provision of credit and the transfer of technology to the Soviet Union and suggested that the Government should rethink their policies in this area. There are two separate questions here. On the credit question, I agree with him that it is in our interests that the major supplier countries should agree on minimum terms of credit and not indulge in cut-throat competition which would serve Soviet interests but not Western interests. That is common sense. Credit, however, is an essential part of trading with Eastern European countries. This trade clearly serves British interests. It creates jobs in this country. There are large contracts to be won in these markets, making a big contribution to British exports. Trade should and must go on and the credit which lubricates it should continue, but on sensible terms.
The second question is the transfer of technology. Here we have machinery. In the COCOM arrangements there is machinery which is precisely designed to prevent the transfer of militarily valuable technology to Warsaw Pact countries.
My hon. Friends the Members for Harlow (Mr. Newens), and Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) expressed particularly interesting views about the process of detente in general and the problems of the Shaba province in particular. It is against this context that again I take issue with the right hon. Member for

327
Knutsford. He criticised the Government for standing back from the problem and not taking the positive steps which he advocated, though it was not entirely clear to me exactly how he envisaged those steps should and could be taken.
On the other hand, there has been general agreement on both sides of the House that the Shaba problem is not new. Its roots go back to the colonial period, and there have been several outbreaks of violence in the area since then, including the serious rebellion of Moise Tschombe. Unfortunately, the Government of Zaire have not been able to bring about a reconciliation with many of the former inhabitants of Shaba who are now refugees in Angola. It is these people who strongly desire to return to Shaba who have produced the latest crisis. It has been pointed out by many speakers in the debate that the economic problems of Zaire, which are serious and complicated, cannot be solved successfully unless the Government of Zaire tackle successfully their political problems.
As the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs said, our first priority is to encourage the kind of discussion which has begun between President Kaunda on the one hand and President Mobutu and President Neto on the other. We want to help this process. Our aim is to assist the African States to help each other, as provided for by the OAU charter, and not to intervene in Africa. This is a basic principle of our policy in Africa. As with the other principles which were expressed clearly by my right hon. Friend, we intend to stick to it.
Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Recognising what the hon. Gentleman has said about non-intervention in Africa, will he give the assurance that where there are large numbers of British people—some 40,000—on the copper belt in Zambia who have problems similar to those which have arisen in the Shaba province the intention of the British Government, as with the French and Belgian Governments some weeks ago, will be to go to their rescue if there is a need to do so?
Mr. Tomlinson: No, I shall not go into any form of speculation about circumstances that we consider will not arise.
328
The hypothesis that the hon. Gentleman puts forward is unrealistic.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West (Mr. Janner) made an interesting speech. He welcomed the impending State visit of President Ceausescu of Romania. It is obviously an important visit, which I am sure will be welcomed in all parts of the House.
My hon. and learned Friend, in company with a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House, spoke of human rights. The issue was referred to especially by the hon. Member for Southend, West (Mr. Channon), and my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Sheffield. Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State said in opening the debate, we should not shift one inch from our commitment to human rights.
Against that background, I clearly welcome the concern that has been expressed by many right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House on human rights. We have expressed our concern clearly about Dr. Orlov. I share the worries and concerns about the Soviet citizens and others elsewhere who still face serious problems. However, those who are concerned about human rights and concerned about the denial of fundamental human rights in totalitarian regimes of the Left should always be prepared to be even-handed in their condemnation of denials of basic human rights wherever they occur. That feature was clearly much more evident on the Government side of the House than on the Opposition side during the debate.
My hon. Friends were clearly evenhanded in their condemnation of denials of basic human rights whether they occurred in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe or any other part of the world. Those who share that concern about human rights would welcome rather more even-handedness in the condemnation of some of the basic repression of human rights by Fascist totalitarian regimes of the Right. We heard much about the regimes of the Left and it would have been encouraging if we had heard some of the even-handedness that is claimed by those who utter those condemnations.
The other major area of the debate to which I shall refer briefly in the time remaining is the Arab-Israel dispute,

329
which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Brighouse and Spenborough (Mr. Jackson), the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Walters) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Leicester, West. I understand the feelings and emotions with which hon. Members speak in defence of their viewpoint. I shall try to be somewhat less emotive and perhaps more constructive than was the debate about Middle East affairs as it impinged upon the general debate.
The Government have given their full support to President Sadat's initiative. Any settlement must clearly allow the State of Israel to live in peace within secure and guaranteed borders. The Government consider that in accordance with Resolution 242 Israel should withdraw to its 1967 borders on all three fronts subject to minor negotiated modifications. A settlement must also provide a homeland for the Palestinians. It is not for us to say what form the homeland should take. The Government believe that the Palestinian people themselves should participate in the determination of their future.
The Government equally take the view that the Israel settlements in the occupied territories contravene the fourth Geneva Convention and as such are obstacles to peace. However, against that background what is needed is good will on all sides of the argument. Just as we expect that process to be conducted with good will in the Middle East, it would be assisted if others, irrespective of their deeply held views, would be less emotional about the subject in the House and perhaps more rational in recognising the difficulties with which others have to deal many hundreds of miles away from this place.
The hon. Member for Westbury asked about the American resolution on the Middle East at the NATO summit. I can only presume that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the passage about the Middle East in the NATO communiqué. That is the only part that I can identify. The passage was unanimously agreed. I am not in a position to comment on the drafting process.
Mr. Walters Mr. Walters rose—
Mr. Tomlinson: I cannot give way at this stage.
We have had a useful debate. It was perhaps inevitable that it should have
330
concentrated on Africa and on human rights. The African problem is one of long standing. It was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State in terms which were worthy of the praise that they have received in the House.
The theme of human rights has run through the debate. The views of the House are clear.
It being Ten o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

LIMBLESS EX-SERVICE MEN
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Thomas Cox.]
10.0 p.m.
Mr. Andrew Bowden: As chairman of the all-party parliamentary group for British limbless ex-Service men, I am pleased to have the opportunity of bringing to the attention of the House some of the problems facing the 2,800 limbless ex-Service men from the First World War. Their numbers on 31st December 1976 were 3,279. They are now down to just over 2,800. The comparable Second World War figures are 9,873 on 31st December 1976 and 9,700 at the present time. The average age of the First World War limbless ex-Service men is between 84 and 85 years. It is inevitable that nearly all of them will be dead in six years.
I do not think that anyone in the House would deny that the First World War was the bloodiest and most appalling war in our history. Conditions in the trenches and the conditions under which our men had to serve are beyond description. We can only read about them. The men about whom I am talking went through that hell.
Of the 2,800 limbless survivors, 44 lost both legs, two lost both arms, three lost an arm and a leg, 900 lost one arm and the rest lost one leg. Nearly all would have borne the burden of amputation, many under hideous medical conditions, and they will have worn artificial equipment for over 60 years.
Earlier this year I had the privilege of attending the British Limbless Ex-Servicemen's Association's annual conference in Bournemouth. Every time I have the

331
chance of going to that annual conference I find it an inspiration and a humbling experience to see the determination and dogged courage of those men who have suffered so much for so long.
I am sure that the majority of hon. Members believe that war pensioners and the war disabled and, indeed, war widows, are a unique and special group and that they must continue to be treated as such. There is some fear among the members of BLESMA that their special position could be undermined. That was expressed at their annual conference at Bournemouth this year when they passed a motion which read:
"That this Conference expresses regret and concern at the attitude of certain MPs towards the provisions of the war blinded and, by implication, the war disabled in general; requests them, and others in influential places, to cease intermeddling in the hard-won compensation war disability and allowances awarded for sacrifices made in the national interest in two World Wars and other engagements, and resolves that any threat to devalue this compensation will be met with action and a severe rebuff by the limbless ex-Servicemen of this country."
I turn to the specific problems facing the First World War limbless group, who are indeed a specifically identifiable group. They fall into two main categories. First, there is compensation for loss of limb. There is a growing feeling among these men that they are not receiving fair treatment in relation to other groups with more recent service.
As the House knows, there are three categories of war disablement pension rates and allowances. First, there are those arising from service prior to 1969. Secondly, there are those who were disabled as a result of service between 1969 and 31st March 1973. Thirdly, there are those who became disabled after 31st March 1973.
Let us see what this means in cash terms. Let us take the example of a Service man who has lost a limb and who is on a 50 per cent. disablement assessment. The figures that I shall give are rough because each individual case varies. The First World War limbless ex-Service man would be receiving £17 per week compensation. The Service man who was disabled between 1969 and 31st March 1973 would be receiving £27 a week. The Serviceman who was dis-
332
abled from April 1973 onwards would be receiving at least £35 a week.
I do not believe that one could say that that is fair and equitable. Indeed, it is intolerable and grossly unfair. This was emphasised in another motion at the BLESMA conference at Bournemouth in April this year. The motion read:
"This Conference calls upon Her Majesty's Government to accept that compensation for disablement and widowhood resulting from Service in Her Majesty's Forces must be equitable as between one person and another, irrespective of the date upon which the disablement or widowhood was sustained, and that the system of ex gratia balancing payments as currently awarded in respect of service in Northern Ireland prior to 31st March 1973, be extended to include all war disablement pensioners".
I turn to the question of mobility. The majority of First World War limbless ex-Service men are unable to take up their entitlement to a Ministry car. I understand that about 200 of them have cars, but the majority are too disabled, too old, cannot drive or cannot obtain the services of a nominated driver. Surely, on the basis of fairness and justice, it can be overwhelmingly argued that such men should be entitled to receive a private car maintenance allowance, which they would receive if they had a car.
What am I asking the Minister to do for this exceptional group who made such sacrifices for their country? First, there should be immediately an additional £10 a week ex gratia payment for life for those 2,800 men. Secondly, there should be a £250 payment in lieu of the private car maintenance allowance. What would that cost? It would cost just over £2 million a year. In the context of Government expenditure of £69,000 million a year I cannot believe that it is impossible to find that sum.
I ask the Minister of State to consult tomorrow morning with his colleague the Minister responsible for the disabled, to seek an appointment with the Secretary of State and to present the case to him. He should ask the Secretary of State to take the case of these men to the Cabinet and to ask for the £2 million. I go further. I would hope that if this money were not forthcoming within one month, both the Minister of State and his ministerial colleague who is responsible for the disabled would make it clear that their resignations would be on the table. If the Minister went as far as that I have

333
no doubt that the £2 million would be made available.
As our country moves into calmer economic waters, those who sacrificed so much in such a bloody ghastly war must not be forgotten.
10.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Department of Health and Social Services (Mr. Roland Moyle): My hon. Friend the Minister with special responsibilities for war pensions would normally have replied to this debate, but he has asked me to express his regret that he is unfortunately unable to do so. I am sure, however, that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Mr. Bowden) will appreciate the great personal as well as ministerial interest that my hon. Friend has always shown in the war disabled.
We are very grateful to the hon. Member for taking the opportunity to bring to the attention of the House the problems of elderly war pensioners and, in particular, of those who lost limbs in the service of their country. He has concentrated on the difficulties which face those First World War pensioners who are limbless ex-Service men—some 2,500 of them—but I must make the point at the outset that altogether there are still some 35,000 disablement pensioners from the First World War, along with some 19,000 of their widows, and that my hon. Friend the Minister with special responsibility for war pensioners also has a concern for the welfare of a further 259,000 disablement pensioners from the Second World War and subsequent hostilities, together with 63,000 war widows. In fact, all told there are still not far short of 400,000 war pensions in payment to disablement pensioners, their widows and other dependants.
It was only just over a month ago that my hon. Friend was present at the annual conference of the British Limbless Ex-servicemen's Association at Bournemouth, when he was able to tell the representatives there about the latest improvements it has been possible to make in provisions for war pensioners—namely, the substantial improvements in the private car maintenance allowances and the extension of automatic entitlement to a war widow's pension to every case where a war pensioner was in receipt of constant attendance allowance at his death, regard-
334
less of the rate at which that allowance was being paid. The general secretary of BLESMA made it clear to him then—and quite rightly so—that whilst the ex-Service organisations were indeed grateful for what the Government were able to do, they were by no means convinced, as the Minister himself is not convinced, that nothing more remained to be done.
However, great improvements have been made over the years. For instance the 100 per cent. disablement pension for a private—the rate which some 3,000 1914 war pensioners are now receiving—will be £31·90 a week from next November. Moreover, every such pensioner will be entitled to age allowance of £6·80, bringing the total up to £38·70. If he has been unable to work and earn himself a retirement pension because of his disablement then he will also be getting unemployability allowance for himself of £20·75 and £11·70 for a wife. And along with that will go comforts allowance of at least £2·70 plus, where constant attendance is needed, a further allowance which ranges from £6·35 for those needing what is known as "half-day" attention, to £25·40 for those needing a great deal of such help.
And the higher rates of constant attendance allowance carry with them exceptionally severe disablement allowance which will be £12·70 a week from next November. Finally, the limbless ex-Service man does, of course, also qualify for clothing allowance of £27 a year, or £43 in the case of a double amputee. All these benefits are tax free.
How does this compare with what the disabled ex-Service man from the First World War received when he came out of the forces? In 1917, the 100 per cent. rate of pension was £1·37½, and in 1919 it rose to £2, and that was that. None of the additional allowances to which I have referred, apart from constant attendance allowance, existed, and if successive Governments had done no more than keep the 100 per cent. rate of pension in line with prices over the years, all the severely disabled men from the First World War would now be receiving a pension of about £12·23, which is a considerable contrast with what is being provided today.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and I would certainly like to accede to

335
the pleas made so movingly on behalf of elderly ex-Service men. When the hon. Member says that the Government should provide some additional benefit for these men in the evening of their lives so that they are not at such a disadvantage by comparison with those who have recently been invalided from the Armed Forces with attributable injuries, my natural desire is to say that the Government will do so, if not at once, then as and when the resources become available. But I cannot in all honesty say that to the hon. Member.
It was a bone of contention between the previous Conservative Government and all the ex-Service organisations, as it has been since 1974, that the benefits of the Armed Forces pension scheme which was introduced from 31st March 1973 do not apply to ex-Service men who left the Services before that date. I think that that is the nub of the argument.
The argument which the ex-Service organisations make and which was again effectively deployed by the hon. Member this evening is that of equity. The hon. Member argued that it should be a matter of indifference when a man was injured in the defence of his country, so far as compensation is concerned, and that regardless of that date he should receive the same payment. I know that the emphasis has been laid on First World War pensioners tonight but, as the hon. Member has made clear, I think that he would regard some additional help for them as being merely a first step in the achievement of a goal of equity for all those whose service antedates 1973.
Why cannot we, like the former Conservative Government, accept this particular argument? It is not just a matter of cost. It is also a matter of principle. The purpose of the new Armed Forces pension scheme is to provide for the regular Service man an occupational pension which mirrors the improvements made in the Civil Service, police and other public service schemes in recent years. The extension of the occupational scheme based on length of service and the rate of pay for rank held on retirement brought in the new concept of minimum levels of compensation in those cases in which invalidity or death in service could be attributed to Service factors.
336
Where applying the standard rules does not provide a pension which reaches the relevant minimum level, provision exists for additional payments to bring the occupational pension scheme up to this required level. As is the case with all occupational pension schemes, there is no retrospection, and the new provisions apply only to Regular forces serving on or after 31st March 1973.
Mr. Bowden: Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why a principle would be broken if an ex gratia payment were to be given to a limbless World War ex-Service man but is not broken when an ex gratia payment is given to a severely disabled man from Northern Ireland?
Mr. Moyle: I do not think that "exgratia payments" is the appropriate term. There are proper schemes for dealing with people who are injured in Northern Ireland and proper provision is made for them.
I shall go on to explain the differences between the pre-1973 situation and the post-1973 situation. The difference between the war pension scheme administered by the Department of Health and Social Security and the Armed Forces pension scheme of the Ministry of Defence is that one is a flat-rate scheme based on loss of faculty, whilst the other, the Armed Forces pension scheme, is an occupational pension scheme providing benefits for Regular Service men ivalided out of the Service before they can complete their careers and for the widows of those killed in service before their careers are completed.
The Ministry of Defence scheme is career-oriented. Probably that is best illustrated by the example of the Regular Service man who has only a short period of service and whose injury is directly attributable to service. He receives a substantial payment as compensation for the loss of his career prospects. But the man who has almost completed the full term of his Service career and is, therefore, entitled to the normal way to a full career pension gets no advantage from an invaliding pension because his Service career and prospects have not been reduced by the invaliding disability.
I must emphasise again that these Armed Forces pension scheme pensions are occupational in the full sense of the term. Consequently the attributable

337
supplement does not cover the Service man who was invalided but not from attributable causes. He gets the normal invaliding pension if any; and there is no attributable element where a Service man completes his engagement in the normal way and after leaving the Service claims and gets a war pension, for his Service career has been in no way hindered.
I entirely accept that it is no solace to a pensioner from the First or for that matter the Second World War or later service who sees that the Service man injured, for instance in Northern Ireland, receives not only a war pension at the same rate as he does but very often a substantial occupational pension as well. But I cannot accept that, because the Ministry of Defence has modernised and vastly improved the provision it makes for serving soldiers nowadays, the war pensions scheme can, or indeed should, attempt to provide the equivalent benefits.
We are not in that case running an occupational pensions scheme. We are running a loss of faculty scheme. We pay the same benefit regardless of whether a man was injured in the First War, the Second War, Aden, Cyprus, Northern Ireland or anywhere else in the service of his country. It has been the concern of my hon. Friend—as it has been that of his predecessors of whatever party, for happily party politics have never entered into the war pensions arena—to ensure, as I have shown earlier, that the benefits provided under this loss of faculty scheme are fully maintained and when possible improved in their real value.
The hon. Member also argued the case for providing some form of mobility allowance for the use of First World War veterans—or, if not a mobility allowance, some other benefit which would give them some extra mobility income. I am sure the hon. Member would agree that it would hardly be possible to confine such help to limbless pensioners. The man immobilised by disease contracted during service must be equally deserving and since the group's average age is now about 84, frankly it has to be expected that the ageing process alone will have rendered many of them virtually unable to walk regardless of their pensioned disability. So, while I fully appreciate the difficulties of the war pensioner, I do not honestly see how it would be possible
338
to introduce a mobility allowance for this group who already, as I have explained, have the tax-free age allowance.
What the hon. Member is asking for is an entirely new and special war pensioners' mobility allowance for those who have never been covered by the war pensioners' vehicle service and who are beyond the normal age limits for mobility allowance. Frankly, I cannot envisage the situation in which any Government would consider it acceptable to introduce a new benefit at this stage in the life of the war pensions scheme.
It is one thing to maintain the existing preferences. This, as the hon. Member knows, is something which my hon. Friend has been much concerned to do and indeed to ease the rules for these existing benefits wherever it has proved possible. But as for a new benefit, I do not think I can do better than use a phrase which will immediately be familiar to the hon. Member as one which is frequently employed by the general secretary of BLESMA himself—"It's just not on, you know".
Finally, I would like to say just a word about the work of our welfare service. Throughout the country there are 79 welfare officers of the war pensioners welfare service, who are supported by members of the war pensions committees, voluntary workers attached to those committees and of course the welfare officers of the ex-Service organisations such as the Royal British Legion and the ex-Service men's associations.
During 1977 my Department's welfare officers carried out 86,000 interviews, of which 16,800 were with disablement pensioners from the First World War and all First World War pensioners in receipt of unemployability supplement or constant attendance allowance or have a pension of 50 per cent. or more are on the regular visiting list. Their concern is to help with a wide variety of welfare problems such as housing, homes, nursing care, treatment, various aides and the general problems of old age.
In my own visits to pensioners in their homes in various parts of the country over the past 18 months, I have seen something of the value of those services and I wish to take this opportunity publicly, on behalf of the whole House, of thanking the welfare officers very sincerely for all they are doing to improve

339
the quality of life for the seriously disabled war pensioner.
I am sorry that I have had to give the hon. Gentleman a reply which is by no means as helpful as he would hope. The objectives which he has advanced are not those to which I can lend the Government's support. But, as he is well aware, this does not mean that we do not share his concern that war pensioners should continue to get a fair deal and
340
that the special position which they hold in the community should be preserved. My ministerial colleague who has responsibility for war pensioners, the other Ministers concerned and myself have made it our concern that this should be the case. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we shall continue to do so.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at twenty-five minutes past Ten o'clock.

TRANSPORT
  M63 (Cheadle Heath-Portwood)
  M63 (Cheadle Heath-Portwood)
  Minibus Schemes (Rural Areas)
  Minibus Schemes (Rural Areas)
  Lancashire
  Lancashire
  British Railways (Chairman)
  British Railways (Chairman)
  Garston Bypass
  Garston Bypass
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  Public Ownership
  Public Ownership
  Motor Vehicles (Defects)
  Motor Vehicles (Defects)
  Railway Services (Chingford)
  Railway Services (Chingford)
  Roads (White Paper)
  Roads (White Paper)
  Traffic Commissioners
  Traffic Commissioners
  Driving Licences
  Driving Licences
  Rail Freight (Great Britain-West Germany)
  Rail Freight (Great Britain-West Germany)
  Rail Fares
  Rail Fares
  Road Haulage
  Road Haulage
  Dangerous Substances
  Dangerous Substances
  Railways (Lancashire)
  Railways (Lancashire)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  Roads (Maintenance)
  National Ports Council
  National Ports Council
  Metrication
  Metrication
  British Railways (Chairman)
  British Railways (Chairman)
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  Driver and Vehicle Licensing Centre
  M25, Reigate-Chertsey
  M25, Reigate-Chertsey
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Motor Cyclists (Crash Helmets)
  Heavy Lorries
  Heavy Lorries
  Port of London Authority
  Port of London Authority
  Rural Bus Services
  Rural Bus Services
  Bus Fares
  Bus Fares
  Trunk Road Programme
  Trunk Road Programme
  Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment
  Standing Advisory Committee on Trunk Road Assessment
  Road Tankers (Labelling)
  Road Tankers (Labelling)
  Railways (Corporate Plan)
  Railways (Corporate Plan)
  High-speed Trains
  High-speed Trains
ENERGY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers
NORTHERN IRELAND
  Mental Illness (Home Care)
  Mental Illness (Home Care)
  Trunk Roads
  Trunk Roads
SCOTLAND
  Criminal Statistics
  Criminal Statistics
  Scottish Assembly
  Scottish Assembly
  Police
  Police
HOME DEPARTMENT
  Building Societies (Fraud Investigations)
  Building Societies (Fraud Investigations)
  Courts (Wales)
  Courts (Wales)
  Detention Centres (Accommodation)
  Detention Centres (Accommodation)
  Crimes of Violence
  Crimes of Violence
  Parkhurst Prison
  Parkhurst Prison
  Radio Frequencies
  Radio Frequencies
  Released Prisoners
  Released Prisoners
CIVIL SERVICE
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Police
  Police
INDUSTRY
  Hunterston
  Hunterston
  HAMILTON
  HAMILTON
SOCIAL SERVICES
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Disabled Persons (Vehicles)
  Occupational Pensions Board
  Occupational Pensions Board
EMPLOYMENT
  Automotive Related Industries
  Automotive Related Industries
  Employment Protection (Claims)
  Employment Protection (Claims)
  Teachers
  Teachers
  Job Release Scheme
  Job Release Scheme
  Employed Persons
  Employed Persons
TRADE
  Industrial Democracy
  Industrial Democracy
OVERSEAS DEVELOPMENT
  Western Sahara (Refugees)
  Western Sahara (Refugees)
AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD
  Pre-packed Ham and Beef
  Pre-packed Ham and Beef
  Whisky
  Whisky
  Animals Acts (Prosecutions)
  Animals Acts (Prosecutions)
DEFENCE
  Church of England Chaplains
  Church of England Chaplains
  Jet Pilots
  Jet Pilots
  Armed Forces (Pay)
  Armed Forces (Pay)
EDUCATION AND SCIENCE
  Secondary Education (Selby)
  Secondary Education (Selby)
  School Meals
  School Meals
  School Uniform Grants
  School Uniform Grants
  Experimental Projects Group
  Experimental Projects Group
PRICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION
  Recommended Retail Prices
  Recommended Retail Prices
WALES
  A5
  A5
  Marginal Farms
  Marginal Farms
ENVIRONMENT
  Rented Housing
  Rented Housing
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Weather Damage (Compensation)
  Lead Pollution
  Lead Pollution
  Domestic Waste (Recycling)
  Domestic Waste (Recycling)
  Housing Stress Areas
  Housing Stress Areas
  Leasehold Housing (London)
  Leasehold Housing (London)
  Housing (Review)
  Housing (Review)
  Ancient Monuments
  Ancient Monuments
NATIONAL FINANCE
  State Benefits
  State Benefits
  Tax Returns
  Tax Returns
  Personal Allowances
  Personal Allowances
  Motability
  Motability
  Pensions
  Pensions
  Bank Notes (Braille Marking)
  Bank Notes (Braille Marking)
  Company Cars
  Company Cars
  Public Expenditure
  Public Expenditure
  Inflation
  Inflation
FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS
  Cyprus
  Cyprus
EUROPEAN COMMUNITY
  Council of Ministers
  Council of Ministers

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

LORD PLANT
Cyril Thomas Howe Plant, Esquire, C.B.E., having been created Baron Plant, of Benenden in the County of Kent, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Houghton of Sowerby and the Lord Allen of Fallowfield.

HEPATITIS
2.47 p.m.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: 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 infective hepatitis is on the increase and what steps are being taken to safeguard the public from food such as infected mussels.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the annual number of notified cases in England and Wales fell from 23,580 in 1969 to 5,104 in 1977. In the recent outbreak of viral hepatitis associated with mussels, investigations by the local authorities concerned, assisted by officers of the Health Departments and of the Communicable Diseases Surveillance Centre for England and Wales, pointed to mussels from a single processing plant as the probable source of infection. Action is in hand to ensure that suitable pre-cautions are taken against further infection when processing is resumed next season. Further, the Departments concerned are considering whether general guidance could usefully be issued to local authorities about measures to reduce the risk of all kinds of food poisoning associated with shellfish.
Baroness MASHAM of ILTON: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his interesting reply, may I ask him what happens in the case of children going back to school whose parents have infective hepatitis? Should they be given gamma globulin and should they be kept away from school? Is the noble Lord aware that my godson was kept away from school for three weeks when he was about to take his "O" levels?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my information on this particular point is that the risk of infection is small and exclusion is not considered necessary. In the pamphlet which was issued by my Department and the Welsh Office after consultation with the Department of Education and Science—and if the noble Baroness has not seen it, I should be very happy to let her have a copy—the matter of hepatitis is dealt with and it is said that there is no need for exclusion of any kind. Since seeing this pamphlet I have made further inquiries. I find that the recognised world authority on this is Dr. Abram Benenson. In his book, Control of Communicable Diseases in Man, he states that there is no need whatever for quarantine.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, can my noble friend assure us that members of the aristocracy do not eat mussels? Is this not a monopoly of the working classes?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I think that it would be reasonable to say that that might well be considered to be another question.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, can the Government tell us what arrangement they have made for the destruction of infected consignments?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, your Lordships will know that every district council is responsible, through the health officers, for hygiene and the control of the environment. They have been very active in this matter in the sense that they have been able to give certain advice. My Department is considering this at this present moment. I have seen a draft of a letter which, if I may say so, was prepared before the noble Baroness put down the Question, and which we are

1221
proposing to send round to local authorities, indicating the kind of prevention measures they can take in the future.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, as someone who does not eat mussels and who dislikes them heartily—I say so to reassure the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell—may I ask whether, as this has been a really serious outbreak in Yorkshire, the Government are tracing the origins of the outbreak, and seeing whether or not it is possible to prevent the purchase of mussels from whatever source they came, which provided a considerable number of cases of hepatitis in North Yorkshire?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I want to say this, that I think that the people locally owe a very great debt of gratitude to the senior medical officer of the food hygiene branch at Leeds, who, immediately he became aware of what was happening, wrote immediately to some eight or nine other local authorities, drawing attention to what was happening in his own city, and saying that, in view of the inquiries he made, their cities might also be affected. In point of fact, I think that has gone a long way towards containing this outbreak.
The Earl of HALSBURY: My Lords, on the assumption that the human hepatitis is caused by mussels, has the noble Lord any information as to where the mussels get it from? Do we return it to them in a rather simple, close cycle of the food chain in our sewage, or is it a more complex matter? Has the noble Lord any information on the point?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think I can give the noble Earl a satisfactory answer to that, except to say it is suspected that they came from Anglesey.

ELIZABETH GARRETT ANDERSON HOSPITAL
2.53 p.m.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will announce the terms
1222
of reference of the public inquiry into the proposal to close the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the Government do not intend to set up such an inquiry.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, arising out of that very unsatisfactory reply, may I ask whether the Government can say whether this is a final or interim decision?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the answer was perfectly clear. The Government do not intend to set up an inquiry.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, Mr. Ennals made a statement about three weeks ago, in which he indicated that he was considering the matter. Is this his final view?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that he was prepared to continue negotiations, he was prepared to continue talks, he was prepared to have further discussion. He intimated that, if necessary, he would be prepared to consider whether he would postpone the closing of the hospital beyond 21st July. He has undertaken to do that. He is at the moment in the process of having further discussions with quite a number of groups.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, as the noble Lord said that the Government were not prepared to set up an inquiry, could we have the answer, why not?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I am surprised that any noble Lord in your Lordships' House should ask this question. Discussions have been going on for four years. We have had debates in this House on the matter. We have had a large number of Questions put down. I think that even those who are strong supporters of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital could not deny that there has been very full, frank and prolonged discussion on this matter.
Lord BROCKWAY: My Lords, in view of the fact that after the decision was reached by the Government there has been very strong public pressure on this issue, not only from wide public opinion, the

1223
Women's Labour Conference, but also from doctors and the trade union movement, may I ask the Minister whether the Government will reconsider this issue, despite all the difficulties involved?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I have made it perfectly clear that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State is having further discussions with a large number of groups of people who want to see him. He cannot really do more than that.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, would the Minister consider asking the new Lord Lieutenant of London who, I believe, is in this House, and who knows a great deal about women's work, whether her advice would be of use to the Minister? And we congratulate her.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if any Member of your Lordships' House feels disposed to put a point of view to my right honourable friend, I am sure that he would be glad to have it.
Baroness WARD of NORTH TYNESIDE: My Lords, may I ask this of the noble Lord: When it was announced in many newspapers that there would be an inquiry, why was that announcement not then contradicted—or has the Minister changed his mind for some reason or other?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend has not changed his mind. Noble Lords and the public at large would be well advised not to believe everything they read in newspapers.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, this is a very serious matter, because the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital was given to understand that the Secretary of State was examining this matter with care. So far as I know, after making inquiries this morning, they were still under the impression that the public inquiry would be granted.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, in reply to the noble Lord, I do not know from where those people obtained this impression. The fact that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State
1224
is giving further consideration to the matter is perfectly true. The Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital people know full well that they have been in communication with him on a number of occasions in the past few days. They also know that further discussion will take place involving them. I really do not see what more my right honourable friend can do.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, as Queen Charlotte's Hospital was transferred from Marylebone to Shepherd's Bush, would my noble friend consider naming another hospital, either existing or about to be built, after Elizabeth Garrett Anderson, in order to perpetuate her memory?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can give no undertaking of that at all, other than to say that discussions are taking place as to where the work of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital should be carried on in future.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, would the noble Lord ask his Minister whether it would not be a good idea to come to a conclusion very soon? He set 21st July as the date for closure. It is very upsetting to a hospital to be faced with a date and not to know what will happen. If we could receive some assurance that something will be done soon, that would be helpful.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State made it perfectly clear that, as far as he was concerned, the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital was going to close on 21st July. In view of representations to him, he is having further discussions. He has intimated that he might be prepared to extend the date—but only extend the date as regards closure. The closure of the Elizabeth Garrett Anderson Hospital will take place, if not on 21st July, at some later date.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, is the noble Lord not aware that what is disturbing is the fact that his statement seems to say that even after the discussions on no account would there be an inquiry? The classical way of settling disputes of this sort, when it has been made perfectly clear that there are different distinct and authoritative

1225
points of view, is for the matter to go to an inquiry. If, after the discussions, he is still not convinced, then at this stage to rule out the classical way of deciding the matter is disturbing. Is the noble Lord not aware of that?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the classical way of dealing with matters is not always the best way—a public inquiry by what people would call so-called independent people, who are not people with sufficient knowledge and experience of the running of hospitals. We have consulted. There have been discussions over a period of almost four years with people who know what is involved. No useful purpose would be served by having a public inquiry.
Lord PLATT: My Lords, would Her Majesty's Government kindly reveal who were the people who made representations to the Secretary of State? There was, as is well known, a full discussion in this House, in which the medical point of view was put. Then we hear just now that representations were made to the Secretary of State, and he then reopened the question. By whom were those representations made? Were they from the trade unions, or the doctors?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, certainly there are some trade unions involved, and certainly from some people who were very strongly in support of the EGA's view.
Baroness YOUNG: My Lords, would the Minister agree that a public inquiry is a recognised method of putting to the test opposing points of view on a matter of social policy used extensively in local government matters? Would he not agree that consultation in the terms in which he has described it really means talking to people when your mind is made up, and is therefore unacceptable?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State has never denied the fact that his mind is made up on this matter.
Lord LEATHERLAND: My Lords, is my noble friend of the opinion that there is something to be said for Ministers who have the courage to make their
1226
own decisions and not pass the buck to inquiries?
Lord ANNAN: My Lords, is it not the fact that if you have a public inquiry on this matter it would have to range enormously wide over the whole provision of hospital services, and not just teaching hospitals within central London, and that in this matter two or three years could pass before we ever got any kind of recommendations from such an inquiry?

CROWN AGENTS: PLACING OF CONTRACTS
3.2 p.m.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what directions or advice they have given to the Crown Agents for the Colonies as to the placing of contracts by them with companies blacklisted by the Government for alleged breaches of Government Pay Policy; and whether they will publish in the Official Report the text of the instructions or advice given to the Crown Agents, and the names of the companies involved.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, the Crown Agents have been asked not to place orders with companies breaching the pay policy guidelines when making purchases on behalf of the Government and to take Government policy into account in the placing of contracts on their own behalf. They do not apply this policy when acting on behalf of their overseas principals. The correspondence with the Crown Agents is confidential. The Government are prepared to publish the names of firms against whom discretionary action is being taken, but only if the firms consent.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, while thanking the noble Baroness for that very revealing Answer, may I ask her, first of all, whether it is in accordance with precedent that directions by the Government to a statutory body of this kind are published? Why is it not being

1227
done in this case? Secondly, does it not follow that in certain cases the Crown Agents will not be able to help overseas purchasers by selecting the most economical supplier for them, since the most economical supplier may be banned and on the black list? Will that not put the Crown Agents into a position of competitive difficulty?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: No, my Lords. To answer the last part of the question first, the Government have repeatedly made it clear that the discretionary powers are discretionary and that all circumstances will be taken into account; both the circumstances of the developing country and, of course, the national interest. Therefore, the answer is, No, to the last part of the question. As to the first part, it is not in accordance with general practice. In fact, the information in this particular case concerns the machinery of government, which it has never been the practice of any Government to reveal.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, on the last point, which was mentioned first by the noble Baroness, if this guidance or direction is to have any effect at all, it must mean that the Crown Agents are inhibited from placing contracts where, for commercial reasons, they would wish. Therefore, why does the noble Baroness still contend that this is not harming them and their clients in competition?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: Because, my Lords, there is absolutely no evidence that it is doing harm. We have no evidence of that. Further, I am quite sure that the House will understand that firms which break the Government's guidelines cannot expect support, because then the Government would be financing breaches of their own policy.
Lord BOYD-CARPENTER: My Lords, I do not want to press the noble Baroness too far, but it is not here a question of Government support; it is a question of whether a Government agency is giving the best possible service to overseas buyers. May I suggest that, if it is restricted in its discretion in choosing where it places those orders, the degree
1228
of service which it renders must be diminished.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I have explained that this does not apply when the overseas Governments are the principals. We are not asking the Crown Agents to apply it then. What we are asking them to do is to look at it when orders are being placed by the Crown Agents themselves. All Government Departments would look at breaches of the guidelines in the same way.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, can the noble Baroness explain whether the Crown Agents are a Government Department? If they are not a Government Department, are they obliged to carry out the requests of the Government?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think the House knows that the Crown Agents are not a Government Department, but they are subject to direction from the Ministry of Overseas Development.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, since the noble Baroness mentioned the black list, and that companies need not have their names on it, may I ask whether there is a list available as to companies which are on the black list, and, if so, where it can be found?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think the noble Lord misunderstood me. What the Government decided, after consulting all the interested parties, was that if any body had been subject to discretionary powers and they wanted their names to be published they could be, but not unless they wanted them to be.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, is the noble Baroness saying that overseas principals of the Crown Agents are allowed to buy cheaper produce in the event of that company producing that cheaper produce breaching the pay pause, but that the British taxpayer may not do that and may have to buy something more expensive because they do not pay and are not so efficient?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, firms which have

1229
breached the guidelines are more likely to be selling expensive equipment.

THE CIVIL SERVICE: APPOINTMENTS SYSTEM
3.7 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: 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 any plans for changing the system of qualification, by open examination, for the Civil Service, or for extending the permitted period of five years for service by temporary civil servants.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, the Civil Service Commissioners, who are responsible for recruitment to all permanent Civil Service appointments, believe that the present arrangements for preserving the principles of fair and open competition are satisfactory. They invite applications for such appointments by public advertisement, to ensure that all those who are eligible under the regulations have an opportunity to compete. As regards the five-year limit on short-term appointments, the Government, in pursuance of their belief that special advisers should become an accepted feature of administration, have begun to explore appropriate ways of ensuring that they will not be required to resign at the end of five years' service.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, in view of that reply, for which I am grateful, may I ask whether there was any basis for the article on the front page of The Times a week ago, stating that the Prime Minister had issued instructions to devise a scheme for a new class of senior civil servant to be appointed by ministerial patronage? While at present there exists the scheme of special political advisers under the five-year rule, a proficient and professional Service depends upon open competition supervised by the Civil Service Commission. Is the noble Lord aware that our system of recruitment, and our tradition of loyal service to Governments of every complexion, are envied by the rest of the world?
Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords, I accept that, and it is not the Government's intention to ever interfere with that. We accept that. But, as the noble Lord knows, from time to time special advisers have been used by both Conservative and Labour Governments. We will preserve that traditional policy.
Viscount MONTGOMERY of ALAMEIN: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that exchanges between industry and the Civil Service, both at home and overseas, have been of great benefit? Would he agree that this is something which should continue to be encouraged and even indeed facilitated by Government Departments?
Lord PEART: Yes, my Lords.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I realise that it may be a delicate matter for the noble Lord to reply to my supplementary question, but is he aware that the report in a newspaper stating that the Prime Minister had issued these instructions is somewhat different from mere consideration of the five-year rule?
Lord PEART: No, my Lords; the rôle of special advisers is a matter which is being looked at. There is no doubt about that. After all, one should not always take into account what is in a special paper outside.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, will the noble Lord give an assurance that, before any such schemes are embarked upon, there will be an opportunity for the matter to be fully discussed by Parliament?
Lord PEART: My Lords, it is important to remember that any change affecting the Civil Service is also a matter for the Civil Service unions. We should always consult them regarding any specific changes. But this system has been working for a long time and we shall have to examine it.
Earl FERRERS: What was the answer to my noble friend's question, my Lords? Would it or would it not be considered by Parliament?
Lord PEART: In the end, if Parliament so wished, of course it would be, my Lords. However, I see no reason at the moment for saying we will have a debate or anything like that. This is being looked at carefully, as it must be, by responsible Ministers.

NUCLEAR SAFEGUARDS AND ELECTRICITY (FINANCE) BILL
Brought from the Commons; read 1ª, and to be printed.

INTERPRETATION BILL [H.L.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR (Lord Elwyn-Jones): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. The Law Commission and the Scottish Law Commission have produced a report on an interpretation Bill which has today been laid before Parliament and the present Bill, where it departs in any matters of significance from the Interpretation Act 1889, is based on recommendations contained in that report. Save for that, the Bill is pure consolidation and makes no alteration in the existing law. If given a Second Reading now, the Bill will go before the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills in the normal way.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª—(The Lord Chancellor.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills.

SCOTLAND BILL
3.12 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [The Scottish Assembly]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 16, leave out ("110") and insert ("111").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I owe the House an explanation about this Amendment and I should like to explain how it came to be on the Marshalled List and to ask for the indulgence of your
1232
Lordships. When those who were responsible for the somewhat different additional Member system Amendments in another place made their calculations, they perforce used the 1977 register figures. Those showed that adding an extra seat for each constituency with over 110 per cent. of the electoral quota to the 71 Scottish Parliamentary seats resulted in 100 constituency Members. Adding the 50 additional Members to be elected under the additional Member system gave a total of 150 members, the same number as the Bill as it came from another place provided. Since that time, the 1978 register figures have become available; I do not know whether they were already available to the Government, but at any rate they became available to those concerned with the Amendments.
On the basis of those figures, 110 per cent. of the electoral quota—which is 59,014 electors—gave 30 extra Members instead of 29. That would mean 101 constituency Members in all. We therefore made revised calculations on the basis of 111 per cent. of the electoral quota with a view to producing, hopefully, a total of 100. Unfortunately, it produced a total of 99. On the whole, it seems preferable to adhere to the 110 per cent. electoral quota rather than having a very complicated formula, the more so as there are two constituencies—Pentlands with 59,384 and Pollock with 59,367—very close together. The result will be 101 constituency Members and 151 Assembly Members in all. After all, there is no magic in the figure of 150 Assembly Members, and in any case one of the Members must be elected the presiding officer, so that will mean 150 effective Members. I do not mean by that that the presiding officer will not be effective; I mean effective as a voting Member.
It might be in accordance with the wishes of the House if I referred at the same time to Amendment No. 18, which revises the table of Members by electoral regions and shows how the figure of 151 is made up. It may be for the convenience of the House to consider this briefly now, although it is virtually a matter of adding one Member to the two columns, the first column showing the constituency Members and the last column the total Members. Obviously I shall wish to withdraw this Amendment so as

1233
to leave the electoral quota figure at 110 and I am moving it only so as to give the House some idea of what we are about in this matter; I thought it desirable to do that all in one. I beg to move.
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, a short experience in this House has taught me that, while we have many skills, arithmetic does not appear to be numbered among them. However, I can only admire the skill of the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, in making a virtue out of this particular necessity and appointing his extra man as the presiding officer. My only duty is to make it plain that the Government have no objection either to the noble Lord proceeding with the Amendment or not proceeding with it as the mood or his arithmetic takes him. Of course, since the Government have no commitment to the principle underlying that, I have nothing further to add. In relation to Amendment No. 18, we may in due course come to that point. But, in the light of the noble Lord's indication that he does not propose to press this Amendment, Amendment No. 18 will be correct in that the numbers therein correspond to the numbers in the Bill as unamended.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, in view of the noble and learned Lord's liberal attitude on this occasion, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.18 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 11, leave out ("ordinary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Amendments Nos. 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17 and 192. It has been suggested to me that, in the Bill, an ordinary election is one which takes place under Clause 2 on the third Thursday in March at fixed four-year intervals with the possibility of minor adjustments of two months either way. The term "ordinary election"—the purpose of the Amendment is to leave out the word "ordinary"—is thus not applicable to a mid-term election which takes place on an order of the Secretary
1234
of State dissolving the Assembly consequent on a resolution of the Assembly itself that it should be dissolved. That is provided for in Clause 3(1)(b). If that is so—and I was in some doubt as to whether it was so—then the word "ordinary" should be omitted in each of the 10 places where it occurs in relation to the election of additional Members. Obviously should there be a mid-term election, then the 50 additional Members should be elected at that election, following the dissolution, in the same way as they will be elected in the regular four-year ordinary elections.
It may also be convenient for the House to consider Amendment No. 192 at the same time. That Amendment seeks to make it absolutely clear that the word "election" covers both ordinary and mid-term elections, but not of course by-elections. If the Government are of the opinion that Amendment No. 192 is not necessary, so much the better. Of course these Amendments are, in effect, purely drafting Amendments. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I believe I can say to the noble Lord that his drafting is slightly impure. I should like to ask him to look at line 5 on page 44 of the Bill. I believe that I am right in saying that his Amendment to this line does not identify which particular "ordinary" he wants to delete, but I am sure that if his intention is to delete the first "ordinary" that appears in that line, that could be dealt with when the Bill is printed.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, but I am afraid that I did not catch which line on page 44 he mentioned.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, may I say that it is line 5 on page 44. The Amendment of the noble Lord reads:
"Page 44, line 5, leave out ("ordinary")".
I am sure that the noble Lord means the first "ordinary", because the wording goes on,
"… other than at the first ordinary election …".
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble and learned Lord, and I hope that it will be possible to proceed in the way that he indicates.

1235
Otherwise I do not see that there need be any great difficulty of interpretation involved.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 2, line 16, leave out ("ordinary").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
3.23 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 2, line 31, at end insert—
("(10) Subject to subsection (11) of this section, in rule 1 in the Second Schedule to the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 for the word ("71") there shall be substituted the words ("57 nor greater than 60").
(11) Subsection (10) of this section shall not come into operation until after the first election of members of the Assembly.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, eight weeks ago, on Budget Day to be absolutely precise, your Lordships, when in Committee, discussed an Amendment in the names of myself and the noble Lords, Lord Harmar - Nicholls, Lord Ellen-borough, and Lord Stratchclyde, which effectively provided that Scottish representation at Westminster should be harmonised with that of England before any election to a Scottish Assembly took place. We also discussed a further Amendment in the names of the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, that would have required Parliament to decide the number of Parliamentary constituencies in Scotland before, rather than after, the referendum for which the Bill provides.
The general consensus that seemed to emerge in that debate was that Scottish representation should indeed be reduced to English levels, subject to allowance for special geographical conditions. Apart from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, the only reservation seemed to be whether this Bill was the right medium for such a change. The mood of those who were somewhat sceptical about accepting the Amendments was expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Brown, in referring to the support then given to the principle of our Amendment by the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers. Lord Brown spoke as follows:
"While the noble Earl"—
1236
that is to say, Lord Ferrers—
"is spending quite a lot of time putting forward arguments to the effect that the Scottish representation is too large, I doubt whether anybody in this Committee is in disagreement with him over that. The only question which arises is whether or not the matter should be dealt with in this Bill."—[Official Report, 11/4/78; col. 515.]
In withdrawing our Amendment then it was made quite clear that this question would be returned to on Report, when our redrafting would fully have taken into account the helpful suggestions made by certain Scottish noble Lords (particularly those on the Conservative Benches) about the need to cater for a few exceptionally thinly populated Highland constituencies, and also taking into account other objections raised in Committee, particularly Government ones. For instance, we have taken note of the objection raised by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor that our Amendment as then drafted would have delayed the first election to the Scottish Assembly, and the way that it has been redrafted obviates that delay.
However, rather surprisingly, the Opposition Front Bench stole a march on the Committee by proposing, a month later, a new clause providing for a Speaker's Conference, which was broadly similar to those Amendments which had been decisively rejected by another place. Despite a rather marked lack of enthusiasm from most parts of the Chamber, the new clause was in the end approved, albeit by a small majority.
Now there are three main reasons why it is essential to return at this stage of the Bill to the question of Scottish representation at Westminster. First, the new clause on a Speaker's Conference suffers from so many defects and inadequacies that some further provision is required, either as an alternative, or to supplement and strengthen the Speaker's Conference clause. Secondly, the Committee passed the clause under an important, but totally mistaken, belief as to the motives of another place for having rejected a Speaker's Conference Amendment. Thirdly, some Members of the Committee may well have been influenced by the speech of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, which was quite extraordinarily misleading and inaccurate as to the history of, and the raison d'etre for, the present Scottish over-representation, as I

1237
shall explain in a moment. I must apologise in advance for what may be a somewhat lengthy speech, but this Amendment is so important that it is vital to set the record straight, so that no one is under delusions when it comes to the vote.
First, I must explain the wording of the Amendment before us. Scottish representation is fixed by the House of Commons (Redistribution of Seats) Act 1949 at "not less than 71". This Amendment will change it to not less than 57, nor greater than 60. Fifty-seven is the number which would provide equal representation with England, and, very significantly, it is the number recommended by the Kilbrandon Commission, subject to allowance for special geographical conditions. This is why the leeway of up to 60 is suggested—to cater for the sparsely populated areas in the Highlands. Incidentally, the figure of 60 would leave Scottish constituencies with an average electorate 5 per cent. smaller than the average English electorate.
The Amendment to our Amendment, in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Harmar-Nicholls and Lord Ellenborough, would allow a maximum of 63, which figure would mean that Scotland would still be over-represented by as much as 10 per cent. compared with England. I think that this is unjustifiably high, but I appreciate that many noble Lords who live in Scotland, and who are in a far better position than I to speak about the special difficulties of remote constituencies, may be able to convince me otherwise. I shall be interested to hear what they have to say.
I also think that the Amendment as it stands would he more suitable if the Speaker's Conference clause were to be deleted at one stage or another (whether in this House, or in another place) and the choice of the number of constituencies was left to the Boundary Commission. After all, it is a function of a Boundary Commission to work within the fairly concise parameters laid down by Parliament; whereas, if the Speaker's Conference clause remains in the Bill, perhaps the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, would be more suitable, as it would give the Speaker's Conference a greater range of options from which to choose.
The timing of the proposed boundary changes would operate as follows. The Boundary Commission is under a statutory obligation to submit its next report to the Secretary of State no earlier than June 1979, and no later than June 1984. If past form is anything to go by, it will be much nearer the later date. The Amendment cannot come into operation until after the first Assembly election, which is likely to be towards the end of this year, assuming that the Bill goes through. So the Boundary Commission for Scotland would probably have a good four years to do the necessary work. However, if there were some unforeseen problem, the Secretary of State can always fall back on Clause 81 which empowers him to bring different provisions of the Act into operation on different days.
If the Speaker's Conference clause remains in the Bill, then the Conference will choose a figure from within the range permitted by whichever Amendment is finally chosen. If the clause is deleted, then the Boundary Commission will decide the figure—just as it does now—subject to the approval of Parliament. In fact, in the only previous Statute which set up devolved government within the United Kingdom—namely, the Government of Ireland Act 1920—Northern Irish representation was reduced to 12, and the figure was simply inserted into the Act without any Speaker's Conference, but of course there is no need to follow precedent too strictly. It is possible to argue that our Amendment should come later in the Bill, rather than in Clause 1, but this is a matter which can always be rectified at a later stage.
Next, it is necessary to emphasise why the clause on the Speaker's Conference, even if it were to get through another place unscathed, is so utterly inadequate. Its main defect is that it does not get convened until after the Assembly has been set up. This runs directly contrary to what the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, emphasised in Committee:
"They"—
that is, those who are going to vote in the referendum—
must know what they are buying. They must know whether they are buying over-representation plus an Assembly, or an Assembly without over-representation".—[Official Report, 11/4/78; col. 538.]

1239
People really must know how their representation is going to be affected before rather than after the referendum. Parliament would be committing a fraud on the people of Scotland—selling them a pig in a poke—if it fails to make the necessary consequences explicitly and abundantly clear. Some people, after all, may legitimately prefer over-representation to devolution; and those people have a right to know the options in advance so that they can vote "No" accordingly; just as they are entitled to decide that the near certainty that an Assembly would have to have tax-raising powers in order to function effectively is too heavy a price to pay for the supposed benefits of devolution.
The House of Commons has never directly debated the question of representation in any of the three devolution Bills—it has always been hidden under discussion on Speaker's Conferences—and it has never had a chance to vote on it. Therefore, if this Amendment were passed in this House we should not be "lecturing another place on what it should be doing"—I trust we shall hear no more of this; we should be giving it a chance, in fact the only chance it will have, of expressing its opinion on representation, and I hope that even those very few noble Lords who favour continued over-representation will join us in giving another place this valuable opportunity.
But the question of the timing of the Speaker's Conference is only one part of the story. The essence of a Speaker's Conference is unanimity, or near unanimity. It is supposed to reflect an agreed constitutional consensus, and where the Party bosses are in agreement this is exactly what happens as the membership of a Speaker's Conference is chosen with considerable care by those with the power of appointment and patronage. In this context it may be interesting to quote what Mr. Bernard Levin has to say in The Times this morning. He praises genuinely independent inquiries in contrast to what he describes as the fraudulent kind, their 'composition rigged by the Party leaders to get a predetermined result, such as a Speaker's Conference.
Because the official Labour Party line is to say that over-representation will remain unchanged one can be sure that
1240
a Speaker's Conference on Scottish representation would be totally futile and counter productive unless it were supplemented, or better still replaced, by this Amendment. That is why Mr. Tam Dalyell, echoing the sentiments of many other MPs in the Commons debate, remarked that a Speaker's Conference might as usefully spend the time of busy people searching for a crock of gold under the rainbow. It is surely right in any case that major constitutional changes should be argued out on the Floor of the House rather than packed off to a Speaker's Conference for some cosy consensus to be imposed subsequently on quite possibly reluctant Back-Benchers. Nor is it the case, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, mistakenly suggested on 16th May, that the Lords' Speaker's Conference Amendment differs from those already rejected by the Commons in that the Commons Amendments would have delayed the setting up of the Assembly. This is not in fact the case as closer scrutiny of the Commons Amendments and the ensuing debates will demonstrate.
I hope that the Liberals will support this Amendment. The Liberals unreservedly favour the Kilbrandon proposals—that is to say, a reduction to 57 in the number of Scottish seats. There was nothing to stop the Liberals from introducing a Bill to implement the Kilbrandon proposals earlier this Session when plenty of Parliamentary time was available, at least in your Lordships' House, but no doubt they had other things on their minds then. However, this Amendment will give them the opportunity to get what they want very much sooner than they would otherwise get it.
It may be pertinent to observe that West Country constituencies in England are very much under-represented compared with similar types of constituencies in Scotland, particularly in and around the Scottish Border. I suggest that they have as many disadvantages—for instance, it takes as long, if not longer, to get to Cornwall by train as it does to the Scottish Border. I wonder what the electors of North Cornwall. North Devon and Truro would think if they read that the Party who represents them in Parliament had voted against giving them parity with Liberal-held constituencies in Scotland.
One other point must be made in view of the assertion by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor in column 517 on 11th April, that an Amendment to provide parity would result in ill will, with very serious consequences. No less a newspaper than the Scotsman wrote in a leading article on 20th April—
"Scotland's over-representation is to be maintained because it suits Labour's electoral advantage. That cannot be justified, though parity for votes in Scotland and England would be perfectly acceptable".
Note, my Lords, the words "perfectly acceptable". Of course it would be acceptable. It would be fair, and would be seen to be fair. It is also relevant that the political correspondent of the Glasgow Herald wrote somewhat later an article entitled "Scots voice at Westminster may be muted", and this was expressed without any breath of criticism.
There is one final point to be answered, as it is the most dangerous and the most inaccurate of all the charges made against the principle behind the Amendment. This is the no doubt inadvertent myth propagated by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, when he said:
"I must emphasise that what Members of this Committee must fully appreciate is that the Treaty of Union wrote in over-representation for Scotland ".—[Official Report, 16/5/78; col. 195.]
He continued by saying—and this is the dangerously misleading part:
"Those who are now saying that we should come to population parity or something of that kind are really saying that we should re-write the Treaty of Union. If that is not a recipe for breaking up the United Kingdom, I do not know what is … I wonder whether I am in some kind of asylum ".—(col. 195.)
The facts should be recorded punctiliously and dispassionately. They were set out by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, on 11th April in Committee and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor did not attempt in any way to repudiate them. The fact is that under the Treaty of Union Scotland had only 52 per cent. to 53 per cent. of the representation to which she was numerically entitled. As Professor George Pryde, senior lecturer in Scottish history at Glasgow University wrote in his book, The Treaty of Union—
"England, generous in financial and economic matters, was niggardly as regards Scottish participation in the Parliament of Great Britain; and Scotland was therefore condemned to 175 years of under-representation at Westminster".
1242
He goes on to point out that the 1832 Reform Bill still meant that Scotland was under-represented by about one-third. The 1867 Act left Scotland under-represented by about 12 per cent. Only in 1885 was justice to all parts of the United Kingdom finally done and parity established. That is surely the criterion we should be aiming at. Since 1885 the pendulum of "unfairness", if you like to describe it that way, has swung in the opposite direction. The 1918 Act was not perhaps excessively unfair from the English point of view, with Scotland only very slightly over-represented, although Wales was more so. Not until as late as 1949 was the glaring inequity that we have today enacted under Mr. Attlee's Administration—even here, I suspect, more by accident than by design. So, far from dating back over 270 years, institutionalised over-representation for Scotland is an aberration less than 30 years old.
The wording of this Amendment may seem slightly complex to those noble Lords who have not had time to glance at the 1949 Act, but the issue is a perfectly straightforward one. It is a simple question of fairness and justice. Those noble Lords who believe in justice for all the people of the United Kingdom, and not merely a small but politically significant segment, will be voting for this Amendment. I beg to move.
3.39 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS moved, as an Amendment to the Amendment, Amendment No. 5:
In last line of subsection (10), leave out ("60") and insert ("63").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name and that of my noble friend. I hasten to assure my noble friend Lord Monson that this Amendment, a very minor Amendment to his main submission, is in no way a criticism of his Amendment. I feel that, because of the surrounding circumstances of this Bill as outlined and presented, a show of generosity even beyond the point of rigid fairness may pay dividends. Noble Lords may notice that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has said that instructions would be given to a Speaker's Conference that they would have to amend, within the range of reducing the 71 seats in Scotland to between 57 and 60; therefore they would have a

1243
margin of three to play with in terms of Parliamentary instruction. My Amendment provides for between 57 and 63, giving a margin of six seats in order to face the possible charges of prejudice, if the net result of their deliberations, which I am certain it would be—I mean the deliberations of a Speaker's Conference—meant that there had to be a reduction in the number of Parliamentary seats.
This is not a technical Amendment, and the point put by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, from the Cross-Benches is not a technical point. There is a vital principle behind it; and, in dealing with the unfairness that is within that principle, timing is going to be of the essence. It is accepted on all sides, except in the Labour Party—the Conservative Party; the Liberals, through the mouth of their Leader; the Scot-Nats and the Kilbrandon Report have all said it; some Members of the Labour Party, not from any prejudice but as a fact—that in terms of population, in terms of representation from Scotland to the Westminster Parliament, when they send 71 Members they have more in proportion than England or any other part of the United Kingdom. It is perfectly clear that, however it came about, whatever reason started it, the position is that Scotland is over-represented as compared with the rest of the United Kingdom.
I believe that, if it had not been for this devolution Bill, that would have gone on without question, and I doubt whether much would have been done about it. But this devolution Bill creates a completely different atmosphere, because the devolution Bill is giving full powers to a Scottish Assembly to do things in housing, education and other areas of that sort, over which the English Parliament will have no control, and yet it will still leave Scottish Members—over-represented, as has been generally accepted—to cast their vote and to bring their influence to bear on matters to do with housing, education and such things in England. That cannot be right; and if it is that one realises that this devolution Bill does bring about such a change of circumstance, I would think that common sense would have indicated that that was the time for Scotland to make a gesture, at any rate, to the rest of the United Kingdom and to say that, in return for the special, new powers given
1244
to Scotland to deal with their own affairs, they, in return, were prepared to make a gesture to show that they did not want to go on using their influence over English affairs in an over-represented way.
I would think that they would have wanted to make that as an offer, much less having it argued in debate and, I hope, voted on (and I hope voted on with some success) later. I would have thought that the Government spokesman would have seen that point and that it would have caused him to make such a gesture. It could only have helped him in the task of getting through a Bill which is a pretty rough, tough and inadequate one, if not a dangerous one; but to want the penny and the cake, and to completely disregard any possible reactions which may come from any other part of the United Kingdom, is insensitive and wrong. Their appetite for wanting the Scottish Labour votes in the House of Commons must be a very strong one if it causes them to overlook the absolute fairness of what I am saying. So I believe that we ought to look at this and mean to do something about it, and hope that the other place will see the same merit and will confirm whatever it is that we do.
We are at the Report stage on this Bill, and the sort of arguments which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, has put forward and the ones which I am putting forward now are arguments which were put forward at some length and in some detail at the Committee stage. We made it perfectly clear that we did not want to push it to a vote at Committee stage because we wanted to see the sort of answers we got both from the Government Front Bench and from Government supporters, to see whether this obvious unfairness which we could see had some answer to it. The only answer we had from the Minister in order to justify continuing what is, according to the Kilbrandon Report, an unfairness was given under two headings. First we had the historical answer from the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, which I shall deal with in a minute—it has no basis whatsoever, is not relevant and is the sort of argument I would expect somebody to use when they have no other argument but have to say something—and then there was the other, very peculiar argument, which I found rather distasteful. The other argument was that even if it is unfair, even if they are

1245
over-represented, even if they have these special powers in Scotland; it would cause moderates in Scotland to become extremist if you did anything about it. I thought that was quite a distasteful argument: that you must not do what is right because it may cause somebody who is reasonably moderate now to become immoderate out of spite.
Those were the only two arguments that we had in Committee, and I believe the first of them can be completely discounted. Let me deal with it now. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, quoted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said about it being part of the deal which took place under the Act of Union. It was nothing of the sort. The historical answer has no real argument to support it. The reason why the over-representation of Scotland has taken place—and it was inadvertent; nobody did it deliberately—is the simple, historical one that Scotland's population has not grown at the same rate as England's population. Under the Act of Union to which the noble and learned Lord referred, there was no deal such as, "We give you this extra number of seats in order to justify the Act of Union". It was not a deal: it was a decision properly arrived at. Whether it was right or wrong, I do not know, but that was the basis of it then; and the reason why it has now gone out of proportion is that the population in Scotland has not grown as much as the population in England.
There were two ways to deal with that situation. The first was to reduce the representation from Scotland and the second was to increase the representation from England. But if you increase the representation from England, with the eight or ten seats that that would require, then it would interfere even with the seating arrangements in another place and make Parliament that much bigger and un-wieldy. But the fact that this has not come about has nothing whatever to do with a "bargain" which would be broken if we altered it now, so I do not think that that explanation ought to be taken into account; it really has no base. As to the second one, about the fear of making moderates immoderate, I find that so unpleasant, as I said, that I would hope that your Lordships would discount that, too. I do not believe that merit, fairness and logic—confirmed by the Kilbrandon Report, which went into the matter im-
1246
partially and in great detail—should be ignored in order to give priority to mere political expediency; and I believe that now is the time to avoid future conflict by letting it be seen (if it is that this Bill eventually becomes an Act) that Scotland, in return for the extra powers which they are getting under the devolution Bill, recognise this unfairness and are using the time at which they receive their advantage as an occasion to go some way, at any rate—and under my Amendment they are going only some way—to rectify that unfairness.
Now the Government have tried to meet that by Clause 64, if it remains in the Bill, which your Lordships may read, where it is provided that there will be a Speaker's Conference that will look at this matter some time after the first Assembly has met. The reason why I do not think your Lordships can leave that standing without the added support of the Amendment to which I am now speaking is this. If we did it that way, we would be cheating the people of Scotland, because this Bill will not become an Act (at least, I presume it will not) until after we have had the referendum—although I have never had any clear understanding from any Government speeches that if the referendum goes against it they will not try to introduce this sort of Act in another way; but we will work on the basis that everybody would play fair. They have got to have a referendum to decide whether or not this will become the law and whether devolution will take place.
If it is, and it ought to be, that there is going to be less representation in the House of Commons from Scotland as part of the deal for getting devolution, then the people ought to know that before they vote in the referendum. They ought to know that because if one waits until the first Assembly has been called, 12 months after that, and then their membership in the House of Commons has to be reduced, they will be entitled to feel that they have been cheated; because I would suggest that there would be many people in Scotland who, if they have to choose between the supposed extra powers given under the devolution Bill and the authority and powers that they have through their representation in the House of Commons, would prefer the House of Commons' representation to that under the devolution Bill. I have no doubt about that.
If that is to be the outcome, then, before we get to the stage of a referendum, the people of Scotland ought to know that. I believe that it is essential that we give another place a chance of looking at this Bill with that point very much in mind. That is why I hope that your Lordships will think it worthwhile going into the Lobby if the Government Front Bench indicate that they are not prepared to accept this Amendment, or something like it, in order that we can have the position made perfectly clear.
To reiterate the point, we know that the average size of an English constituency is 66,000, and we know that 11 of the 71 Scottish seats have electorates of fewer than 40,000. That is a discrepency that cannot be allowed to remain. There ought to be some discrepancy, of course—one can accept that—to take account of the vast areas that have to be covered because of the lower population; and there has to be, in numerical terms, some apparent disparity in representation, but the disparity which exists at the present time is much too great. This is the danger that I should like the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to keep in mind. I have found him very fair in presenting all the points as written into the Bill; but I have found him a little out of touch. Perhaps that is because he is not a politician, perhaps because, unlike some of us, he has not had to fight elections to get to Parliament. He has not had the chance to realise how strongly people feel about using their votes.
I should like to assure the noble and learned Lord—and this is based on nearly 30 years' experience in another place, having gone through 10 or 12 General Elections, and, including local government, 18 elections—that when the time arrives (as it will; and I guarantee the time has got to arrive) where some vital matter of principle is going to alter the law of the land, or even alter the constitution of this country, and if you get the situation (as you will; it must happen) where the English majority want to do something different from what the over-represented Scottish representatives decide by their votes to do, then, at the minute that that time arrives, you will have this explosion that I have referred to from time to time.
I believe that it will be dangerous and may be dirty; but I think it will be dirtier than it need be if we cannot say that in the time of passing this Bill we recognised this danger and that Scotland made some contribution in advance to try to deal with it. If we could say that in the acceptance of the Bill which gave them extra powers for devolution, Scotland, quite willingly at the behest of the Government, agreed to their representation being reduced from the present 71 down to 63 or 60, or whatever the Speaker's Conference may decide, then I believe—and I say that my instinct on this is based on a reasonable experience in these matters—it can, to some extent, mitigate the extent and depth of the danger that will come. It is as certain as night follows day that there will be issues in the future, as there have been issues in the past, where the vote from Scotland and Wales has overborne the vote from England. As long as we are a United Kingdom, it is right that that should happen; for we are all part of one. But if by this devolution Bill, it is made that we are not one, that there is separation to some extent—and this a separation which is only the beginning—then this brings to light all these feelings of being wrongly dealt with that would not othewise exist.
In anticipation of that situation, if we are to have this Bill at all—and I hope that we will not have it in this form; I hope that something will happen whereby we will be able to get together and produce something infinitely better and less dangerous and more trustworthy—and if by the vote of this minority Government, a Government which represents only 28 per cent. of the electorate, this Bill becomes an Act, at any rate let us make it so as to defuse, to some extent, some of the terrific emotions and dangers that will flow on that very day when you get Scottish votes interfering with what the majority of people in England think they want.
I do not believe that these are loose words or immoderate words. Let us look at the history of what has happened in this country since 1945, where we have seen our way of life, the economy and the general way of living completely altered, very much against the wishes of the English Members of Parliament, very much against all these major issues which

1249
have altered our way of life! If it had been left to the English representatives in the elected Chamber along the corridor, these things would not have happened in that form. They have happened only because of the Labour Party votes which have been produced from Scotland and from Wales. The English have accepted this, and rightly so; for they are part of the United Kingdom, we are part of the one; while in this Bill they are being made not part of the one.
Unless some gesture is made in order to recognise that, then I forecast, with no joy, that in the not too very distant future we shall be giving future generations some trouble and upset that we would not wish to put upon our children. I am merely supplementing the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. My Amendment is slightly more generous than his. I am saying that I recognise the possibility of altering it downward. Let us make it that we give them six seats extra to what they are really entitled to have in order to show that there is no bias and no prejudice on the part of those who put forward these arguments.
May I address a word to my noble friends on the Opposition Front Bench? I have gathered that there is just a possibility that they may not be as enthusiastic as I am about asking your Lordships to go into the Lobby in support of this Amendment. If that is true—and I hope that what I am saying may be untrueߞI would hope that they would give some guidance on these matters. It has been hinted to me that the reason that they would take that line at this stage is because they feel that this House ought not to interfere with what is essentially a House of Commons matter. But if your Lordships carry that logically to its conclusion, your Lordships will never do anything. If you carry that to its logical conclusion, your Lordships are recognising and satisfying yourselves that this House is just a consultative Chamber. We are part of Parliament. We have given more time to these discussions than, because of the guillotine, they have given in the other place. We have a duty to give them some guidance or some suggestions. We do it in the knowledge that they still have the power to turn it down if, for any reason, they do not want it. But to denigrate your Lordships' own powers in advance,
1250
and to say that because somebody may feel that you are treading on their territory you therefore ought not to do what you honestly think is right to do, is not, I think, the right way of conducting your Lordships' affairs. If that is so, then we arc recognising in advance that we are not part of Parliament.
So I urge your Lordships to take into account what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said and recognise the extra generosity which my Amendment gives to his Amendment. It could well be that the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will accept my Amendment in place of his own figures in order to do this and I hope that, because of the future date and because of the existing fairness and logic in the argument which has been presented, your Lordships will—whether you receive guidance from any Front Benches at all—make your own decision and go into the Lobbies. Let us put this on the record and leave the House of Commons to produce better arguments to upset it if it eventually thinks fit to do so.
4 p.m.
Lord STRATHCLYDE: My Lords, we have listened to two English voices speaking for fair play as they see it. Perhaps I may be permitted to say one word and say it as a Scotsman. It is that I do not believe that my fellow-countrymen want to have any unfair advantage over those who are our fellow-citizens and who come from England. I do not believe for one moment that they want it and therefore I shall certainly support this Amendment, believing it to be the wish of my fellow countrymen to have fair play all round.
The Earl of ONSLOW: My Lords, I put my name to this Amendment because it seemed to me an Amendment which stretched across all spectrums in your Lordships' House. I speak now in a way which is possibly dishonourable. I do it in this way because I am a Member of your Lordships' House—which is something of which I am inordinately proud—and I speak as a United Kingdom Peer. But this Bill is forcing me and several others to speak as English Peers or Englishmen. That is something which makes me infinitely sad and infinitely depressed.
I have re-read all the speeches in the two previous debates upon this subject.

1251
There has been no understanding on the part either of the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor or of the favourite up-and-coming politician of the Economist, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey. I am not being patronising or untruthful; I think one can say generously that he has mastered his brief, even though we do not agree with him. Neither of these Peers has realised the force of the possible English backlash and its consequent bad effect upon Scotland. The Conservatives have recognised that a problem exists. This is a major advantage; this is a major advance over their opponents. They will not follow it logically, they will not follow it to its conclusion and recognise that we must therefore say to the Scots, "If you are going to have the privilege of devolution, you cannot then have the privilege of over-representation". Privilege and responsibility go together: the one is the handmaiden of the other. Privilege should not go with privilege, and responsibility does not go with responsibility. They are both inter-connected.
The arguments that the House of Lords should not lecture the House of Commons on its composition seem to be based on an attitude of mind verging on servility. The House of Commons never ceases to lecture the House of Lords and the public surrounding it on the total illogicality of our House's composition. That composition is illogical. I would not hesitate to pretend that many of us have any popular backing for what we say or do except that we do it—and I believe the words are on the Writ of Summons—"On our own honour". But your Lordships' House is full of men of distinction; men of intellectual ability; men of honour and of wisdom; men from all parts of the community; and men from most backgrounds in society.
These men have their public duty. We have our public duty, my Lords. If that public duty consists of saying to the place down the corridor, "You are making a mistake," and pointing out that the Party machines are over-represented down the corridor—for we are perhaps free of some of those ties of the Party machine—then we should say that legislation, especially constitutional legislation, is being passed which may be more to the advantage of the Party machine than it is
1252
to the advantage of the general public. In other words, I think we should be ultra-careful and try to use the pro bono publico argument.
It seems to me that the diminution of the Scots representation has been dealt with quite beautifully by the noble Lord, Lord Monson. He has done so with a piece of intellectual and logical thought which I would hesitate even to attempt. Noble Lords opposite may not be influenced by intellectual, logical and sensible speeches. Perhaps they will be influenced by passion. Sometimes I may be a little too passionate. Sometimes I may say things slightly more strongly than is customary in your Lordships' House. I am trying hard to be restrained and mild, but I can promise you, my Lords, that the passion is there.
I love the United Kingdom; it is the greatest country in which one can possibly live. Anybody who messes it about and puts that Union in danger should bear anathema on his head from generation unto generation. If Scotland is over-represented, and Scotland does have this extra privilege over the English, then the Union will be in danger and the English will react. The benefit which we have all gained from the Union will be at risk. That is something which is too special and too good to be put at risk. One way to take away the danger of putting that Union at risk is to make sure that the obvious unfairness, injustice and illogicality of Scots over-representation is removed.
The Speaker's Conference argument was put forward at an earlier stage. All I would respectfully suggest to your Lordships is that this Amendment or the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls—if that is accepted—reinforces the Speaker's Conference argument. I hope that your Lordships will follow the extraordinary grouping of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, myself, the noble Lord, Lord Wigg, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, into the Lobby this afternoon.
4.9 p.m.
Lord WIGG: My Lords, may I express my apologies for not being present for the whole of the debate—
Several noble Lords: The Derby!
Lord WIGG: Precisely, my Lords! Having reduced a certain event at Epsom down to three possible happenings, I am glad to say that I was right and I backed the winner. I am quite sure, my Lords, that you would like me on your behalf to express our congratulations to another Member of this noble House—the noble Earl, Lord Halifax—on having had the good fortune to own the winner of the Derby. I certainly congratulate him, not only from my heart but, more substantially, from my pocket.
On 11th April, during the Committee stage of this Bill, I invited your Lordships to support an Amendment that I had placed on the Marshalled List and which had some support, at least to the extent of its being suggested that I should withdraw it and return to the subject at Report stage. The Amendments which are in the names of the noble Lords, Lord Monson and Lord Harmar-Nicholls, have my support for general political reasons. During the debate on 11th April, we had the arguments against what we wanted to do: that is to say, that if devolution was to go through then in fact the question of Scottish representation must be looked at again and certainly would be looked at again on a continuing basis. As I expressed it: Jack is out of the box and Jack will not go back into the box again now, knowing what the facts and figures of the situation are.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, when he came to reply, said at one stage that he did not know whether or not he was in a madhouse—quite clearly he must at some time have been in one to be worried about the possible alternative. I have not shared that experience but I must confess that, having read his speech and having listened to the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, I wondered whether somebody should not be in a madhouse and I felt that it would not be me, because the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, argued that within the Act of Union it was implicit that there would be, apparently for all time, Scottish over-representation. In fact, as I understood it, one of the major causes of the '45 was, according to the noble and learned Lord's reading of history that the Scots did not have sufficient representation.
When the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor came to deal with the
1254
matter, he put forward the argument—and it is one with which I substantially agree—that it is a matter of the sovereignty of Parliament. If the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey will look at col. 519 of Hansard for 11th April, he will find that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor said:
"what Parliament has given Parliament will be able to take away …".
I am sure that the doctrine as expressed in those terms is absolutely right, because what an earlier Parliament has given another Parliament can subsequently take away. That is to say, no Parliament can legislate for all time. Whatever view any Member of your Lordships' House may take of this problem, no-one can deny that, accepting the formula of equality of representation, or, as I would put it, the desirability of "one vote, one value", the Scots have had more than their share. If therefore we propose to redistribute power—and that is what the devolution Bill is about—within the United Kingdom, then quite clearly all the factors that make up the expression of power must and will be taken into account.
I am not opposed to devolution per se; I am not opposed to centralisation, or whatever you like to call it; but my view of history—a much more simple one than that of those who have had the great advantage of going to the classical universities—is that what has made Britain "tick" down the ages has been the unity of the British people. Anyone who puts on the anvil the integrity of the United Kingdom is, in my judgment, going very near to treason, at least at the bar of history. This is my objection to the Common Market: it takes away from the unity of the British people and passes it off to a bureaucracy in Brussels. It may be a much better system of government. It may be much more efficient, but if we do that and if the consequences have to be reaped by people who have not been thoroughly educated in the functioning of power, then we are laying up immeasurable stores of trouble for ourselves.
I will not be a party—I refuse to be a party—to supporting the concept of the Community, and I refuse to support this Bill, whatever the consequences may be. I believe it to be utterly wrong in principle but, my Lords, democracy has its say and if in fact it is to be placed on the Statute

1255
Book I should be failing in my duty if I did not lend my voice, for what it may add up to, to point out that you may do this but that as men sow so shall they reap, and you are going to place strains and stresses upon the unity of the British people which may arouse something which has not been aroused since the 17th century, namely, English nationalism.
If the English people have to pay the bill for an irresponsible political Act, devised only for the convenience—and, in my view, the transient convenience, rather than the long-term advantage, because I do not believe there is a long-term advantage—of the Labour Party, and if the Labour Party introduces a devolution Bill because it is afraid of the growth of Scottish nationalism and its political consequences, then in my judgment that must call into question the representation here. Alternatively, to put it in another way, it calls into question the redistribution of power which must inevitably follow as surely as night follows day as a consequence of the passing of this Act. Therefore, I believe that all Members of this House who hold views somewhat similar to mine and believe that above all the integrity of the United Kingdom must be maintained, will support in principle the Amendments on the Marshalled List. I will certainly go into the Lobby to support them.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I should like to add a further Scottish voice to the support of these Amendments. I shall be as brief as was the last Scottish voice—that of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde—which I am very happy to join, because the arguments have surely been fully deployed in all their persuasiveness. I would say only this: that I think the House is in debt to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for raising this matter in these Amendments. He apologised for making a long speech but I think your Lordships would agree with me that there was no need for that apology and that we are indeed in debt to the noble Lord for raising this matter and presenting it in the way he did.
4.18 p.m.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, as one of the six who have put their names down in support of these two Amendments, perhaps I might be allowed to
1256
say a few words. The two Amendments are very similar in character. It is really just a matter of degree, but an important degree. The Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls and myself I think is rather more flexible and takes more account of the large rural areas in the North of Scotland, and so on. But one thing is clear, and that is that the question of Scottish representation at Westminster has to be faced fair and square once a Scottish Assembly has been set up. I would say it is absolutely vital that the price tag attached to devolution should be shown in the shop window before the referendum, so that the Scottish electorate know what they are voting for, and that if devolution is to go through it must inevitably entail a reduction in representation at Westminster. Otherwise, as I said on a previous occasion, it seems to me that the prospectus will be a fraudulent one, and realisation on the part of the electorate only after a referendum could cause great resentment.
With respect to my own Front Bench, I believe that the plans for a Speaker's Conference are really far too nebulous and simply will not put the issue with sufficient clarity to the electors. It really is no good the Government huffing and puffing about the Act of Union setting out in some sacrosanct way the terms of Scottish over-representation over the years. Several noble Lords have done their homework on this. I think the noble Lord, Lord Monson, quoted from Professor Pryde; I should just like to repeat what the Professor said in his book on the history of Scotland from 1603 to the present day in relation to the 1984–85 reform:
"Since the reallocation of seats was strictly based on the distribution of population, Scotland, with an increased quota of 72 members out of 670, was at last justly represented".
So it is simply not so that Scotland has been over-represented since the Act of Union.
The important point is that it is the Government who are changing the status quo and, for the first time since the Act of Union, the whole position will be different. Scotland will have its own Assembly with far-reaching powers. There will be new constitutional innovations, ill-thought out, fraught with dangers to the Union, and there is bound to be immediate resentment when, after the

1257
Assembly has been set up, Scottish Members are seen to be voting upon and determining issues affecting England. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls has mentioned all this far more eloquently than I can. But it is manifestly unfair and cannot be sustained, because the dynamics of politics are such that this situation will not be acceptable to any Party. It will not be acceptable to the Conservative Party, and the fact that, if it were acceptable, it would benefit the Labour Party does not mean that it could be sustained for more than a short time. The whole thing reeks of political expediency.
I note that later in the Report stage there is an Amendment, No. 176, on the question of voting by Scottish Members of Parliament. This is a very ingenious Amendment and I think that it will have my support. But it seems to me very doubtful, to say the least, that the British genius for compromise and muddling-through will work by means of a complicated formula, so that Scottish Members of Parliament vote on English legislation the first time round but not, as it were, on the replay. I should have thought that, in these days of very tight Parliamentary majorities and three-line Whips, this would present enormous difficulties.
Devolution will work only if it is seen to be fair, and I feel most strongly that the Government are behaving in a shameful and cynical manner in refusing to face up to this issue and denying that there is any problem at all. After all, what Members of the Government are now saying is just not what they were saying a few years ago. In a speech last January, the honourable Member for Liverpool, Walton, Mr. Heller—if I may dare mention him in your Lordships' House—quoted what had been said some two or three years ago by the Minister of State at the Privy Council Office at a special conference of the Labour Party in Scotland, when the National Executive insisted that devolution should be part of the Labour Party's Manifesto. The Minister, Mr. Smith, has piloted a large part of the devolution Bill through another place.
What he apparently said—and Mr. Heller invited him to get up and say whether there was any incorrect reporting—was that,
1258
"members of the Party who were pressing for devolution through a Scottish Government, without loss of the Office of Secretary of State and a reduction in the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, were being dishonest. A priority for the Party was to retain the Secretary of State and the 71 MPs, but he expressed doubts about how this could be achieved if there were a Scottish Government".
As the honourable Member for Liverpool, Walton, went on, he felt that while the Minister was certainly entitled to change his mind, he might at the very least be prepared to explain why he had changed his mind and, perhaps, he had a duty and a responsibility to explain his reasons.
There is no doubt that opinion is changing in the right direction in regard to this matter. There have been realistic articles in the Scotsman and the Glasgow Herald which recognise the inevitability of reduced representation. I was very moved by the short intervention of my noble friend Lord Strathclyde a moment ago. In the debate on 16th May, the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, waxed most eloquent, and indeed was rather indignant, because in his view the English had no right to complain as they had hundreds of seats, as he put it, in a Parliament of 635 Members. Of course they have hundreds of seats, as the English electorate consists of no fewer than 83 per cent. of the United Kingdom. In fact, the English have 516 seats and, as was illustrated very clearly by the written reply to the Question of the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey, the other day, England is very much under-represented. If the average number of electors in constituencies in England and Scotland was the same, then England would have 639 seats, so that at present it has 123 too few.
I am glad to see the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, present. He is a very highly respected Member of this House and the Government. He may have had a premonition that I would mention an Answer which he gave to a Question a year or so ago. I believe that this was on 3rd March last year, and the Question concerned the number of seats in the four parts of the United Kingdom. The noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, said in answer to a supplementary question:
"… so far as the Scottish and Welsh Bills are concerned—and the noble Lord is talking about devolution—I understand that a review of representation in another place undoubtedly would be necessary".

1259
At a further stage in the exchanges on that day, he went on:
"… if there is any injustice at all, it is that England should have far greater representation than she has at the present time".—[Official Report; col. 735.]
I would make just one other point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has complained that the Opposition Amendment recommending a Speaker's Conference has funked the issue of what the Opposition think is the right number of Scottish constituencies. But there is no question of funking this matter. There is no mystery about it. The answer is quite clear in the Kilbrandon Report, and the number is 57. But as this Amendment makes absolutely clear, no one wants a rigid adherence to 57. Of course, geographical and other appropriate considerations should be taken into account. Hence the wording of this Amendment, which allows up to 63 seats, and that would mean a 10 per cent. over-representation for Scotland at a time when that country will have its own Assembly, with far-reaching powers. In fairness to the Scottish electorate, what is absolutely essential, as I said a moment ago, is that at the time of the referendum the price tag for devolution should clearly be seen in the shop window.
4.29 p.m.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, it is very useful and very necessary that this matter should be raised and ventilated in your Lordships' House, because it has not been talked about very much though the problem is there, as two of my noble friends and several other noble Lords have made clear. But I cannot support the Amendment and I give two reasons for that. I am not necessarily against this continued representation from Scotland, and I am against amending that representation in this Bill.
I do not believe that it is for the House of Lords to say how many Members of Parliament should come from Scotland, and it is not for the House of Commons to say so, either. I doubt whether it is for a Speaker's Conference to decide the question. I stand to be corrected, but I believe that it would be for a Boundary Commission to decide what representation should come from the various parts of the United Kingdom. I would suggest in any case that it should be an all-British
1260
Boundary Commission and that one should not make a distinction as to the part of Britain in which these various constituencies are situated. Then they could make adjustments for sparsity, distance from Westminster, and so on, in the normal way. It may be that, even after a review by a Boundary Commission, Scotland would have more representation per capita than does England, and I do not believe that that would matter at all.
The question to which this Amendment does not address itself, although I believe that it is the important one, is the West Lothian question: the one named after the heroic efforts of my honourable friend Mr. Tam Dalyell, who pointed out that it is not a question of over- or under-representation, which may be accidental, but whether upon certain matters like health, housing or social services which are devolved to the Assembly under the Bill, Scottish Members should continue to vote when they affect England. There is an Amendment, Amendment No. 176, which deals with that question, and I hope to be here to speak upon it. Meanwhile, I repeat that I am afraid that I cannot support this Amendment.
Lord FORBES: My Lords, I should like to support this Amendment. I cannot believe that any Scot wants to be over-represented in any Parliament. I am sure that that is absolutely wrong. The whole of the Bill represents nothing but appeasement of the Scottish Nationalists. Surely we have learned by now that appeasement has never paid. Instead of wasting its time upon this Bill, it would be very much better if Parliament paid some attention to our defence, or the lack of it, because that is where the danger lies. Furthermore, I simply cannot understand how any Government can bring the most important constitutional issue of our time before Parliament and then guillotine it. If that can happen, I believe that anything can happen.
The Earl of LAUDERDALE: My Lords, it would be a pity if we were to allow the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, to go unanswered before we come to the "crunch". The noble Lord suggested that it is none of our business to tamper with the structure of another place, but what we are seeking to do is to give another place the chance to consider its own structure. The noble Lord

1261
also said that it is not for a Speaker's Conference but for a Boundary Commission to settle matters of this kind. But of course a Boundary Commission ultimately takes its instructions from a Speaker's Conference. Whatever be the history of the disparity, the over-representation that now exists reflects a deep and still growing economic disparity between Scotland and the South, and it goes to the heart of the issues which lie behind this Bill.
I am a repatriate Scot. From the age of seven I dreamed and prayed that one day I might grow up and live and work for Scotland. My prayer was not answered until I was 40. One prayer which I did not think of then, and it is too late now, was to be given a "Scot's tongue in ma heid". However, I was educated abroad, by which I mean Sussex, and I was reared abroad, by which I mean Staffordshire. Therefore I look at this matter as a repatriate Scot who has come to observe his fellow countrymen with envy, awe and surprise but always with affection. One thing which I think I can say as a repatriate Scot is that the Scots are always generous, reasonable and loyal. They are very generous, they are very reasonable and they are very loyal once they have grasped the issue.
The issues that are shrouded in this Bill are gradually becoming clearer to the people of Scotland, as some recent political events have made clear. The by-election at Garscadden is one example. The by-election at Hamilton is another. At Hamilton, there was a swing from the separatists back to the unionist-minded Labour Party, and there was an equally significant swing from the separatists to the Unionist and Conservative Party, for which I think we ought to give due credit—and I hope that my noble friend Lord Dundee will pass this on to his son—to the admirable performance of Lord Scrymgeour as a candidate in that election. The point is that there is a swing back from the seductions of a separatist outlook towards the essentials of a unionist outlook, and I say "unionist" in the sense not of the Conservative Party but of unionism within the United Kingdom, a unionism which is supported by both of the main Parties of State.
As the truths are gradually dawning on the people of Scotland and as the referendum approaches, I believe it to be vital
1262
that the essential issues should be made clearer and clearer all the time. Do the Scots really want the fullest voice at the centre of power in the United Kingdom? I believe that they do, but it is for the Scottish electorate to answer. Will this kind of devolution assist the fundamental problem of jobs and prosperity? And if the Scottish people do want this kind of devolution, surely they should, in equity, see that there is a proper price. I believe with my noble friend Lord Strathclyde and others that they should have the fair play issue fairly put before them. I am quite certain that they would scorn any unfair advantage and I, too, shall support whichever of these two Amendments is divided upon by the movers.
4.38 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, I suspect that my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General for Scotland is straining at the leash to dispose, with his impeccable logic, of this Amendment or of any similar Amendment. What seems to have been forgotten in the course of the debate— and it has been a prolonged debate with very prolonged speeches, many of which I failed to understand, although that is my misfortune and not the fault of those who were responsible for the speeches—is that we are just experimenting. That is all.
In the course of the Second Reading debate I ventured the observation, which I mention merely as an illustration, that, generally speaking, we accept the principle of devolution, which means more autonomy for the various local authorities in the country and for the people in general, whether in England, Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland. But what is extremely important—indeed fundamental—is: what is to be the nature and the content of the change that is to take place? In other words, what do we mean by devolution?
If it had been left to me, I should not have thought for a moment of the creation of another Assembly, with all this hullabaloo and lah-di-dah about numbers and so on, which I believe—I may be wrong, and I hope that my noble and learned friend will correct me if I am wrong—is very largely motivated by political conceptions. Indeed, the whole matter started in that fashion.

1263
While I listened to part of this debate and to some of the other debates which we had during the Committee stage of the Bill, I wondered whether it would not have been better to have deferred consideration of this Bill until after the Hamilton by-election. In point of fact, the Hamilton by-election has placed a quite different complexion on the whole situation. If we had had the Hamilton by-election and the Nationalists had been frustrated, if not almost completely destroyed, then we should not be arguing in this way about the numbers, the Assembly itself, its functions, whether devolved or reserved, et cetera. One could say a great deal about this, but I think the right thing to say is what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, who speaks rarely but when he speaks there is no question about his logic. He said that of course the Scots would be very fair. We know that—so long as they get their own way! Everybody recognises that and there should be no complaint about it.
However, what are we to do about this Amendment? With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who speaks so well and is undoubtedly very knowledgeable on this, as indeed he is on every subject on which he expresses an opinion, I must confess that I do not care much for his Amendment. It is politically motivated, of course, and indeed almost every speech has been politically motivated. From the Conservative point of view I can understand it. They will be asking, "How many Members are we going to have representing Scotland? Which are to be the constituencies, and are they to be the kind of constituencies which would be on the Right instead of on the Left"—and of course nothing in the centre. From the Labour point of view they will be asking, "How many constituencies are we going to have in Scotland, both for the purposes of the Assembly and also for the purposes of Westminster, which will be conducive to advantages of a political character in the future". That is what it is all about, so why are we not frank about it? Why can we not have a little more candour about it?
I suggest that on this occasion we should accept what is now in the amended Bill, because we are going to experiment. By that I mean that we start off with a particular number which on the whole
1264
appears to be fair, reasonable and related to the constituency situation, and which appears to provide a measure of autonomy for the people of Scotland which they have been demanding for a long time. As my noble friend Lord Wigg said, so long as there is no question of separation and disintegration of the United Kingdom, for that is the very last thing—I put it in my own fashion—that we can afford. We have far too much trouble on our plate. The noble Lord opposite said that, instead of talking about this, we should be talking about defence: how right he is. Then we should be able to convey our apprehensions about the future and to indulge in warnings which are derided sometimes, perhaps to our discomfiture which may be even worse than discomfiture in the future.
So I suggest that we should not trouble so much about this. It is an experiment and when the Assembly is created, and then the referendum is to come, the people of Scotland will say, "We have had enough of this". The noble Lord opposite spoke so eloquently about the wisdom that resides in the Members of the House of Lords that I felt quite flattered, because I thought I might be included. The people of Scotland will probably say, "We have had enough of this, and besides we are not going to win the World Cup so what does it matter?" I do not know whether I am making the speech which my noble and learned friend the Solicitor-General will make after me; if so, he will make it much better of course, but if he is going to dispose of the Amendment I am entirely on his side, perhaps for the first time in the course of these debates. Nevertheless, may I say, quite earnestly and sincerely but with the greatest respect and meaning no offence whatever, and certainly no malice is in my mind about it, what we have had is just a lot of tarradiddle. It is an experiment, and when you are dealing with an experiment you make your contribution to start with and then you amplify and you develop; that is what we have to do, and I suggest that that is what the Government have now provided in the amended Bill and we should rest on our laurels and leave it at that.
Lord BANKS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in proposing his

1265
Amendment was quite correct when he said that the Liberals agree with a reduced membership for Scotland in the House of Commons if a satisfactory system of devolution is achieved. While we support this Bill we have, as we have made clear, reservations about it and we would certainly want to see it in its final form first. While we are not enamoured of Speaker's Conferences, nevertheless we believe that the balance of membership between Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England should be dealt with as a whole, and we agree with the point of view expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, when he said that we should not deal with the size of the Scottish membership in the context of this Bill. Certainly we do not feel that we should attempt to set limits upon that in the context of this Bill this afternoon. It follows therefore that we oppose the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and it follows also that we should not be any happier if it were amended along the lines proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls.
4.47 p.m.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said we have had a long debate on this subject and I think it is rather remarkable but not altogether surprising that the first six speakers on these Amendments are the known opponents to the Bill. I do not blame them for that. I recognise it. They have been completely honest about it the whole time, but I think your Lordships should make note of the fact that one and all of them throughout the Committee stage have said that they are against the Bill and would like to see it out of the way, altogether. Indeed the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, nearly went so far as to divide the House on Second Reading. I only mention that, because I think it is significant when we consider the Amendments which are tabled at the present time.
I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Monson, who said that for 175 years the Scots were grossly under-represented in the House, and yet at this moment the possibility that for a very short while they might be over-represented if the Assembly as set up is a terrible affair apparently and must not be allowed for all the reasons
1266
that have been deployed. I think we should have a little patience. I think we should pay particular attention to Amendment No. 176 which calls for a Speaker's Conference if there is to be an Assembly. I should like to ask all those who have spoken so strongly in favour of this and indeed of fairness, what happens if in the referendum the answer is perhaps that there should be no Assembly. Would they still feel that there should not be over-representation? I assume from what has been said by those who supported this Amendment that they would still wish the numbers to be reduced to what is fair.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, if the noble Earl will allow me, thought I had made it perfectly clear that the reason why this point was being raised was because of this Bill. Without it, no doubt the position would carry on and everybody would wish it to carry on until it was properly dealt with along with other matters.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, we know the position of the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, and I thank him for making that clear. I wonder whether I myself would feel that, for a very long time anyhow, the representation which was palpably overweighted should remain. But for the present I think it is in every way appropriate that things should stay as they are, bearing in mind that there should be a Speaker's Conference if and when the Assembly is set up. I would say to those who quoted Garscadden and Hamilton that I personally believe that the reason for the check and decline in the vote of the Scottish Nationalists is because the people in Scotland know what they are up to. They want an Assembly. Once they see an Assembly in their grasp then the need for support by a large number of those who voted for the Scottish Nationalists is no longer relevant. I cannot prove that, but I do not think one should take too much comfort from a fall in the support for the Scottish Nationalists in those two by-elections. In the Amendment we are asked to take a number out of the hat—it should be 57, it should be 60, it should be 63. Surely that is the business of the Speaker's Conference and not for us. I for one will certainly go into the Lobby against the Amendment.
4.51 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, I think said that what we had had was a tarradiddle. I would respectfully disagree with him over that because I believe this Amendment concerns fundamentally the form of this Bill. The difficulty is that, as the Bill is constructed, what happens in the future as a result of our action is not at all easily determined now. We cannot see what the future is going to be. I find that I have a great deal of sympathy for those who say that after all the Scots are now going to have an Assembly and there will be 221 people looking after the affairs of Scotland, whereas there were only 71 before; that now that the power over Scottish domestic issues is going to be removed from Scottish Members of Parliament, that in itself is a requirement for reducing the number of Scottish Members of Parliament. Why indeed, goes the argument, should the number remain the same?
These arguments are perfectly fair and wholly just, because they were recognised by the Kilbrandon Report, and I would venture to remind your Lordships of what is said in paragraph 815:
"…it is possible to argue for the removal of the over-representation of Scotland and Wales on the grounds that it would both be undemocratic and constitute a grave injustice to the people of England if this over-representation were to be retained when Parliamentary time had very largely to be devoted to debating and legislating for England on matters for which Scotland and Wales had their own legislative assemblies. Indeed, in those circumstances there would be much to be said for reducing the representation of Scotland and Wales below the level based on population, as was done in the case of Northern Ireland; the amount of this reduction would be a matter for discussion in the light of the extent of devolution, and it is not possible to lay down any hard and fast rules".
What has been said today is indeed part of that discussion. What has been said has in some ways been quite controversial, but it is understandable and it is valid and it is justified. But of course, other than what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, said and what the noble Earl, Lord Perth, said, it does nevertheless in the main constitute one point of view.
Who exactly can say, if one of these Amendments is passed, what the right figure is? Lord Kilbrandon said in his report that it is not possible to lay down hard and fast rules or to state a figure.
1268
The difficulty, as I see it, with these Amendments is that they do state a figure, or a limit of figures. Lord Monson's Amendment says between 57 and 60. Lord Harmar-Nicholls says, "Let us put it up to 63", and I think his expression was "to be on the safe side". Domestic issues have been devolved, and that is an argument for lowering numbers. But of course, for Scotland, the United Kingdom Parliament is still responsible for overall matters such as foreign affairs, the economy, defence, national security; and that is an argument for keeping the same representation on these very basic and important issues.
I believe that it is difficult to put a precise figure or to put a right figure upon the representation. I believe that it is right to take advice. We here on both these Amendments are picking at figures; they may be right or they may be wrong. But we passed at Committee stage an Amendment suggesting a Speaker's Conference. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, said that was futile. Another noble Lord—I forget who—said it was feeble. I accept that if you do that, the people of Scotland will not know, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, what is is they are going to buy. That is a fault with that system. On the other hand, I would suggest that it does at least provide the principle upon which advice can be taken. When such a Speaker's Conference, if it is accepted, makes its recommendation, that is the time, I should have thought, that it is right for Parliament to decide the figure, in the light of the recommendation made and having taken into account all the varying and differing factors, and not before the Speaker's Conference.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls made quite an impassioned appeal to your Lordships to vote the way that your Lordships wish to vote, irrespective of what any Front Bench says. I have no doubt at all that my noble friend and indeed your Lordships will vote exactly the way that your Lordships feel, irrespective certainly of what I have to say. I am bound to say that I have strong sentiments and sympathy for the views that have been expressed, but I do not believe that it is right to fix this figure at this juncture. I believe it is right to have advice upon this. My noble friend

1269
asks what advice would be given from this Front Bench. I would say that I could not from these Benches advise your Lordships that either of these Amendments is right. I could not advise your Lordships that the passing of either of these Amendments would be right for Scotland, right for the House of Commons or right for the House of Lords. What I do think is that the situation has changed because of this Bill; it has changed as a result of it. The change should be recognised and advice should be taken on what should be the right number of Members of Parliament to have. This we have achieved by passing the Amendment relating to the Speaker's Conference. All I can say to my noble friend Lord Monson is that that is the advice I would give him. I have no doubt that he will consider that advice and use it in whatever way he thinks fit.
5 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, we have in Committee before today debated or talked about this issue more than once. We certainly debated it at some length when we were discussing the clause which is now Clause 64 of the Bill. I think that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, made a slip of the tongue when he attributed that clause to the Government. In fact it was moved by the Front Bench opposite. We discussed the matter very fully on that occasion when we discussed the clause providing for the possibility of a Speaker's Conference to consider representation at Westminster after the first meeting of the Assembly.
Against the Government's advice and, indeed, advice from certain other parts of the House, that Amendment was carried to a Division and accepted on a narrow majority—102 votes to 93. When referring to that occasion the noble Lord, Lord Monson, suggested that I misled the House. I am distressed that that suggestion was made and I hope that the House will allow me the indulgence of replying to it more fully than I think the whole merits warrant.
The matter of the history arose in the course of that debate when the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who I am glad to see in his place now, specifically said something that I did not at any time dispute. He said on 16th May, at col. 175:
1270
"After the Act of Union in 1707, 45 Members of Parliament from Scotland attended the United Kingdom Parliament. That was considerably fewer than the comparative numbers of the populations North and South of the Border at that time would have justified. But finance and the amounts of tax paid were clearly also taken into account in those days".
I did not dispute that at any time and no one in the Committee disputed it. However, I referred to the history when I rose to speak. The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, had not gone into the history in great detail and I referred to the matter in the following words:
"If I may say one word about history, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, referred to the history, but my reading of history books has been slightly different to his"—
I am sure that I said, "slightly different from his"—
"because I think that there was a change in 1832, following the Reform Bill, and that led to an increase of eight in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament".
The noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy said:
"If the noble and learned Lord will give way, I did not follow the various changes of the Reform Bills in the last century; I said that it was not until the 1885 Bill that representation which reflected the numbers of population was reached".
I replied:
"I am obliged to the noble Lord for making his position clear on that".—[col. 194.]
Then, having in front of me Prydes' Book, volume 2 at page 53, I tried to express a passage without quoting it in full. The passage I had before me reads as follows:
"The representation of Scotland in the United Parliament was the one issue upon which the Commissioners clashed. The Scots, conscious of what they were sacrificing and jealous of their country's dignity, thought that they should have 50 Members in the House of Commons where the English had 513. But the English, used to linking the ideas of representation and taxation, and mindful of Scotland's small revenue—about one-fortieth of England's—suggested 38. The figure agreed upon was 45 with a proportional number—16—of Scottish peers to sit in the House of Lords".
On a taxation basis Scotland would have had 13 Members, I think, in the Union Parliament. On a population basis I do not know what number it would have had, but in 1707 there was no universal suffrage and representation in Parliament in those days was not upon the basis of population but upon the basis of taxation, wealth and property. Upon that basis the Scots were, in fact, offered by the English over-representation

1271
and compromised and settled for an even higher figure—namely, 45—than the 38 that was offered to them. All that appeared in a summary of that passage when I spoke at column 196 and I would refer your Lordships to it. My summary reads as follows:
"At that particular time the Scots wanted 50 seats in the Westminster Parliament, the English offered 38 and a compromise was struck with 45, but that was over-representation on any basis. In fact, the basis was probably wealth, not population, but on any basis it was overrepresentation".
Of course, what I had in mind at that time was that population was not the basis for determining what Members of Parliament there were. The noble Earl, Lord Perth, in order to clarify my remarks said to me:
"I just wish to ask the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCloskey, whether he is sure that he is right about the basis of population in regard to the figures at the time of the Act of Union and now".
I replied and I found upon this:
"I think that was not the basis upon which it was approached in 1707. It was based upon the wealth of the country and at that time I think it was estimated that the wealth of Scotland was one-fortieth of the wealth of England".—[col. 196.]
I do not believe that anything I said in the context of that debate misled the Committee.
The new clause, which is now Clause 64, was moved, as I have said, by the Front Bench opposite. If I may say so, I thought that at the time there was some little embarrassment on the part of the official Opposition because it was very reluctant to be tied down to the numbers that it would see attending the United Kingdom Parliament post-devolution. Indeed, even today the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, in speaking about this particular Amendment and the Amendment to the Amendment, has not really made Conservative intentions in that regard any clearer. I can understand why that is so and he has explained his reasons.
I made it clear that the Government do not accept that devolution carries with it a necessary and inevitable reduction of representation at Westminster. That has been made clear by the Government since they first published their proposals in 1974. I shall not attempt to rehearse all the arguments that were given on the
1272
previous occasion or, indeed, on the occasion when the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor replied—an occasion that was also referred to this afternoon.
However, let me remind your Lordships of the main branches of the argument. First, all matters essential to the unity of the United Kingdom will remain the sole responsibility of Parliament. There can be no good argument for a reduction in the essential representation of the Scottish people at Westminster on such matters as the overall management of the economy, national security and defence, international affairs, trade and industry and the like on devolution.
Secondly, the inherent sovereignty of Parliament itself to legislate on all matters, including those to be devolved, is still to be maintained. Indeed, Parliament will be able to modify and to transform the devolution settlement itself. Again, that is not a basis for a reduction in the representation. Thirdly, the exercise of the policy override powers to reject Assembly Bills, to prevent and to require action and to revoke subordinate instruments of the Scottish Executive will be subject to Parliament's approval. In my submission that cannot be married to a reduction in Scotland's representation. Fourthly—and I try again to echo a point that I sought to make in relation to the European Parliament and Luxembourg's representation there—a simple arithmetical basis or a population basis for representation of the kind reflected by these Amendments is much too simple an approach to the composition of a Union Parliament, even though the movers of this Amendment contemplate some marginal flexibility. I remind your Lordships that there has been little relative change in the size of the electorates in Scotland, England and Wales respectively since they were reviewed by the Speaker's Conference in 1944.
I should like to return to a point which I made earlier. I ask the House to reflect upon whether our non-elected Chamber should seek to secure a reduction in the number of elected Members in the House of Commons, because that is what the Amendment would do. In our earlier debate I think that the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, very properly felt sensitive about this particular matter and so I think did the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy.

1273
Indeed, it was claimed by them that one of the virtues of the clause that they moved was that it in no way sought "to interfere or to dictate", or even "to lecture" the other place upon its numbers. I believe that the Amendment now before-us would, on the part of this House, be an unwarrantable trespass and I ask your Lordships to consider very carefully all the implications of accepting the Amendment whether in its pure form or as suggested to be amended by Amendment No. 5.
Again, I must seek to make the point that Amendments of this kind seem to threaten the people of Scotland with a reduction in their representation in the United Kingdom Parliament. Although I see that the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, disagrees with me about that, as he was good enough to explain, I think that it will be seen by many in Scotland as a threat. Therefore, it will tend to fuel the arguments of those who insist on separatism and may tend to alienate some moderate and reasonable opinion. So I do not believe that that is conducive to maintaining the unity of the United Kingdom. I believe that I am entitled to some support from the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, on this and I believe that I have it, although it was not perhaps very enthusiastic. But, certainly, as I understand it, no Front Bench is advising anyone to support this Amendment. I invite your Lordships not to accept Amendment No. 4, whether in its pure form or as sought to be amended by Amendment No. 5.
Lord HEWLETT: My Lords, before the noble and learned Lord sits down perhaps he would answer a question put by my noble friend Lord Ellenborough. It was said in this debate that the Minister of State in the Privy Council Office who piloted this Bill through the House of Commons used the word "dishonest" in reference to an expectation that Scottish membership of the House of Commons should remain at 71. If the Minister who piloted the Bill through the other place considers that it is dishonest, how can the Minister piloting the Bill through this House have any other view?—unless the Party that is trying to pilot the Bill through is speaking with two voices. I believe that Members of this House would like an answer to this paradoxical situation.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I rise to my feet. I do not think that it is for me to answer for my right honourable friend Mr. John Smith. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ellenborough, made it clear at the time when these remarks were attributed to him that he was not the Minister of State at the Privy Council Office.
Lord ELLENBOROUGH: My Lords, it was in 1974.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, at that time I think that my right honourable friend was a Back-Bencher and held no ministerial office, although he may have been the Parliamentary Private Secretary to the then Secretary of State for Scotland. I do not think that he then held a ministerial office—certainly no high ministerial office. It is not for me to answer for him. The matter was raised in another place and if an explanation is to be sought, it ought to be sought there.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I very much appreciate the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in moving his Amendment. He was absolutely right when he said that we should make clear the cost or the price of devolution. He did another valuable service in pointing out that it was only from 1949 onwards that somehow inequity has crept into this question of representation of Scotland by numbers. I do not want to delay the debate, but I should just repeat or draw attention to what I said during the Committee stage on 11th April at columns 516 and 517 of the Official Report. I then said:
"I suggest the answer may be that a constitutional convention should grow up whereby Scottish and perhaps Welsh Members in another place should always abstain from voting on matters which are of purely English concern".
I try to make that point again. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has not shown any favour at all towards the Amendments before us. I ask him: can he take on board the suggestion I have tried to make and now repeat? If he cannot, I for one will feel obliged to support the Amendments in the Lobby.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I shall speak very briefly, particularly as the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, referred to the debate

1275
that we had on 16th May and to remarks that I made on that occasion. I think that he has helped to clarify the situation. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has already quoted what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said so I shall not quote it in full again. However, he said that the Treaty of Union in 1707 wrote in over-representation for Scotland. He has made it clear today that he was speaking in terms of wealth and not in terms of population. However, as he also added some extravagant language which was not typical of him, thinking that he was in an asylum, of course, he received great prominence in the Scottish Press the next day. That is why we must put the facts on the record. He has helped in that today.
At the time of the Treaty of Union it was agreed that out of a House of Commons of 568 there should be 45 Scottish Members, and that out of a House of Lords of 206, there should be 16 Scottish Peers. That meant that although at that time Scotland's population was one-fifth of that of England—instead of one-tenth, as it is today—Scotland had-only one-twelfth of representation—thinking in terms of numbers of population—in both Houses of Parliament.
As regards the reforms, in order to save time on that occasion I did not mention the Reform Act 1832 or the Reform Act 1867. I went to the Reform Act 1884–85, which was the one that made the material difference and that added the number of Scottish Members which gave parity numerically. One of the few occasions —perhaps the only one—was 16th May when the noble and learned Lord appeared to lose his usual composure, which has been displayed during the reminder of 13 long days and nights of the Committee stage. As a result, as I said, his words found their way prominently into the Scottish Press. But he found himself defending representation, decided in 1707, on a wealth basis and not on a population basis. The representation could only be regarded as over-representation of Scotland at that time if one brought in wealth as a weighting; that is to say, about 40 to one. That was certainly an unusual argument for a Labour Government Minister to have to make in Parliament in the 1970s; of course, in those days—in
1276
the early 18th century—wealth may have been considered more important than numbers of population. But we must be clear that in terms of numbers that situation was not over-representation, and numbers, of course, is the principal criterion now. Nobody has any argument about that.
I am glad that today the noble and learned Lord has spelled it out more clearly and made it clear that on 16th May, he was speaking in terms of representation in wealth and not in terms of numbers of population. It was not comparing like with like. I think that the trouble was that in one sentence he spoke of overrepresentation of Scotland in 1707 and in the following sentence he spoke of population parity. If he reviews what he said and what was quoted by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, he will see that that was the trouble: by speaking of overrepresentation of Scotland in 1707 in one sentence and then in the consecutive sentence speaking of population parity, confusion was caused and the very short versions published in the Scottish Press were misleading. I hope that that has now been corrected.
The noble and learned Lord criticises this Amendment because he says that it would be telling the House of Commons what to do. I suggest that what is happening is that noble Lords who have tabled and moved this Amendment and noble Lords who have indicated their support for it are offering another place an Amendment which it can reject; they are not telling another place what to do. I must make that clear. However, I would also make it clear—and noble Lords will not be surprised to hear this—that I prefer the Amendment which I moved during the Committee stage and which can be regarded as much weaker, but which none the less was passed by your Lordships' House in Committee. I think that it is more appropriate and gives enormous latitude to those who have to look at this difficult question, if and when an Assembly is ever set up.
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord for giving way.
A noble Lord: Order, order, we are on Report!
Lord RAGLAN: My Lords, I am asking the noble Lord a question, which I may do if he allows me to. I am not clear whether the House of Commons itself is constitutionally able to adjust its own representation on a Bill such as this, or whether it does not have to wait for a Speaker's Conference and a Boundary Commission.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I was giving way to the noble Lord, Lord Raglan, who, I felt sure, was about to make a short intervention—which he did. Of course, had he expanded his remarks into a speech, your Lordships would have recognised that this was the wrong occasion, as he has already spoken on this Amendment. I had the same view. I cannot give him an answer based on constitutional law or the study of Statutes because I am not in a position to do that. But I certainly took a similar view when I moved the Amendment in Committee—that is to say that this was not the appropriate vehicle to make a change of this kind. Parliament is sovereign and can do what it wishes. If the other place were to accept this Amendment and decided it was something it wanted to do, it could do it. Even if constitutionally it was not the correct place, it could find some other ways of carrying it out.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, has it not always been the fact that Parliament has decided what its size would be, but a Boundary Commission has decided how that figure will be arrived at?
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, Parliament gave instructions to the Boundary Commissions and, within them, a certain amount of discretion. Boundary Commissions make their reports at the intervals prescribed. It ends up with a House of Commons with two or three Members more, or two or three less. That is within the latitude it has been given. This is the answer to the noble Lord's question. I do not want to go into it in detail now. It would mean the constitutional arrangements by which Parliament gives its instructions to the Boundary Commission.
To shorten the matter, I would say that in moving my Amendment in Committee I felt that it was not appropriate that these matters should be dealt with in
1278
this Bill. That is one of the reasons why I prefer my Amendment—and not this one. But my noble friend Lord Ferrers has already indicated the view which we on the Front Bench share. Therefore, that has been made clear. But I say again that I am glad that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has, on this occasion, helped several of us to make sure that the record about representation is correct and to realise the fact that the criteria in the early eighteenth century were considerably different from the ones that matter today.
5.24 p.m.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, this has been a most constructive debate. The voices of the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, my noble friend Lord Wilson of Langside, and one or two other noble Lords on the Conservative Benches, seem to me, if I may say so, the true voices of Scotland. I have always found the Scots to be a clear-thinking and, above all, a fair-minded people. Those qualities have been amply demonstrated this afternoon.
The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, was quite disarmingly complimentary about me, for which I am most grateful. The sting in the tail was that he accused the movers of the Amendment of being politically motivated. I suppose that all life touches on politics to some extent. However, I would suggest to him, and those who may think like him, that if separate opinion polls were taken in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland, the overwhelming majority of the electors of each individual, constituent part of the United Kingdom would accept Lord Wigg's concept of one vote, one value, which is to say equal representation for all parts of the United Kingdom.
The noble Lord, Lord Banks, advanced a most ingenious reason for the Liberals not supporting this Amendment, despite their strong support for Kilbrandon. I am bound to say that the Liberals rather remind me of St. Augustine—"O Lord, give me chastity, but not yet. "I have no wish to do anything as drastic as to impose chastity upon the Liberals, but I wish that they would be a little more consistent in their frequently declared principles.
The noble Earl, Lord Perth, made the suggestion that if the Amendment were

1279
rejected, over-representation would continue only for a very short while. I cannot see anything to justify this assumption. He also put forward the suggestion that Amendment No. 176 would solve the problem. Amendment No. 176 has nothing whatsoever to do with Scottish representation.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I wonder whether I might take this opportunity to correct that statement. I made a mistake. It ought to have been Clause 64, not Amendment No. 176. I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving me that chance.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I entirely accept that. The noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, like the noble Earl, Lord Perth, asked what was the right figure, and rather suggested that we were plucking figures out of the air. But we are not doing so at all. The figure of 57 was suggested by the Kilbrandon Commission to give parity.
In an earlier debate in Committee I instanced five Scottish constituencies—Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles, Caithness and Sutherland, Ross and Cromarty, and Argyll—where over-representation was justified. If one takes the view that each of these constituencies should have half the normal electorate, that gives 2½ extra Scottish seats, which rounds up to three. It is possible to argue that that is slightly too rigid and that one might have more. But these figures are based on logic and are not plucked out of the air. If I may correct the noble Earl, it was not I but the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hailsham, who said that without such an Amendment as this the Scottish electorate would not know what they were going to buy.
Turning now to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I accept that he was entirely sincere in the arguments he put forward about the length of time that over-representation has prevailed for the Scots. This question of exactly how long Scotland has been over-represented seems to be one of interpretation. He based his figures on wealth. Most people, I think, would consider population as the right criterion on which to base it. I am most grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, for making this point clear. The
1280

fact is that, on the basis of population, Scotland was under-represented until 1885, when matters were put right. The almost accidental over-representation subsequent to 1918 arose as a result of population drifting away from Scotland. It was not specifically intended.
As to the question of our lecturing the other place on what to do—as a result of a guillotine, the other place never had a chance of considering such an Amendment. The other place debated Speaker's Conferences but never got down to the issue of exactly what the Scottish representation would be. I suggest that fair representation is not something that can be given or taken away at the whim of any part of Parliament. It is something to which every person in a democracy is automatically entitled as of right.
My noble friend Lord Ellenborough thought that we should be a little more flexible. My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls urged a show of generosity, which he suggested would pay dividends. I am very glad to accept their suggestions. Therefore I am pleased to accept their Amendment. My noble friends and I are pleased to accept their Amendment to our Amendment.
The CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Aberdare): My Lords, the original Amendment is No. 4, since when Amendment No. 5 has been proposed as an Amendment to Amendment No. 4. The first Question is that Amendment No. 5 be agreed to. As many as are of that opinion will say "Content". To the contrary, "Not-Content". I think the "Contents" have it. Clear the Bar.
Tellers for the "Not-Contents" have not been appointed pursuant to Standing Order No. 50. A Division therefore cannot take place, and I declare that the "Contents" have it.
The Question therefore now is that Amendment No. 4, as amended, be agreed to.
5.33 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 4, as amended) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 61: Not-Contents, 105.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Gisborough, L.

Pender, L.

Atholl, D.

Glasgow, E.

Robbins, L.

Auckland, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Roberthall, L.

Blake, L.

Hewlett, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Caccia, L.

Hylton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Cathcart, E.

Killearn, L.

Spens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kimberley, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Kinnoull, E.

Strathspey, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Tenby, V.

Craigmyle, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Terrington, L.

Crathorne, L.

Linlithgow, M.

Torphichen, L.

Daventry, V.

Macpherson of Drumochter, L.

Trenchard, V.

Ebbisham, L.

Mancroft, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Ellenborough, L.

Merrivale, L.

Vaux of Harrowden, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Minto, E.

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Monson, L.

Vivian, L.

Falkland, V.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Foot, L.

Moyne, L.

Wigg, L.

Forbes, L.

Northchurch, B.

Wilson of Langside, L. [Teller.]

Gainford, L.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

George-Brown, L.

Onslow, E. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Ampthill, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Platt, L.

Avebury, L.

Henderson, L.

Raglan, L.

Bacon, B.

Henley, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Balerno, L.

Hood, V.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Balogh, L.

Hughes, L.

Romney, E.

Banks, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Sainsbury, L.

Birk, B.

Ilchester, E.

Samuel, V.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Segal, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Janner, L.

Shinwell, L.

Bourne, L.

Kaldor, L.

Simon, V.

Brockway, L.

Kilmarnock, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Byers, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Somers, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Stamp, L.

Collison, L.

Leatherland, L.

Stedman, B.

Crook, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cudlipp, L.

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

Stone, L.

David, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Longford, E.

Tanlaw, L.

de Clifford, L.

Loudoun, C.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Dowding, L.

McCluskey, L.

Thurso, V.

Energlyn, L.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wade, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wall, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McNair, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Garner, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Goronwy-Roberts, L.

Noel-Baker, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Greenway, L.

Ogmore, L.

White, B.

Gregson, L.

Oram, L.

Wilson of Radcliffe, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hall, V.

Pargiter, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hampton, L.

Parry, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Hanworth, V.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Perth, E.

Resolved in the negative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
Schedule 1 [Assembly constituencies]:
5.41 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 42, leave out lines 3 and 4 and insert—
("6.Regard shall be had, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are here dealing with directions to the Boundary Commission about the new constituencies for the Scottish Assembly. We discussed this in Committee, when

1283

I tabled an Amendment which sought to delete from the Schedule the requirement that each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one Parliamentary constituency. My reason for doing that was that the Boundary Commission have a number of criteria which they must take into account, often conflicting—population, numbers, physical boundaries, local government boundaries and others —and to state that each Assembly constituency must be completely comprised in a Parliamentary constituency seemed to give them little latitude in the matter, particularly when, so far as local government boundaries are concerned, they are simply asked to "have regard so far as practicable" to local government boundaries. This Amendment uses the wording of the local government boundaries, which is:
"Regard shall be had, so far as practicable, to the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies.".
That is something which the Boundary Commission would try to carry out, but they would not be completely tied by the present obligation to place the new Assembly constituencies entirely within a Parliamentary constituency.
This has become more difficult because the Bill as it stands, with proportional representation in it, means there are now only 101 constituencies instead of 150. It was somewhat easier to fit 150 constituencies into 71, whereas it is rather more difficult to fit 101 into 71 and at the same time give the Boundary Commission latitude where the other criteria are concerned. I think it means that they would have to take 41 of the Parliamentary constituencies—presumably those with the largest populations; not necessarily the 41 with exactly the largest populations but 41 of the largest constituencies—and make them automatically Assembly constituencies. Then they would have to take the remaining 30 Parliamentary constituencies and divide them into two, because that is the way in which they will have to put 101, completely and without any overlapping, inside 71. That will make it more difficult for them to observe the other factors which they are bound to take into account.
I tabled the Amendment for two reasons therefore: first, it is not as extreme as the Amendment I moved in Committee and,
1284
secondly, because the Bill now deals with a smaller number of Assembly constituencies, 101 instead of 150. Boundary Commissions have a difficult task. Since our discussion on the last occasion, I hope the Government have been able to consider whether wording of this kind, which would give them some latitude—in fact the same as they have where local government boundaries are concerned—would be acceptable.
I understand from the frank answer which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, gave on the last occasion that the reason for paragraphs (6) of the Schedule at present imposing an obligation was largely for the convenience of the electorate and of Party organisations. I accept that; I accept that the voluntary organisations of the political Parties work at present on a Parliamentary constituency basis and therefore it is much easier for them to cope with the elections for the Assembly if it is on a constituency basis too.
The noble and learned Lord also indicated that he thought it would be easier for the electorate because they are at present aware, or at any rate vaguely aware—those of them who take the trouble to find out—of where lies the boundary of the Parliamentary constituency in which they are, and to have yet another different constituency would be confusing for them. I accepted that there was weight in those arguments and we were glad to know why the Government had put this rigid obligation into the Bill. Nevertheless, I hope that, in view of the two main points I have made, the Government might consider that the Boundary Commission's task would be made that much easier if they were given this amount of discretion.
Viscount THURSO: My Lords, I have some sympathy with the Amendment, which is designed to give a certain amount of flexibility on this question. I agreed with the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, when a similar Amendment was discussed in Committee: namely, that it would be desirable that constituencies should be within Parliamentary constituencies for the convenience of political Parties. After all, under the new system of proportional representation, political Parties will be very important because it is on the basis

1285
of political Parties that the extra Members will be nominated, so their convenience is of some importance in the making of arrangements. However, I feel that the element of flexibility which the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, offers us is not unreasonable. Perhaps the Government will be able to accept this rather less rigid phraseology than the very rigid phraseology which is in the Bill as amended in Committee. I hope therefore that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will look on the Amendment favourably.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, explained, Schedule 1 deals with the creation of Assembly constituencies for which members other than the initial members are to be returned, and the Boundary Commission for Scotland will make proposals for these constituencies in accordance with Part II of Schedule 1. Paragraph (6) provides that each Assembly constituency shall be wholly comprised in one Parliamentary constituency. To allow Assembly constituencies to straddle two or more Parliamentary constituencies would conflict with paragraph (9) of Part II, where Parliamentary constituencies are taken as the basis for dividing the country into Assembly constituencies, and on practical grounds would surely complicate the work of the Boundary Commission in drawing up Assembly constituencies.
However, apart from technical m s of that kind, the Government after reconsideration remain of the view—and very strongly of the view—that the Parliamentary constituencies should remain the basis of the constituency framework within which the Assembly is to work. To depart from Parliamentary constituencies might indeed lead—the noble Viscount, Lord Thurso, has indicated sympathy for it—to marginally greater equality in the size of electorates, and it might lead to some gains in convenience in one direction. Nevertheless, we still believe that to depart from these constituencies would have serious disadvantages. I believe that I spelt these out on the previous occasion, but, briefly, I should like to remind your Lordships of these. We think that to depart from the Parliamentary constituencies would tend to confuse voters; it would detract from the unity of an area as a Parliamentary
1286
constituency; and it would complicate such matters as the Party organisations.
On the previous occasion I emphasised the importance of the Party organisations, and I have no hesitation in returning to that point, because I believe that certainly Members of this House will appreciate very well that the continued existence of a political Party in approximately its present form is very important to the survival of the kind of democracy that we have. We must not put serious burdens upon the political Parties if we can avoid them, in relation to this work which they do, and which is essential to the continuation of democracy. This is very important at the present time when we are concerned not simply with fighting Parliamentary elections, but also with Assembly elections, local elections, and indeed elections for the European Parliament or Assembly, where new constituencies which embace new areas have been proposed. For these reasons, which I gave at greater length on a previous occasion, the Government, after reconsideration, remain of the same view, and I would urge the noble Lord not to press the Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, as the noble and learned Lord and the House will realise, this is not an Amendment that I would have expected to press. It was intended to find out whether the Government had recognised the advantage of more flexibility. I had recognised myself that if they did see the advantage of this, they would have had to make some alterations in other parts of the Bill as well. I still believe that although what is proposed may be convenient to Party organisations, it may, when the Assembly constituencies are produced, lead to some strange results regarding numbers and comparative numbers relating to electorates. The Government's view that they want to stick to what is proposed is clear, and so I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.53 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 43, line 30, leave out ("ordinary").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 43, line 34, leave out ("ordinary").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 43, line 38, leave out ("ordinary").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 44, line 5, leave out ("ordinary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, prompted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I should like to take the opportunity to point out that the subparagraph reads:
"The number, group and allocation of additional members at ordinary elections other than at the first ordinary election …".
I should have drafted the Amendment so as to relate to the word "ordinary" where it first occurs in the line in question. I am informed that, provided notice is taken of this and that I am on the record regarding this point, the necessary adjustment will be made by the Clerks before the next stage. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 11:
Page 44, line 7, leave out ("1(7)") and insert ("1(6)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment which arises because the original Clause 1(7) has now become Clause 1(6). I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 44, line 8, leave out from ("any") to ("automatic") in line 9 and insert ("alteration in constituency boundaries being made whether in consequence of an increase or a reduction in the number of electors or for any other reasons any").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a drafting Amendment. As the subparagraph now stands, it is rather too narrowly drawn. The Amendment is designed to cover any circumstances in which changes may be made in the Assembly constituencies. What the
1288
present drafting had in mind—at any rate, mainly—was the possibility, for example, that the number or pattern of Scottish Parliamentary constituencies might be changed as a result of United Kingdom legislation. Any such alterations necessitating changes of the boundaries of Assembly constituencies might mean that the electoral region boundaries in turn would have to be redrawn. In that case the appropriate number of additional members in the various electoral regions might need to be revised. It is to cover these contingencies that the Amendment has been drafted, and I hope that it meets the circumstances. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I should say that, without of course making any commitment to the principle contained in the part being amended, the Government accept that this is a sensible and proper Amendment to make in that context.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendments Nos. 13 to 16:
Page 44, line 16, leave out ("ordinary")
Page 44, line 21, leave out ("ordinary")
Page 44, line 25, leave out ("ordinary")
Page 45, line 11, leave out ("ordinary").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 13 to 16 en bloc.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved manuscript Amendment No. 17A:
Page 45, leave out lines 20 to 22 and insert—
("Central Scotland—Clackmannan and East Stirlingshire; Central Fife; Dunfermline; East Fife; Kirkcaldy; Stirling, Falkirk and Grangemouth; West Stirlingshire; West Lothian").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this manuscript Amendment on behalf of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. This manuscript Amendment is in substitution for Amendment No. 17 on the Marshalled List. My noble friend had put Amendment No. 17 on the Marshalled List in order to correct the inadvertent

1289
omission of West Stirlingshire, but unfortunately, somehow or other, that Amendment left our Dunfermline. My noble friend hopes that Amendment No. 17A repairs both omissions and sets matters to rights.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, it was certainly very careless to lose Dunfermline, but that will not, I trust, be taken amiss in that part of the world.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 46, leave out lines 5 to 13 and insert—
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which, in the main, we have already discussed. It corrects one or two inadvertent errors in the numbers of constituency Members. One or two constituencies that should have had two Members were shown as having one, while some which should have been shown as having one were shown as having two. I hope that the position is now satisfactory. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I wish to indicate that we are in agreement with the noble Lord that this is satisfactory as to arithmetic and distribution.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 2 [Time of election and term of office of members of Assembly]:
6 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 2, line 42, leave out from ("than") to end of line 43 and insert ("the third Tuesday in March in the fourth year following that in which the previous ordinary election was held.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 19, but first perhaps I should mention that it has just been brought to my attention that
1290
there is a misprint in the wording of my Amendment— the word "Tuesday" should be "Thursday". On this occasion the mistake may be mine and I do not expect my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn to become involved. I am not at odds with the Government over the purpose and intention of Clause 2(2) to which my Amendment is directed. My point is a technical one. However, I am not just concerned with the niceties of the wording. In my view there is a serious point of substance here and the concern which prompted my Amendment is that I believe that Her Majesty's Government have written far more into Clause 2 than they intended.
In Committee we considered the implications of Clause 2 as regards both its nature and the practical applications of its provisions. Clause 2(2) introduces flexibility into the fixed-term arrangements of subsection (1) of the clause which specifies the normal life-span of the Assembly. At the Committee stage I moved a probing Amendment, and in doing so raised a number of points with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, at which he undertook to have a further look. He and I have corresponded, and the point to which my Amendment is directed is one on which I fear the Government and I are still involved in a difference of opinion.
Perhaps the easiest way to explain what I believe I see in subsection (2) is to direct the attention of noble Lords to the wording of the subsection itself:
"The Secretary of State may, by order made with respect to the second or any subsequent ordinary election of members of the Assembly, appoint as a day for the holding of the election a day not more than two months earlier nor more than two months later than the day on which the election would be held apart from the order."
It might be appropriate if first I were to identify what an ordinary election is. It is clear from the Bill that it is an election due to be held on the date prescribed in Clause 2(1), and whether it is postponed or not, or the date is brought forward or not, it remains an ordinary election. Extraordinary elections are those which occur when the Assembly resolves it shall be dissolved; and, I suppose, also a by-election. I think this is clear in the Bill but the point is important to my argument. We were told that the intention—and I do not disagree—was to permit the Secretary of State to vary one of these

1291
ordinary election dates in order to cater for any special circumstances that might arise.
We went through all this in Committee and I do not propose to rehearse the various possibilities again, except perhaps to say that when we were discussing whether there was any good reason for having a provision in the subsection to permit the day of the election to be brought forward, I had not then appreciated, and I do not know whether other noble Lords had appreciated, that one particular application of that power would be that where an Assembly had dissolved itself, so to speak, under Clause 3, and there was in prospect the election of an Assembly which would serve an unreasonably short period before it fell to be re-elected under the normal term of office, the Secretary of State could not only make use of the powers in Clause 3 whereby the election following the special dissolution does not have to be held for two months; he could also advance the date of the ordinary election next following. I do not want to enlarge on this point, but for the sake of argument this would be particularly applicable if the Assembly decided it could not go on and it dissolved in the third week of November. In such case the net result could be that the next proper general election of the Assembly could take place. I believe that the effect under the Bill as it is written is that the minimum shortest life Assembly would be one of 17 weeks.
To return to my previous point, first, I must say that my fundamental point is that I believe that subsection (2) as written contains a power which could provide for repetitive postponements of an Assembly election of two months per postponement or less. To explain how I think this could come about, I should first remind your Lordships of the words at the end of subsection (2)—
"nor more than two months later than the day on which the election would be held apart from the order".
If I may give a hypothetical example, an ordinary election is due to be held on 16th March. The Secretary of State postpones it, say, until 11th May. In doing so he postpones by two months from the day on which the election would have been held apart from the order.
1292
The election is now fixed by that order for 11th May. Remember it is still an ordinary election, albeit a postponed one. The Secretary of State then makes another order—he does not revoke, he does not amend, he makes another order. That order could only come into operation on the day the old order expired. If he did that, surely that order would become the order which the subsection talks about. In other words, the second order is now the order and the date on which the election would have been held apart from the second order, the order now, is 11th May. It is not easy to explain and I hope I have done so satisfactorily. I believe that there really is a case of dubiety here, and I think that if, in a piece of legislation as important as this, we have the opportunity to get rid of any dubiety which may exist, we should take it.
Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, when he comes to reply, might be able to relate his principal answer to the answers to the points which I put to him on the last occasion. Broadly speaking, the ones which were particularly relevant to the point I am making today were: first, what was Her Majesty's Government's thinking about the use of the power, with particular reference to the political implications; secondly, whether this subsection would be used to cater for a real emergency situation if it was a purely Scottish emergency, or whether use would be made of existing United Kingdom legislation; and, thirdly, whether he saw any use other than the one to which I have just referred for the power to advance, apart from the general possible reasons.
I take note that my noble friend Lord Ferrers and my noble friend Lord Strathcona have put down Amendment No. 20, which seeks to make the power in this subsection subject to Parliamentary approval. The fact that it is not at the moment served only to heighten my worry, and certainly such an Amendment would go some way to meet my fears. But I think we ought seriously to consider whether I do not have a point here. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I listened to this debate when it was held at Committee stage; my noble friend Lord Gray has been good enough to let me sec the correspondence that he

1293
has had; and, of course, I have now had the advantage of hearing his explanation again. I would venture to add my support to what he says with a few extra words. I know very well that the Government look upon this as being a very simple and minor matter whereby there is to be only one opportunity to advance or retard the date of the election, and that they do not intend, and certainly would not themselves sanction, a succession of orders—which would, of course, in practice, have to he orders postponing an election. So minor do they consider it to be that, as we heard on the Wales Bill yesterday, the order is not to be subject to any Parliamentary procedure at all; and that, as my noble friend has said, is the subject of the next Amendment. But the analysis that my noble friend Lord Gray has carried out seems to me to enable the Government, the Secretary of State, to have successive orders, and I wonder whether I could very briefly explain the way that I, as a lawyer, look at it.
There is a provision in Clause 77(2) of the Bill whereby, expressly,
"Any order … may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order …".
So we have a situation here in which, on its face, a Clause 2(2) order might be varied or revoked. Let us take my noble friend's dates, which are in fact the dates which work for Thursdays this year. Suppose the original date was 16th March and the Secretary of State makes an order postponing until 11th May. Now that order stands; and if one looks at subsection (2) one sees that there are two references to an order: at the beginning, in the first line, "by order made", and then, at the very end, "the day on which the election would be held apart from the order". I think there is no construction of that subsection which enables one to read it as referring to other than the same order at both ends. The order is made naming a day which is later than what would happen apart from that order—that order which is now being made.
Now suppose the first order is made setting 11th May and then another order is made which does not revoke the original order but varies it. It is a new order, but it varies the previous order; and it varies the date in the previous order from 11th May to 6th July. It could be done another way, by not revoking the first order until
1294
a day after the second order had come into effect. It does not matter which way it is done: the two have the same effect. When the second order comes into effect, the day on which the election would be held apart from that second order is 11th May, and there is no other way in which one can construe this subsection. Since, then, you are able to add a further two months' delay, you are bound to be able to go over to the 6th July and so on and so on as long as you like—and under the Bill as it stands there is no Parliamentary sanction at all to these orders. Now I know that it is not what the Government intend, but I cannot see what is wrong with that interpretation of the subsection, which indeed is the same as that which my noble friend Lord Gray has spelt out. Could not the Government see their way to clarifying this? Because it really is something upon which I think serious argument can ensue, and it is something which it is so simple to put right.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, let me first of all sympathise with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, in his difficulty this afternoon. I can certainly assure him that all his words were very clearly audible to us on this side of the House. I must indicate a note of surprise on my part, however, that he himself did not notice a misprint in his Amendment. I find this quite out of character with his usual very close and careful detailed work on any part of a Bill in which he is involved.
Perhaps I could at the outset indicate the Government position regarding what one might call the subsidiary points which were spoken of in Committee but which, I quite agree, were not given that type of clarity of reply to which I think the noble Lord, Lord Gray, was fully entitled. If I can talk first of all about the question of emergency powers, the Scottish Assembly elections could be postponed in a national emergency or in a purely Scottish emergency. I think that under the sovereign powers which obtain Parliament could legislate as quickly as was necessary to meet the demands of the situation; and this clearly could extend to such matters as the postponement of Scottish Assembly elections if this was considered to be appropriate.

1295
On the rather wider point of the question of the advancement of an election date by two months, and perhaps the political undertones on overtones which such an advancement might occasion, it is the Government's view that it is prudent to have a provision allowing the date of Assembly elections to be brought forward. It cannot be said that circumstances would never arise when this would not be of value. The provision does not lend itself to abuse for political purposes, in my view. This, principally, is the reason why the period of two months has been selected. I do not think that the provision can do any positive harm. I take the view that on the basis that there might be a need for it, it is probably better to have it in the Bill than that it be left out.
It follows that a period of flexibility is desirable, given the position which I am outlining, and that is why Clause 2(2) is in the Bill. I accept that the choice of the period of two months is really a matter of judgment. I do not think that I can say more than that. The Government position is that it is not so short as to be of no practical advantage and, certainly, not long enough, in the Government's view, to he of distinct political advantage; nor could it be used in that way. So I think there is a line to be drawn; and the Government's judgment is there at two months. I think it is fair to say that it is not an unreasonable assumption that the Secretary of State will exercise these powers in a well known and well understood manner and, I would consider, only after consultation with the Scottish Administration.
My Lords, coming to the substance of the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, I would say that I quite see that the purpose behind the Amendment is to make clear on the face of the Bill that the Secretary of State has the power to alter the date of an Assembly election by only two months either way, and not to postpone the election for a longer period by making a succession of delaying orders. The noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, has, in verbal imagery of a definite character, sketched out a hypothetical situation which he can see occurring. The Government agree with the noble Lord, Lord Gray, that the Secretary of State should not be allowed to alter the date of an Assembly election by more than two months. We
1296
do not agree, however, that Clause 2, as it stands, would enable the Secretary of State to do anything other than this, despite the very recent comments of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross.
The noble Lord, Lord Gray, fairly, at Committee, indicated his line of argument. He was explicit and he has repeated it this afternoon. The Government do not accept the interpretation which Lord Gray places on the clause. Neither do they accept the interpretation which the noble Viscount has put on the clause. Let me explain. If the Secretary of State wished, for any reason, to change further the date of an ordinary election which he had already postponed by an order under Clause 2(2), he would need either to vary or revoke the first order he had made. If he varied that order, the order identified in Clause 2(2) would still be the original order and, under the requirements of Clause 2(2), such an order could only change the date of an election to a new date within two months of the date specified in Clause 2(1). If the Secretary of State revoked his original order, any replacement order would become the only order to which Clause 2(2) could apply. That order, again, could only provide for an election date within two months of the date in Clause 2(1). In the Government's view, Clause 2(2) does not, therefore, in the form in which it now appears in the Bill, offer any scope whatever for the indefinite postponement of the election date.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, the noble Lord has not entirely grasped the second point I made. I can go along to some extent with him on the variation, but if we have a second order that revokes the first order, the second order can be brought into effect on Day 1 but it does not have to revoke instantly the original order. I should have thought that it could have revoked the original order after it came into effect so that upon its coming into effect there are two orders; and the order which supersedes the second order then relates to a two-month postponement from the date of the first order. That is the situation I see as being possible, and that is the real threat which we have to guard against.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, I see the point which the noble Viscount puts

1297
to me and, off the cuff, standing at this Box, it appears a not unreasonable proposition. On the other hand, I am a layman in a matter of this kind and it is in conflict with the professional advice that I have before me. I can certainly examine what the noble Viscount says. I shall need to do that in consultation with the draftsman, but it is not in line with the position which is outlined to me on the basis of the professional advice open to the Government.
I might make one further point to the noble Lord, Lord Gray. If the Secretary of State does not vary, amend or revoke the first order—and the noble Lord touched on this point—then the election will take place on the basis of that first order. I was going to say therefore that perhaps the noble Lord's example fell down at that point. I make no great issue of it.
6.28 p.m.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, understandably has sought to justify the Government's interpretation of the words in the Bill; that is a very reasonable thing to do. There is, obviously, an element of doubt: the Government think one thing and some noble Lords think another. What this Amendment seeks to do is merely to clarify beyond peradventure what the Government are intending. I wonder whether the Government do not feel able to accept my noble friend's Amendment. It does not alter the substance of the Bill or the intention of the Government, but it removes the possibility, small though it may be, that the Bill as drafted permits that which the Government do not intend.
I should have thought that if the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, were to accept this Amendment we should be on parity with him; and I should have thought that if he were to accept it and if, having taken advice on it afterwards—and I see the difficulty that the Amendment was constructed differently from what my noble friend intended by having the Tuesday and Thursday change—it was found to be intolerable, it would be possible always to remove it at a later stage. I should have thought that this merely seeks to clarify the Government's intention.
The Earl of PERTH: My Lords, I have listened to what has been said by noble Lords who have spoken. I must say that I am not sure that I fully understand it all but I am concerned at the anxiety of the noble Lord, Lord Gray, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. It seems to me that the Government should think very carefully about this. It is all very well to say that they have to accept the advice that they have received; but that advice could be wrong. I would have hoped, therefore, that they would consider very carefully whether they should not accept the Amendment, even if it meant, after further thought, that at Third Reading they were to introduce a further Amendment to cancel what they may accept at the present time.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, we did not see too many difficulties with this Amendment. Perhaps the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, could clarify the position, but it would appear that there is not much chance of a second order taking effect because under Clause 3(1)(a) the Assembly would appear to stand dissolved the day before an ordinary election. Therefore we did not worry unduly about the effects of some dictatorial Secretary of State re-electing or postponing an election indefinitely. We noticed, in spite of the misprint, that the noble Lord, Lord Gray, had chosen what appeared to be the Ides of March as the date for a Secretary of State to deal with this matter. He is obviously taking no chances. Perhaps the Government will look at this if the interpretation which has been given by the noble Viscount is one that is valid.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, for I have already spoken, I am advised that the fallacy—if that is not too strong a word —lies in seeing each successive order as an order in its own right. That is "the order" in Clause 2(2). I am advised that this is not so. What one has is an order under Clause 2(2) which is constantly being amended. It is "the order". The amending orders are independent orders and I am advised that the Government therefore would stand on their point of interpretation and do not regard Lord Gray's Amendment as being necessary.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I first should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord

1299
Kirkhill, for his kind opening remarks. I readily accept his gentle chiding about my not noticing a flaw in my own Amendment. I should also like to thank my noble friend Lord Colville very much indeed. I am certain that the entire House, along with me, wished that he had spoken first, not merely because I displayed a certain lack of understanding about order-making procedures, but because he put my case so much more clearly and explicitly than I managed to do. May I also thank my noble friend Lord Ferrers and the noble Earl, Lord Perth, for their support. I gratefully acknowledge Lord Kirk hill's dealing with the subsidiary points.
Now I suppose I must turn to my principal point and the decision which I have to make. I am not a lawyer and I am not qualified to pass judgment on the Government's reaction to the points made by my noble friend Lord Colville. I wondered at one moment whether I was going to hear from the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill an expression of willingness to think again. I know about the procedural difficulties at this stage of a Bill; but I had thought that, if I were to withdraw now and there was something in the additional arguments which have been deployed today, it would have been open to Her Majesty's Government to correct the matter when we reach Third Reading if they came to agree with my point of view.
I shall have some comfort to draw on if the next Amendment in the name of my noble friend Lord Ferrers is passed, because then we shall have Parliamentary control. But, when we are considering the point I have made in regard to the Bill as it now stands, I am concerned that Her Majesty's Government have not been more responsive before they let loose this provision without the benefit of Parliamentary control. I do not know whether I am in order in asking this, but is the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, permitted to seek the leave of the House to indicate whether he would consider putting matters right if the Government are convinced by the case made this afternoon?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the Governments' position is as I have been attempting to outline it in detail. The Government do not consider Lord Gray's Amendment to be necessary.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, we have had a long discussion on this Amendment. This is not a matter of great principle underlying the Bill, and I do not think it would be appropriate for me in my position on these Back Benches to divide the House on it. Having put forward a case which I thought would help the Government secure their intentions, I have no alternative in the face of what has been said but to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.37 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 3, line 5, leave out from beginning to ("be") and insert ("No order under this section shall").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, this is a return to an Amendment which I moved at the Committee stage and which I invited the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to consider further. To be fair, the noble Lord did not say he would consider it further; but I did. I did not consider that the noble Lord's arguments which were then deployed were particularly impressive. I understand that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, is to reply. He has been very heplful with earlier Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn and perhaps he would consider the inclusion of this Amendment in the Bill.
The Secretary of State can appoint the day when the first ordinary election to the Assembly will take place. This has to be confirmed by a Resolution approved by both Houses of Parliament under subsection (4) of this clause. Subsequent ordinary elections, though, are fixed under subsection (1) of this clause to be held on the third Thursday in March in the fourth year following that in which the previous ordinary election was held. That is all right; everyone knows exactly where they stand. But in subsection (2) the Secretary of State is given power to move the date of the second or subsequent ordinary election by two months, either forwards or backwards; in other words, he has been given four months' discretion and is accountable to nobody for it.
Elections are highly political affairs. They are the essence of politics. Indeed, they happen to be a very topical subject

1301
just at the moment when everyone is talking about a General Election and what day the Prime Minister will choose for a General Election. This is a highly political decision. Everyone knows that the choice of a date is critical to the outcome of any General Election. The choice of one date might return one kind of Government; the choice of another might return a different one. I do not believe that there is any reason to think that the elections to the Scottish Assembly will be any different. Of course, they will not. They will be highly political.
The Government have said that in order that people may know exactly where they are they will fix the date by Statute. That is in the Bill, and it fixes on the third Thursday in March in the fourth year following the previous ordinary election. But they then put into the hands of the Secretary of State the highly political weapon of the right to change and indeed choose the date within a four months' discretion.
I readily recognise that there must be some provision for changing the date. It might well coincide with a General Election, the death of a Monarch or a number of other reasons which would make the holding of an election on that particular date inopportune. There might well be other reasons far less plausible for an alternative date for an election, such as Party political advantage for one side or another. That could apply to any Party. What if the Secretary of State belonged to one Party and the majority in the Assembly belonged to another Party, and the Secretary of State decided to alter the date? I believe that to ensure so far as possible total rectitude on such an important and powerful provision as the right to change the date of an election, it should be subject to Parliamentary approval.
In no way does this change the substance of the Bill. It is a tidying mechanism and I believe it is one which is right and fair; indeed, it is one which your Lordships considered yesterday to be appropriate for the Wales Bill. It would help to meet the point of my noble friend Lord Gray; for, although the Government say there is no intention—and I accept what they say—by Secretaries of State in the present Administration to prolong the orders altering the date of an election, if this were in the Bill, if any
1302
future, less scrupulous, Secretary of State were to do that, it would be subject to Parliamentary approval. It is a simple Amendment and I hope that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, will be in the affable state of mind in which he was just a few minutes earlier and will find it appropriate to approve this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord GLENKINGLAS: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend on this particular point, very shortly, as is my wont. We have all seen over a considerable number of years the tremendous temptations which come to Prime Ministers when it comes to choose dates for elections. It is probably the most important political decision that a Prime Minister takes. When it comes to a period of four months, there are many things which four months will safely get over. I take just one: the decision of the Boundary Commission about altering the boundaries. It is not so long since our present Prime Minister decided to ignore that in favour of an Election. So I feel very strongly that there may be excellent reasons—indeed the best reasons in the world—for altering the date of an election by two months one way or the other; but whoever does it, should be made to stand up in Parliament and explain why he has done it and to get approval. He may well get approval in the Lobbies, but he may also get a certain number of home truths from the Back-Benchers opposite.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I feel that this Amendment and the remarks made in support of it give this provision a prominence which it hardly deserves. As my noble friend Lord Kirkhill explained when we dealt with this matter in Committee, it is very much a matter of administrative convenience which was planned for when the provision was put into the Bill. In the Government's view, we should not be justified in seeking to use Parliamentary time in order to gain approval for the appropriate order.
The Government agree, and the Bill so provides, that the order fixing the date of the first election should be subject to Affirmative Resolution; but the ministerial power to make an order varying the standard election date by up to two months either way is a simple executive power

1303
which is only likely to be exercised in known and understood circumstances and, in all probability, after due consultation with the Scottish Assembly. The basic argument is that, in the Government's view, as this is simply an administrative matter we should not be justified in requiring Parliament to have to consider this matter if it came forward.
I accept that the Amendment has this merit: it would largely render unnecessary Amendment No. 19 which we have just been discussing. The matter is not one of great principle, but it was voted upon by the Committee last night and I would just advance this argument: I believe that the real control here is a political control. If the Secretary of State were to behave in the fashion in which the noble Earl does not expect him to behave and seek to gain political advantage, that would become instantly obvious and there would be political control of that because it would be known in Scotland and in Parliament. The matter could be raised in Parliament, not necessarily in the way the noble Earl envisages in his Amendment, but it could be raised by Question and Answer and perhaps in an Adjournment Debate. It might be raised as a matter of urgency requiring debate in another place. I would feel that these controls are quite enough, and for those reasons the Government are not prepared to accept this Amendment.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, I am sorry that the noble and learned Lord should have tarnished his nice record of acceptances this evening. I am bound to
say that I find his arguments extraordinary. He said this is a matter of administrative convenience. How can he possibly say that the choosing of the date of an election is a matter of administrative convenience? It is a highly political exercise. The noble and learned Lord gave the Amendment one merit; he said it would render my noble friend's Amendment unnecessary. I fancied that was a by-product of this Amendment. I thought it had substantial merits other than that.
The noble and learned Lord said that if the Secretary of State were to behave in such a shocking and disreputable way, which none of us expects, there would be a row; there would be Questions in Parliament and there would be a debate in I Parliament. That is perfectly true. There could be all those things, but what could Parliament do about it? Nothing. That is the reason why, with the greatest of respect to the noble and learned Lord, there is a difference of opinion. This is not an administrative matter; it is something which ought to be subject to an Affirmative Resolution, and if everything is perfectly known and if the circumstances were understood, to paraphrase the words used by the noble and learned Lord, no Parliamentary time would be taken up. I consider this to be an important Amendment and I hope that your Lordships will agree with it.
6.47 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 20) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 90; Not-Contents, 60.

CONTENTS

Alexander of Tunis, E.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gainford, L.

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Cottesloe, L.

Gisborough, L.

Ampthill, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Glasgow, E.

Auckland, L.

Crathorne, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Balerno, L.

Croft, L.

Gowrie, E.

Belstead, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Gray, L.

Blake, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Greenway, L.

Bledisloe, V.

Dundee, E.

Hanworth, V.

Broadbridge, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Elles, B.

Home of the Hirsel, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hylton, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Elton, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Carrington, L.

Faithfull, B.

Killearn, L.

Cathcart, E.

Falkland, V.

Kilmany, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ferrers, E.

Kilmarnock, L.

Cockfield, L.

Ferrier, L.

Kings Norton, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Forbes, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Colwyn, L.

Fortescue, E.

Kinross, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Nugent of Guildford, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Linlithgow, M.

O'Hagan, L.

Stuart of Findhorn, V.

Long, V.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Sudeley, L.

Lyell, L.

Perth, E.

Swinfen, L.

Mancroft, L.

Platt, L.

Torphichen, L.

Margadale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Redesdale, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Middleton, L.

Romney, E.

Vernon, L.

Minto, E.

Sandys, L.

Vickers, B.

Monson, L.

Selkirk, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Montgomery of Alamein, V.

Skelmersdale, L.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Mottistone, L.

Somers, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

NOT-CONTENTS

Avebury, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Banks, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Seear, B.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Segal, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Simon, V.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Hughes, L.

Stedman, B.

Brockway, L.

Janner, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Brown, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stone, L.

Collison, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

David, B.

Lee of Newton, L.

Tanlaw, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Diamond, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Thurso, V.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCarthy, L.

Vaizey, L.

Evans of Claughton, L.

McCluskey, L.

Wall, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Glenamara, L.

Norwich, V.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Gregson, L.

Pargiter, L.

Willis, L.

Hale, L.

Parry, L.

Winstanley, L.

Hampton, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 3 [Dissolution of Assembly]:
6.56 p.m.
Earl FERRERS Earl FERRERS moved Amendment No. 21:
Page 3, line 9, leave out ("stand") and insert ("be").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, Amendments Nos. 21 and 22 go together and perhaps I may speak to the two. The substance of these Amendments is the same as that which I moved in Committee. It is an extraordinarily simple matter which, for some remarkable reason, escaped on the previous occasion the comprehension of the combined talents of all those Members of the Government Front Bench, and that is a considerable fund of talent. So I thought that I would try again, because this is really a question of drafting.
The Bill states that the Assembly,
"shall stand dissolved on the eve of an ordinary election".
The "eve" means the day before. The Bill does not say that the Assembly shall be dissolved on the eve of a General
Election; it says that it shall "stand dissolved". It is my belief that the Government intend, as the Bill is drafted, that, as the election is on the Thursday and the eve of the election will be the Wednesday, the Assembly shall stand dissolved on the Wednesday. Therefore, it will have to be dissolved on the day before, in order that it shall be in a state of dissolution on the Wednesday.
If I have misread the Government's intentions, and they intend that the Assembly shall be dissolved on the eve of the election, then, with respect, the Bill does not say so; it says that it "shall stand dissolved". My Amendments are for clarification and for drafting, because if it is the intention that the Assembly shall be in a state of dissolution on the Wednesday, then it will have to be dissolved on the day before the eve of the election. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, the obfuscation still obtains on this side of the Dispatch Box, despite the very clear exposition of his case which the noble Earl, Lord Ferrers, has just made before your Lordships. In presenting his Amendments, to which I respond at this

1307
stage, he has suggested that they would remove the existing doubt or ambiguity that exists in the provision as it stands. I gather that that is the major point. As amended, Clause 3(1)(a) would read that the Assembly,
"… shall be dissolved no later than the day before the eve of an ordinary election of members".
This surely produces a result that contains many more doubts and ambiguities than does the existing provision.
The new formula postulates that someone will dissolve the Assembly, but who is the someone to be? The Bill gives the Assembly no powers in this respect; dissolution is effected by Parliament itself through the provisions of Clause 3(1)(a), as it stands. The provisions in the Bill are quite clear. They provide that the Scottish Assembly will have continuity right up to the date of the next election. Under the Amendment, a special date for dissolution would have to be fixed by someone, and the Amendment provides no limitation on this period. I agree it might be that no great harm would result if such a period occurred, but the Government's preference is for continuity. We discussed this in Committee, and I agree that I failed to take at least one of the points which the noble Earl put to me. We have looked at the matter again, but the Government consider that they should adhere to their original preference, and they intend so to do.
Earl FERRERS: "Obfuscations" is a lovely word and one with which I feel in sympathy with the noble Lord because, if one can be so, I am now obfuscated. I understood that if an Assembly is to stand dissolved on the eve of an election it must be in a state of dissolution. I accept what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, says: that there is no process through which one has to go in order to dissolve an Assembly; it just dissolves itself. But then the noble Lord said that it is the Government's intention that the Assembly shall sit right up to the time of a new election. If that is so, it cannot stand dissolved on the eve of the election, because it must sit or be in operation on the eve of the election, in order to run up to the date upon which the election is being taken.
There are, therefore, two points. First, if my understanding of the noble Lord's
1308
argument is right—that the Assembly should run up to the date on which the election takes place—then it cannot possibly stand dissolved on the eve of the election. If, on the other hand, it is intended that the Assembly should stand dissolved, then it must go into a state of dissolution between the Tuesday night and the Wednesday morning, at midnight. I do not know how we are going to clarify this, because the noble Lord is gagged by the rules of procedure at Report stage and cannot speak again, unless he has leave to do so. Perhaps the House would be kind enough to give that leave to the noble Lord. I will ask him one simple question, which perhaps he can answer. May I ask the noble Lord whether on the day before, on the Wednesday, the Assembly is to be in a state of session, or in a state of dissolution, or both?
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, by leave of the House, may I say that certainly it would be in a state of grace. To try to clarify this point, the Government do not envisage great difficulty over the use of the phrase "on the eve of", nor do we envisage any real difficulty about construing these words. To answer directly the noble Earl's point, the Assembly will come to an end on the stroke of midnight immediately before election day, just as Parliament itself can do under the Centennial Act 1715.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, does not this lead to a little confusion? Are the Government admitting that this Assembly will be a Parliament? Parliament, we know, can be dissolved but the Government continue; they carry on with their Seals of Office and therefore there is continuity of Government by the Executive. Since, however, this Bill does not divide the Assembly from the Executive there is an uncertainty which certainly ought to be resolved.
Because of my suspicions about what will flow from the Bill if it becomes an Act, what bothers me is that it looks as though it is envisaged that it will not be an Assembly to look after a minority of things devolved to it; it will be looked upon as a Government. Eventually there will he a Prime Minister, with an Executive which carries on until after the election. It is a confusion, but it may well be a Freudian kind of indication that this

1309
matter is not so innocent and so minor as its presentation indicates. It has every indication that it will grow into something which is separate; there will be a separate country. What bothers many of us is that this is the beginning of a separation which is much wider, deeper and more dangerous than the honeyed words which Ministers speak from time to time from the Dispatch Box.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, from what the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said, it still seems strange, to put it at its lowest, that the Assembly stands dissolved on a Wednesday but still operates until midnight on that night. I know that this may seem to be a small point, but it is the kind of point which we really must try to get right, otherwise later it will cause confusion and argument when the Assembly is in existence.
If the position is that the Assembly stands dissolved at 23.59 hours, then it is possible, even though there is only a minute of it, for the Assembly to stand dissolved for the one minute of the Wednesday. However, there is confusion here, and later on it could cause difficulty unless it is cleared up. Therefore, may I again ask the noble Lord to explain how this Assembly stands dissolved on a Wednesday but is still in existence until midnight that night.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, by leave of the House, I must say—again I am almost getting involved in a Committee debate, and I apologise to noble Lords; however, I have been asked a direct question —I can see no difficulty in the Assembly, by some notice of Motion, since Members will want to be up and away to their constituencies, deciding to dissolve its proceedings at any appropriate time that is convenient to it. But the Assembly will stand dissolved on the eve of the election. I do not envisage that Members of the Assembly will sit to debate matters, as sometimes we do here, until 11.30 on the eve of an election. However, the Assembly can constitutionally be in being until midnight.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, may I have leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 22 not moved.]
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.

THEATRES TRUST (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.8 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. As will have been gathered from a speech which I made earlier this afternoon, I always want to be very generous to Scotland, and that is what the Bill which I am now submitting to your Lordships for Second Reading is intended to be. It is a Bill which extends to Scotland the benefits which will flow from a Theatres Trust which was set up in England in 1976 and which has since proved to be very helpful indeed to the possible preservation of the live theatre in England. Scotland was not included in the English Bill, which noble Lords may remember I piloted through its Second Reading on 27th May 1976. All the arguments that I presented thou as to the merits of the Bill are identical. It is merely being extended to apply to Scotland, since Scotland was not included in the previous Bill.
Briefly, this Bill is designed to make it more difficult for anybody to add to the removal of the existing live theatre by demolishing a theatre, by radically changing its nature or by making it in any way unsuitable for live theatre. Under the Bill, such a change would have to be examined by the Theatres Trust which has been set up by the Secretary of State for Education and Science. Before any planning authority could agree to any application for change of user that appeared to injure the property continuing to be used as a live theatre, it would have to obtain the approval of this trust. If the trust could show that there was a need for it to continue as a theatre and if after a reasonable time nobody else would provide the finance for it to continue as a theatre, then the trust would be expected to give

1311
a lead in finding that finance. If they could not find the finance it would go back again to the normal planning procedures. But this is an extra point of preservation that has been put into the normal planning procedures in order to make it even more difficult than it is now that live theatres should be reduced in number.
I do not think there is any need to extol the necessity for preserving the live theatre. From every point of view it is a very desirable part of our social life and indeed it is a valuable part of our economic existence, too. There is the income it produces from tourism. The leadership which we are giving the world by producing and presenting plays and sending them on tour throughout the world produces a considerable income. We have noted with sorrow that over recent years because of general inflation we have seen the live theatre being reduced in many areas and at a time when perhaps it is more necessary than ever.
This is a minor Bill in terms of the extra powers which are being given, but the good that can flow from those powers is far from minor: it is major and it can be very helpful indeed. So far as England is concerned the Act seems to be working well and to some effect, and in the light of that it was felt desirable to extend the same facilities for preservation to Scotland. I noted with interest that the sponsors of the Bill in another place came from all Parties, including the Scottish Nationalists. Everyone recognises that this is a matter which is outside the field of political controversy. It is a matter of preserving something that belongs to us all, of whatever political colour, and everyone wants to do everything possible to preserve the economic, social and cultural benefits which come from preserving the live theatre.
We are leaders in the world. Indeed, if I am asked today what are the things in which we still excel above all others in the world I think there are only two that we can refer to with all honesty: the one is our Monarchy—and many people are envious of the way that works—and the other is the theatre. We are the leaders in the world so far as the live theatre is concerned. It is a valuable and desirable position to hold, and it is because this
1312
Bill, in its small way, is likely to allow that to continue that I commend it to your Lordships with all confidence and ask you to give it a speedy passage. I beg to move that the Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Harmar-Nicholls.)
7.13 p.m.
Lord KIRK HILL: My Lords, the Government welcome this short but useful Bill, which will provide worthwhile additional safeguards and assistance for the future wellbeing of Scottish theatres. Like its predecessor, which applied to England and Wales only, this Bill does not commit the Government to making any public money available to the Trust, which will continue to raise any money which may be required to give effect to its recommendations.
Under the chairmanship of the noble Lord, Lord Goodman, the Theatres Trust has shown itself to be a responsible and imaginative body, and I am glad that it will shortly be enabled to extend its operations to Scotland. I know that this measure will be welcomed north of the Border by the Scottish Arts Council and by other organisations concerned with the development of the theatre in Scotland. The Government are happy to support such a measure. I am grateful to the honourable Member for Canterbury in another place for his efforts in promoting this legislation, and to the noble Lord, Lord Harmar-Nicholls, for the precise way in which he has explained the provisions of the Bill to this House. He has described the purpose and content of the Bill with great clarity, and I have no wish to add to what he has said about it at this stage.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I should like to congratulate my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls doubly—for the Bill which he piloted through in 1976, concerning theatres south of the Border, and now for having completed the operation by carrying out what is clearly a laudable project and bringing before us similar legislation concerning Scotland. I am sure your Lordships will agree with what he has said about the theatre in Britain and about the need, on occasion, for a trust to come in and help

1313
in the way he has described. I am sure that we all owe a debt of gratitude to my noble friend.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until eight o'clock.
[The Sitting was suspended from 7.16 p.m. until 8 p.m.]

SCOTLAND BILL
Further considered on Report.
Clause 4 [Elections to Assembly]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 3, line 30, after ("date") insert—
("(i) have their names on such parts of the register of local government electors as relate to the Assembly constituency; and (ii)")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23 standing in the name of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. This Amendment seeks to correct a flaw in the Bill which was detected by the noble Lord, Lord Gray, during Committee and which the Government agreed to return to on Report. Clause 4, as it stands, makes it possible for a Peer living in a local government area which straddles two Assembly constituencies to choose in which Assembly constituency to cast his vote.
As was made clear in the Committee debate on this point, there is no possibility of a Peer being able to vote twice because it is the Government's intention in the order made under subsection (3) to attract Section 48 of the Representation of the People Act 1949, which makes plural voting an offence. The Amendment would correct the flaw by providing that Peers who are entitled to vote in any Assembly constituency shall be those who have their name on the parts of the register of local government electors which relate to that Assembly constituency. Before I leave the matter, may I pay tribute to the noble
1314
Lord, Lord Gray, for drawing our attention to this point and enabling us to improve the Bill in this respect. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I should like to thank the Government, and in particular the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, for having taken this step to meet the point which I made at Committee stage and to which he has referred. I thank him also for the kindly remarks he has made, for the courteous reception he gave to the Amendment at Committee stage and for the helpful letter which in the interval he has written to me. This seems to me to indicate that this Amendment meets the principal point that I made in Committee as nearly as it is possible to meet it in the rather strange circumstances with which we are faced.
Clause 5 [By-elections]:
8.4 p.m.
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (5).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 24 on behalf of my noble friend, Lord Drumalbyn, who has asked me to apologise for his unavoidable absence from the House this evening. Perhaps it would be convenient to your Lordships if I were also to speak to Amendment No. 25 and to Amendment No. 26A, which is on the additional Amendment List.
The purpose of these Amendments which my noble friend has set down is in part to meet points which were made by my noble friends Lord Campbell of Croy and Lord Tranmire, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, in Committee. They suggested it would be better if there was a separate clause to deal with the method of filling a vacancy in the Assembly caused by the death or withdrawal of an additional Member between elections under the system of proportional representation in the Bill. The noble Lords who drew attention to this point, pointed out that the description of Clause 5 in the rubric, "By-elections", was not appropriate to the filling of vacancies among additional Members, as it is not a question

1315
of election and the vacancy is to be filled by
"the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating Member"
on the electoral region priority list of the same Party at the last election. My noble friend has attempted to meet their wishes by, in effect, transferring Clause 5(5) in the Bill to a new clause and making the necessary amendments to it. My noble friend, I know, feels that it might have been easier to change the rubric to such wording as "Filling vacancies among Members" and dealing with both by-elections and vacancies among additional Members in the same clause. However, he has decided to fall in with the wishes of those who expressed views.
Another purpose is to meet the point which was made by my noble friend Lord Tranmire concerning the date on which the person who fills a vacancy in this way will become a Member of the Assembly. That is the date corresponding to the day on which the person is elected in the by-election. Subsection (2) of the new clause provides that the date shall be the day on which the presiding officer of the Assembly certifies that the relevant standing order relating to the filling of such vacancies for additional Members has been complied with, and that is to be the date on which the term of office of the new Member is to begin.
It is possible, my noble friend has advised me, that the new clause may be criticised on the grounds that it contains no provision corresponding to Clause 5(4), and so gives, some might suggest, an unfair advantage to additional Members over constituency Members. However, my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn feels that it seems reasonable in the case of additional Members to allow the practice of local authorities here, but were strong objections to be taken he has authorised me to say that he would undertake to introduce a subsection corresponding to Clause 5(4) when we get to Third Reading. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I think that the Government, like the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, are not entirely convinced that it is essential to split Clause 5 in the way proposed, but other noble Lords thought otherwise and the
1316
Government would not seek to oppose that. Accordingly, this Amendment would not be opposed by me. There is one point that occurs to me when I look at the wording here. It may he quite unfair to ask the noble Lord, Lord Gray, to deal with it at short notice, though I may be quite misguided. It is not unknown for Members of an elected Assembly to change their Party allegiance after they have become Members of the Assembly. If in fact someone decided to cross the floor, being himself one of these additional Members, and changed his Party, and then resigned his seat, would the seat go to the Party which he had left or the Party which he had joined? Perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Gray, thinks that that is a fast ball at this time of night and he may wish to reflect upon it.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall certainly reflect upon it or perhaps invite my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn to reflect upon it. Off the cuff, I should have thought that the answer was that it would tie back to the Party because the man came from the particular regional list of that Party. However, it is rather similar to the type of point which I might make myself and I am therefore prepared to allow the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, the benefit of the doubt on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Gray, sits down may I say that he could have paid me no greater compliment!
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 1, after ("this") insert ("and the next following").
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 26A:
After Clause 5, insert the following new clause—
Filling of vacancies among additional members
(".—(1) Where the seat of an additional member of an Assembly is vacated the vacancy shall be filled by the first willing candidate of the party of the vacating member on the relevant party priority list as prepared at the preceding ordinary election under the provisions of Part V

1317
of Schedule 1 to this Act, such candidate not already being a member and having indicated his willingness to fill the vacancy in such manner as may be required by the standing orders of the Assembly.
(2) A vacancy occurring under this section shall be deemed to have been filled on the day on which the presiding officer certifies that the standing order relating to the filling of such vacancies has been complied with and the member shall be deemed to have been elected on that day.").
Clause 7 [Procedure of Assembly]:
Lord GRAY Lord GRAY moved Amendment No. 27:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("and the directions shall include provision for the election of a presiding officer from among the members of the Assembly").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am back on my own ground now and I beg to move Amendment No. 27. I believe that it might be of convenience to the House were I also to speak to Amendments Nos. 28 and 75. Noble Lords will find Amendment No. 75 on page 10 of the Marshalled List. It consists of a new clause, although some of the words therein are already in another part of the Bill.
I am concerned with what is to be included in the Standing Orders of the Assembly. By means of my three Amendments, I am seeking to bring together those matters which the Bill specifically says must be included in the Standing Orders. I hope that what I propose is not merely logical but in keeping with the basic format of the Bill as structured by the draftsman. Perhaps it would be best if dealt first with the general character of the change I recommend and then went on to treat the detail of the individual Amendments in so far as it may be necessary for me to do so.
At the top of page 13 of the Bill is the italicised heading, "Standing orders—particular provisions." Under that heading are grouped six clauses, each dealing with a particular provision of Standing Orders that are to be made by the Assembly or, in certain cases, may be made by the Assembly. Regardless of what views one may entertain as to what should or should not be cited in the Bill as subjects for inclusion in the Assembly Standing Orders, there is one subject which the Government themselves stipulate for inclusion that has
1318
strayed from its logical position in the Bill—that is, where one would expect to find it on page 13. The item in question concerns a most important matter—namely, the Assembly's presiding officer.
Clause 7(2) of the Bill contains exactly what one would have expected to find in the part of the Bill which commences on page 13 and to which I have referred. There is no doubt that subsection (2) is what the Bill, at page 13, terms a "particular provision". It is patently so by its very nature. Furthermore, it even opens with the same wording as Clauses 24, 25, 26 and 28, and, with the exception that Clauses 27 and 29 are permissive as opposed to mandatory, the same wording as those clauses also.
Amendments Nos. 27, 28 and 75 seek to place the Standing Order requirement dealing with the Assembly's presiding officer in that part of the Bill which deals with the Standing Orders. I should perhaps explain why we should effect the change in the particular way that my Amendments propose because it might have been more logical to have adopted the format which one finds in the Wales Bill where there is a part of the Bill headed "Conduct of business" and which includes not only the Standing Order provisions, but the provisions which in the Scotland Bill comprise Clauses 6 and 7. I admit to having been tempted to rearrange it in that way. However, although I have not divined—at least I do not think that I have divined—the draftsman's purpose in placing the subject matter of Clauses 6 and 7 on page 5, sandwiched between a clause dealing with by-elections and a clause concerned with disqualification from the Assembly, I am prepared to suppose that there is a reason for referring to the first meeting of the Assembly (Clause 6) and the basic procedure (Clause 7(1)) at the point of the Bill where the draftsman has placed them. On the other hand, I can see no reason for spelling out the particular provision relating to the presiding officer at this point. It certainly has not been done to specify the existence of the presiding officer before a reference is made to him because, in fact, he is already referred to in Clause 5.
I have thought it prudent to extend Clause 7(1) as I suggest in my Amendment No. 27, since it could well be argued that

1319
the presiding officer is so central to the procedural scheme for the Assembly that it is appropriate that he should be referred to here and that is perhaps particularly so in regard to the directions which the Secretary of State is required to make by Clause 7(1). Amendment No. 28 simply removes subsection (2) from Clause 7, but with Amendment No. 75 I reintroduce that subsection in what I have already argued is the right place for it, on page 13 of the Bill.
Subsection (1) of the new clause proposed by Amendment No. 75 reproduces exactly the words that my Amendment No. 28 removes from their present position in the Bill. Here I have departed from the broad purpose, or the prime purpose, of my scheme, in that in paragraph (b) of my proposed new clause 1 have extended the wording to require that the Standing Orders shall, in fact, also deal with the appointment or election of a deputy presiding officer or deputy presiding officers. I think that this was a reasonable and proper thing to do. Certainly in the context of the other mandatory provisions in the Standing Orders clauses it would seem appropriate as they are comprehensive.
I have in no way sought to lay down in detail anything about what those Standing Orders may say. I think that it rounds out the clause in the appropriate fashion. It is obviously a matter of opinion here. We had considerable discussion in Committee as to how much should be spelled out in the Standing Order clauses. I think that what I suggest here is sensible and would place the provisions to which I have referred in the order, sequence and position in which anyone studying the Bill would expect to find them. I beg to move.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, let me say at once that the Government agree with the spirit, if not the letter, of these Amendments. Perhaps I could direct my remarks initially to Amendments Nos. 27 and 28. We fully accept that the directions which the Secretary of State will give under Clause 7 must include provision for the election of a presiding officer and his tenure of office. The object of the directions is to enable the Assembly to get started on its business; clearly, it cannot properly do this without a presiding
1320
officer. Therefore, I can give a firm assurance that this point will be covered in the directions; in realistic terms it has to be included. However, we think that it is unnecessary to provide for this specifically in the Bill.
However, the noble Lord, Lord Gray, who kindly indicated to me at an earlier stage in this afternoon's proceedings that he might seek to expand on a number of his points, poses a question which clearly I should answer. Perhaps I might encapsulate the question. It seems to me that he asked why the provision relating to Standing Orders for the presiding officer, found at Clause 7(2), does not appear together with the other Standing Order provisions in Clause 24. The noble Lord himself, of course, acknowledged that essentially this is a matter for the draftsmen. Indeed, there is a question of opinion about this. In practice, of course, a provision has the same effect, no matter where it appears in the Bill.
In this particular case, however, it could be argued that Clause 7 is the correct place for the provision. The Standing Orders relating to the presiding officer are fundamental. The Assembly will not be able to function without a presiding officer and an assurance has already been given that under Clause 7(1) the Secretary of State's direction must and will include arrangements for the presiding officer.
The Standing Orders under Clauses 24 to 29 are of a more general nature and are not a prerequisite to the operation of the Assembly. That is art important difference and one that could be said to justify the present arrangement in the Bill. In other words, the Clause 7 provisions are an essential part of the preliminary arrangements for setting up the Assembly and for providing essential initial arrangements. The general procedures to be covered by Standing Orders are ancillary and for that reason come later in the Bill.
In introducing his Amendment, the noble Lord, Lord Gray—and I agree with him on this—also spoke on Amendments Nos. 28 and 75. In those Amendments he proposes that it should be mandatory that in its Standing Orders the Assembly should make provision for the election of the presiding officer, the election or

1321
appointment of a deputy presiding officer or officers and for the tenure of office of these officers. We consider it to be essential that the Assembly's Standing Orders should spell out the arrangements for the election of a presiding officer and his tenure of office. This, in fact, is made mandatory by Clause 7(2).
However, the Government cannot accept that it is necessary to make it mandatory for the Assembly to elect or appoint a deputy presiding officer. This is something that the Assembly may well consider to be necessary, but the Government believe that the Assembly should be left to make its own decision on this point. I hope that my explanations will, if not wholly, at least substantially, satisfy the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Gray.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has been good enough to explain the difficulties that he sees arising from my noble friend's Amendment. However, I find it rather difficult to understand why, in fact, it is not possible to accept the Amendment which says that Clause 7(2)—which refers to the Standing Orders—should be included in that clause which refers to Standing Orders. It would appear that of all the Amendments, this subsection is one which is extraordinarily out of place, because it refers to Standing Orders; yet Clauses 24, 25 and 26 are headed "Standing orders—particular provisions". One would have thought that that is the obvious place to have something that refers to Standing Orders. I should have thought that in this respect my noble friend's Amendment does not alter the nature of the Bill at all, but simply makes it tidier. I would think that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, would have been able to see his way to putting that in the appropriate clause.
With regard to the other points which my noble friend suggested about the election of the presiding officer and the deputy presiding officer, inevitably the Assembly must elect a deputy presiding officer, because what happens if the presiding officer is ill? If we are going to make Standing Orders, it would seem reasonable that they should allow for a presiding officer and a deputy. I still hope that the noble Lord can see his way
1322
to agreeing to this, because it would appear to make more sense and make the Bill tidier.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Ferrers for his support in this matter. Before I decide what it would be appropriate for me to do, perhaps I could say to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, that I accept his remark to the effect that he agrees with the spirit of the Amendment. There are certain things in his answer which I find quite surprising. He referred to the business of the appointment of the presiding officer—the words which actually state that Standing Orders shall lay down his appointment—as being (and I do not want to misquote him) a "prerequisite" and also, I think, a "precondition". I believe that that was the sense of what the noble Lord said. He had already told me that the directions of the Secretary of State, whether or not I amend Clause 6, will deal with this matter. That is a precondition to the first meeting of the Assembly; the Secretary of State will have directions that will deal with how the presiding officer is to be elected. The first or second meeting of the Assembly could not take place, presumably, if it had to wait on the making of the Standing Orders, as the Secretary of State will deal with this.
To take up another point made by the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, he said that the directions to be made would include this matter. Fair enough. I accept his assurance on that. It is not essential to my scheme that the words which I propose in my Amendment No. 27 are in the Bill. I would be quite happy to go along with the noble Lord's assurance and rest content. As regards Amendment No. 28, quite obviously I feel much more strongly. It is in the wrong place. How is a student of the Bill—someone concerned with the drawing up of the Standing Orders or looking to see what should he there—going to find that particular item, when he has, with the Act, something which tells him that there is something else dealing with Standing Orders, and there is no reference to the presiding officer in that.
As to my Amendment No. 75, of course we have a difference of opinion over this. As I see it, there is nothing odious in my proposal. I have not been more extensive

1323
in what I suggest than some of the other mandatory provisions which are already in the Bill. No technical objection has been raised to the words that I have employed. It seems quite reasonable, because, as my noble friend Lord Ferrers pointed out, there will have to be deputies of some kind. It is worth considering. We are saying that the Standing Orders of the Assembly shall do such and such. But we are not saying that they shall do such and such, plus something else. The discretion will lie with the Assembly. It will not need to have, as the Bill is worded, any regard to the need for a deputy. Of course, it will, logically, Yes. But perhaps it might adopt a system of which we at Westminster would not approve. I think it is a reasonable and perfectly proper point to put right in the Bill.
In general, I should like to add that the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said "Yes, the draftsman has one opinion and I may have another". I am frequently wrong. I would suggest that draftsmen are perhaps occasionally wrong. Here we have a nonsense. I think that it would help the Bill—its readability and its sense—if we were to do something along these lines. Perhaps the noble Lord, having listened to what I have said, would perhaps seek the leave of the House to indicate to me whether he would have a look at this, because perhaps I have gone rather further than he expected me to do this evening.
Lord KIRK HILL: My Lords, with the leave of the House, the Government's position is that the noble Lord's Amendments have been carefully studied. Essentially it is a drafting matter. My advice is that the Bill should stay as it is. That is the Government's position.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, the Bill will not fold or collapse because these Amendments are made. I think it is very sad that when from time to time noble Lords—not just myself—do bring forward something of this kind, the Government cannot respond, particularly when it is in their own interests. In view of the circumstances, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Disqualification for membership of Assembly]:
8.34 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 5, line 20, at end insert ("(aa) he").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, if it would be convenient to the House I should like to describe the effect of two other Amendments along with Amendment No. 29. They are Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. The first is a paving Amendment for the two later Amendments which are proposed to be made to Clause 9. As it stands, Clause 9 enables the Assembly to grant relief from disqualification if it considers that the ground has been removed and also that it is proper to do so. This might appear to permit the Assembly to grant relief in certain circumstances from any of the grounds listed in Clause 8. If this were so, then the Assembly would appear to have wider powers than are now available to Parliament itself. The Government do not now think that this would be right. The purpose of these Amendments is therefore to restrict the Assembly's power. It will be able to grant relief in proper circumstances, but only where disqualification has arisen through tenure of an office which the holder inadvertently failed to resign in due course. If I might give an example—if a VAT tribunal member wished to stand for the Assembly he could, if elected, resign his appointment as such a member and then be granted relief from disqualification. I am only talking about the inadvertent case, of course, because properly in that kind of case he should resign before he is adopted as a candidate.
The categories of disqualification that these Amendments explicitly remove from the Assembly's ambit of relief are, first, common law disqualifications from the House of Commons other than those arising from the holding of the offices listed in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1975; and second, those arising from crimes for which the person has been sentenced to a prison sentence within the last five years. In practice it would rarely have been possible for the Assembly to grant relief from these disqualifications, since the ground for their imposition can never be removed. The common law disqualifications arising from, say, treason

1325
remain valid for life. Similarly, it is a matter of fact whether a prison sentence of at least three months without the option of a fine has been imposed within the last five years: there can be no question of the ground being removed in that case either. Nevertheless, on reconsidering this clause the Government concluded that as it stands it could be misleading and might convey the impression that there is some way of removing grounds that are inherently unremovable. These Amendments seek to put the position beyond doubt. I beg to move Amendment No. 29.
8.38 p.m.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY Lord CAMPBELL of CROY moved Amendment No. 30:
Page 5, line 27, after ("(d)") insert ("subject to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974,")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, when we were discussing Clause 8 in Committee I raised the question of disqualification and whether this fitted in, where crime had been committed, with the rehabilitation of offenders legislation. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, agreed that it should fit in with that legislation, but he undertook to look into this somewhat complicated matter.
To remind your Lordships very briefly of what the rehabilitation of offenders legislation does, the Act of 1974 arranges for certain categories of offences officially to be forgotten after a certain period. This is done in order to help people to "go straight", or to clear their past and start afresh. I pointed out that under the wording of the Bill a period of eight to nine years of someone's past might be involved, whereas in the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act it appeared that five years was the normal period. Therefore, there seemed to be an inconsistency. The reason for my pointing out eight to nine years is that five years elapse before an election; but then of course up to another four years may elapse before the next election takes place, and during that period somebody might be challenged about whether they were disqualified because of some offence that had been committed during the five years before the election.
In the subsequent correspondence the noble and learned Lord has written to me
1326
and to the effect that he has had the matter re-examined and has come to the view that the present position is not satisfactory. It might in exceptional circumstances result in a person being disqualified from membership of the Assembly for more than five years. I put down this Amendment in order that the matter should be raised again, as otherwise at Report stage there would be no opportunity to discuss it. I now see that there are two Amendments, Nos. 31 and 32, in the name of the Lord Chancellor, which I suppose are the Amendments which constitute what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, thinks is necessary. Certainly Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 look to me as though they carry out the task. I hope that the noble and learned Lord in replying to me will be able to tell me that these two Amendments make sure that the Bill is consistent with the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, in which case I shall be quite happy to withdraw my Amendment. I beg to move.
8.42 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has stated the history of this matter. May I just acknowledge with gratitude his contribution here because we recognise that the point is a real one. As I wrote to him, the Government considered the matter, and that is the reason why Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 appear on the Marshalled List. I am also happy to hear him say that he believes the Government Amendments carry out the task, and I hope to persuade the House that they do. Indeed, I believe that the Government Amendments sit happily beside the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974, and no express dovetailing provision is required. Section 7(1)(d) preserves the operation of any enactment imposing any disqualification, the period of which extends beyond the applicable rehabilitation period. As the minimum rehabilitation period laid down by Table A in Section 5(2) of the Act is five years, there is no conflict with Clause 8 which will likewise be in terms of five years.

May I just mention Amendments Nos. 31 and 32, as I have been invited to do so, and it is convenient to do so at this stage and take them together. We looked into this matter. We concluded that the

1327
provision as contained in the Bill could indeed be more restrictive than had been intended and these Amendments are designed to correct that position, so that a person who offends can stand for any Assembly election, or by-election, which is held more than five years after the date of his conviction. Amended as proposed, the subsection will provide that anyone convicted in the British Isles of an offence for which he is sentenced to not less than three months' imprisonment without the option of a fine will be disqualified from membership of the Assembly until a period of five years has elapsed from the date of that conviction. I believe that Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 will meet the case. In the light of that, perhaps the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am glad that the Government, in looking into this, found it was necessary to make a change and tidy up this situation. Therefore, seeing that Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 are acceptable to your Lordships, I withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendmends Nos. 31 and 32:
Page 5, line 27, leave out from ("has") to ("been") in line 28.
Page 5, line 33, at end insert ("and a period of less than five years has elapsed since the date of that conviction")
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with leave, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 en bloc.
Clause 9 [Exceptions and power to grant relief from disqualification]:
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 33 and 34:
Page 6, line 19, leave out ("on any ground") line 20, after ("constituency") insert
("on any ground other than one falling within section 8(1)(aa) or (d) of this Act ").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, when addressing myself to Amendment No. 29 I mentioned Amendments Nos. 33 and 34. I do not think I need to add anything to what I said on that occasion. Again, with leave, I would beg to move Amendments Nos. 33 and 34 en bloc.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord explained, when we were discussing the paving Amendment on Clause 8, the reasons for these two Amendments. I, in turn, must acknowledge that the Government have looked at this, and clearly have now tightened up the situations in which the Assembly could disregard a disqualification or could regard somebody as no longer disqualified. During the Committee stage I criticised the wording of this clause in these lines, and indicated that I thought that they went further in the original form than they ought to. The noble and learned Lord has now informed us that on looking into it they find that it would have enabled the Assembly to do more in this field than is done in Parliament at Westminster. I hope that your Lordships will agree with the noble and learned Lord that these Amendments should be made.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, perhaps I might be allowed to rise to my feet once again to acknowledge, as I should have done when I was addressing the House before, the contribution made in this regard as well by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, who once again was very helpful to us.
Clause 15 [Defamatory statements in Assembly proceedings]:
8.47 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 13, after ("statement") insert ("relating to devolved matters").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment and Amendment No. 37 are much more important than they might appear to be at first glance. The Committee came to Clause 15 a few weeks ago not very long before our dinner hour and, as tends to happen in such circumstances, we whipped through it with perhaps undue haste, not, I feel, having fully grasped its implications. Your Lordships' stomachs were understandably rumbling after a long and hard fought day, although the noble Earl. Lord Selkirk, and one or two other noble Lords put up a valiant rearguard action.
The implications of this clause are extraordinarily far-reaching. Immunity from the laws of libel and slander is surely something that ought to be granted exceedingly sparingly, yet it is proposed to grant such an immunity to Members of the Scottish Assembly. As the clause stands it will not matter a whit if they are discussing devolved matters or any other matter that comes into their heads, whether it has anything remotely to do with Scotland or not. Members of the Greater London Council, for example, have never been granted such an immunity even though they administer twice as many people as the Scottish Assembly will if it comes into being.
The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has repeatedly assured us throughout all our debates on this Bill that Parliament will remain sovereign. Why, then, give the Assembly the status and dignity of a sovereign Parliament? I need not remind your Lordships that a well-known television personality was recently awarded over £30,000 damages—in fact I think it was nearer £35,000—for libel. This was the measure of the net income that he was calculated to have lost, or forgone, as a result of the libellous aspersions. Is it right that others throughout the United Kingdom should risk losing their entitlement to such damages because Parliament has not really thought this matter through?
The purpose of these two Amendments is to confine the cloak of privilege to discussion of devolved matters as defined in Clause 61 of the Bill. I have not tried to make the Amendment too restrictive. I have not, for example, used the words "relating purely to devolved matters", so there would still be loopholes for the mischievous. Nevertheless, I think it would still afford a vital protection to ordinary citizens in other parts of the United Kingdom—and indeed to those in Scotland when non-devolved matters are under discussion. Therefore, I urge your Lordships to accept this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I start by making the general point that I do not dispute what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said; namely, that this kind of privilege should be granted sparingly. However, I do not think anyone would
1330
dispute that it needs to be granted in some measure to a legislative body. The GLC does not, as I understand it, fall into that category, nor indeed does Kojak. This is a different matter altogether.
The Government believe that these Amendments would simply not work in practice and that there is no way of making them work. I suggest to the House that we really must take a correct and realistic view of the likely content of debates in the Scottish Assembly and its committees. It is superficially attractive to say that the Assembly will be concerned only with matters in respect of which it has legislative competence or in relation to which the Scottish Executive has powers, but in my submission it makes no sense to imagine that the Assembly and Executive should or could be cooped up within a kind of sealed area surrounded by barbed wire and labelled, as this Amendment would seek to do, "devolved matters only".
For one thing, we should have no illusions about the difficulty—many noble Lords have referred to this in our debates—of determining whether a matter is or is not devolved. This is not any fault of the Bill or of the present Government; it derives from the fact that over the years Parliament has, no doubt in response to the requirements of society and the electorate, passed a great mass of legislation. I have referred to this before. That cannot be disentangled by any simple form of words. Accordingly, the question whether or not a matter is devolved can sometimes be rather difficult. I have said before, and I repeat, that anyone who thinks there is a simple way of defining devolved matters is not in touch with what has been happening in Parliament for a long time past.
We would have to accept, if that be right, that any Member of the Assembly could on occasion be quite uncertain as to whether he was addressing himself to a matter that was indeed devolved, and it would in my view be lamentable if we were to put some kind of restriction on debate because of the fear on the part of Members of the Assembly that they might be subjected to civil litigation. However, I seek to put the argument more strongly and at a different level. Why should we seek to restrict the Members of the Assembly to debating and considering

1331
devolved matters with this kind of protection? In the view of the Government, what is or may be happening immediately on the other side of the boundary between devolved and non-devolved matters will be a matter of legitimate concern to the Assembly. We cannot expect to put some kind of gag on the Assembly and place inhibitions on its debating, for example, aspects of housing policy which do not lie precisely within its legislative competence. The interactions and interrelations are much too close for that.
We shall be looking at the other Amendments to this clause which stand in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and in that context we can perhaps examine more fully the philosophy underlying the according of absolute privilege in respect of proceedings in a legislative Assembly. But I repeat that I believe it is completely wrong to try to impose constraints on liberty of expression within such an Assembly, and I believe there is a good deal of authority to support that. This is bound to be a source of some alarm to those who are, like the noble Lord, Lord Monson, opposed to devolution of this kind. Such people may claim that we are setting up in Scotland a kind of rival Parliament with the capacity to discuss anything it likes without any risk of adverse consequences, but there are two answers to that.
First, the Assembly's prime responsibility is in relation to matters which fall within its legislative competence or within the powers accorded to Scottish Secretaries; whatever they discuss or consider must have some relevance to that, or I do not doubt it would be outside the rules of relevance which the Assembly will itself develop. We have Rules in this House and there are Rules in the other place, and they govern debate. However, the ingenuity of Members, whether here or in the other place, is very successful in introducing irrelevant matter under apparently relevant heads, and we cannot hope by legislation to impose any specific limitation on what is discussed.
Secondly, is any sort of limitation enforceable? The Amendments to Clause 15 could be seen, I believe, as an attempt to place a curb in a somewhat odd way; the implication is that the Members of the Assembly may talk
1332
about anything they like, but if they stray outside devolved matters they do so at their peril, at the risk of civil litigation; and that is not an approach which the Government could accept, even if they thought—and they do not—that the wording produces a meaningful result or a result which could form the basis for any sort of regular practice in the Assembly.
We have said on a number of occasions that we do not think it right or realistic to attempt in this Bill to confine the Assembly to discussing devolved matters. In any event, we do not know what meaning could be ascribed to the concept of a statement relating to devolved matters. To return to my example about housing, would a statement about the undevolved part of housing be a statement relating to devolved matters? Exactly how close must the connection be? I ask these questions not because I know the answers—I do not—but because I suspect that these Amendments would simply cast on the courts the invidious task of deciding issues which are essentially political, for I cannot doubt that these Amendments would be seen by some as a green light to seek an opportunity for litigation with the ultimate object of putting the Assembly in its place.
Again, it is a matter of judgment, but the Government cannot believe that the Assembly will set itself up as a universal busybody which would seek to abuse the privileges which flow from this clause, and if it shows signs of doing that then one would have thought that the people in Scotland would themselves be the first to react; there would be that sort of control, as in many other related and unrelated matters. For these reasons, but particularly having regard to the character of this Assembly as a legislative Assembly, the Government consider that these Amendments are not workable and indeed are misconceived.
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, also made the point, and rightly, that on a number of occasions I and others have referred to the fact that the United Kingdom Parliament remains sovereign. Of course it does but in the normal case within certain areas the Assembly in Scotland will be passing legislation of a kind which would otherwise be dealt with in the United Kingdom Parliament. It must surely have the same kind of freedom,

1333
and I believe that to put this sort of barrier would make proper debate on matters within its competence extremely difficult.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I support the Amendment. I did not wish to say so until I had heard the reply of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—and I listened with fascination to what he said. As the noble Lord, Lord Monson, said, this is an important matter and it is a pity that by coincidence we should once again be discussing it at a late hour when interest tends to flag. Lord McCluskey said a great deal about putting a barbed wire fence around the deliberations of the Assembly. If I understood him aright, he rather suggested that those, like Lord Monson and myself, who are utterly opposed to the Bill have suggested that the Assembly would range unduly widely. It never occurred to any of us that this Assembly would range unduly widely until the noble and learned Lord's noble friend, Lord Kirkhill, took us all by surprise one evening at about this hour when we were sitting nearly half asleep—at least I was; I can only speak for myself—and I suddenly awoke to hear Lord Kirkhill say that the Scottish Assembly could discuss anything it pleased—even he said, Outspan oranges. That is where it all started.
It is no good the noble and learned Lord talking about us putting up barriers; we never thought about putting up barriers. When one considers inflicting on Scotland another 150 politicians, with all their supporting bureaucrats, to talk about Outspan oranges—well, the mind boggles. Why should they be allowed to talk with impunity about matters which are not their business? It has been said that many bodies speak about matters which are not their business, and that this is very right and proper.
In a democracy we encourage this. We encourage the Church, and in Scotland the Kirk, as well as industrialists and trade unionists to talk about a wide range of matters which are none of their business; and that is good and healthy. We are not complaining about that kind of thing. But why should the Government create, at vast public expense, an Assembly of 150 talkative Scottish politicians to talk about Outspan oranges and to give them
1334
the absolute privilege of impunity from action? That, as I understand it, is the question which this very serious Amendment raises, and for my part I would support it.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, may I ask the noble and learned Lord about one point arising from what he said? He appeared to draw a distinction between the GLC and the proposed Assembly in Edinburgh, and he said that these provisions in the Bill were like this because the proposed Assembly in Edinburgh was to be a legislative Assembly, whereas the GLC is not. Does that mean that the noble and learned Lord regards a legislative Assembly as the kind of Assembly which requires this kind of privilege? Is that the distinction he is trying to make between it and the GLC?
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, with the leave of the House I should like to say that the distinction is not essential to my argument. What is essential is that this is a legislative body, and I believe that there is much support for the view that a legislative body must have such unrestricted right of speech. On page 73, in Chapter VI, of the 19th edition of Erskine May it is stated:
"Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature".
It may be that the GLC is a free council. But certainly so far as a legislature is concerned, if one seeks to remedy an evil by legislation, and one wants to introduce legislation to do that, one must be free to describe the evil. Sometimes one may be wrong. One may have misconceived something, and have thought an evil to be present when in fact there is no such thing. That is really the basis upon which one claims such a privilege for a legislative body.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Wilson of Langside, for his support. I am sorry not to have received rather more support or interest from the official Opposition, because I thought that they described themselves as the Party who favour the protection of the individual—but there we are. I consider that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, was rather too sanguine about leaving the clause as it stands. I believe that if the clause is left

1335
unamended, it will be a godsend to those who seek the break-up of the United Kingdom. Earlier this evening the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey—who, unfortunately, is not able to be here at this moment—and who is an expert on Irish history, was describing to me how the Nationalists in the Irish Parliament had used just such a privilege to cause all manner of mischief and stir up all kinds of trouble. Leaving the clause unamended will tilt the balance far too much against the ordinary United Kingdom citizen. While recognising some of the points made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, I believe that the possible consequences will lead to great resentment throughout the United Kingdom if certain statements which defame individuals are made with impunity.
However, in view of the fact that the noble and learned Lord has made a reasonable case for protecting oral statements I should prefer to stick on written statements—that is to say, Amendment No. 37— particularly in the light of what the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, has to say on Amendment No. 36, and depending upon whether that Amendment is accepted. Therefore, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.6 p.m.
The Earl of SELKIRK The Earl of SELKIRK moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 8, line 13, leave out ("whether oral or written") and insert ("including written answers to questions").
The noble Earl said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment. We have just heard two or three speeches which I think have properly emphasised the importance which has been given to the Bill by Clause 15. The noble Lord, Lord Monson, has very properly said that the powers included are very far-reaching, and the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has himself said they should be used sparingly. Everybody who has examined this problem—and many people have—has agreed that the powers should not extend beyond what is absolutely necessary for the proper performance of the Assembly's duty. I recall the last time that I discussed this matter with the
1336
noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, who, incidentally, has told me that unfortunately he is not able to be present at the moment.
I am not going to argue tonight about the need for this protection which we are considering, and I am not going to argue that the Assembly should have the same protection as the Parliament in Westminster—but no more. Here is the crux of the point I am raising. I say that the words in question go far; they go much wider than what is currently the practice in Westminster. Furthermore, there is no reference whatever to the Westminster practice, nor indeed to Erskine May. I believe that it has been almost the universal practice that, when members of the Commonwealth have received Constitutions, their privileges have been directly related to those of the House of Commons. I had a letter from the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor and I must say quite bluntly that he acknowledges he is going beyond the protection which is given in Westminster. He is taking recommendations from two reports which have not yet been implemented in Westminster. It is a perfectly frank acknowledgement that these rights go beyond those currently recognised in Westminster.
I have been through the report—I think it is 1968–69—for which Mr. Harold Lever was chairman. It is a very good and interesting report and I went fairly carefully through those points of consequence. May I read this? It is not very complicated but it is very important to get it right:
"any statement (whether oral or written) made in proceedings of the Assembly …".
"Proceedings of the Assembly"—those words come from a Bill of Rights at the end of the 17th century and have not been altered, and nobody has been able to alter them since that time. There has been infinite argument as to what they mean, and there has never been any agreement. You can find that in Erskine May (I think it is on page 51 in the edition that I have).
Let me go now to Mr. Harold Lever's report, the whole of which from beginning to end centres around the problem of uncertainty. Every report that comes before it refers to the uncertainty of what is meant by the proceedings in Parliament.

1337
It affects the Press, punishment, all kinds of things. Mr. Lever's report said that the only thing he could say with certainty was entitled to absolute privilege were things said and done in the Chamber. There was nothing else he could say with certainty was entitled to absolute privilege. But even that is not entirely true. For instance, if noble Lords in a corner have a conversation of a defamatory character, unconnected with the business of the House, that is defamatory; it is not privileged. There was one case where Mr. Bradlaugh was turned out by the Serjeant-at-Arms—that was not considered a proceeding of Parliament. Another Member of the other House assaulted the Speaker. That was not considered a proceeding of the House. These are matters which have arisen at one time or another, so even in the Chamber itself everything is not a proceeding of Parliament.
The Select Committee went on to say that Written Answers to Questions probably were absolutely privileged, as were notices of Motions, but it said specifically that letters to Ministers were not included. That is all included in the report. May I say with respect that the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor is going beyond that, and may I also say with respect to what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and others have said that we have no right whatever to go beyond that. It is totally wrong that we should do so. As I said, all examiners of this have made it quite clear that it should not go beyond that, and Mr. Lever's committee said the same thing. It should not go beyond what is necessary for the execution of its powers. Do we want to go beyond or do we not?
There were a number of recommendations. That was 10 years ago, but Parliament has not yet thought fit to adopt them. Are we really entitled to go beyond what Parliament stands for? These recommendations may be desirable—I am not arguing that. All I am saying is that at present I do not think we are entitled to go beyond the practice at present existing in Westminster.
The noble and learned Lord may not think my Amendment perfect. Perhaps I should also include Written Answers, but even that goes beyond what Mr. Harold Lever says is undoubtedly a matter of privilege. Maybe I should add notices of
1338
Motions. I think we should do what the Commonwealth countries have done and relate the proceedings in the Assembly directly to the normal standards of Westminster. I think this is very important. It is not a matter that we should slip up on. I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord wants to get it right just as I do. This is a very powerful, and could be a vindictive weapon. People can use this very wickedly; and may I say that, in my experience, I have seen it badly used. It can be used in this manner, but I see no reason why it should be so. This is not a personal privilege: it is a privilege of the Assembly itself. It does not belong to individuals: it is part of the dignity of the Assembly that these powers should be properly used. I see from Clause 79 that this extends to committees, too. That is perfectly all right—I have no objection to that—but it makes it doubly important that we should get this right and should not overstep it. Frankly, I think we have been rather rash in trying to put this into writing—something that the House of Commons has not done for 300 years—and I think we should be very careful what we put into this Bill. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I do not think I can adequately add very much to what my noble friend has said, except for this: that on a subject like defamation, about which I am myself signally ignorant, a few lines in a Bill like this are likely, as it seems to me, to give rise in due course to a fair amount of litigation. If the way in which the Bill is drafted in this clause is not accurate or is open to differences of interpretation—and my noble friend has mentioned a number of possible differences that could arise—then of course in the end the dispute will come before the courts; and if there is one thing which is notorious it is that I do not think that in Scotland any more than in England is legal aid available for litigants in defamation cases. Such a case will therefore be litigated at the expense of the private citizen, entirely unaided by any form of subvention, even if he is the poorest person in the land.
I think I can detect that there will be difficulties in the Government merely saying that, "for the purposes of the

1339
proceedings in the Assembly, any rule that is currently in force in Westminster as to what are or are not the proceedings of Parliament shall automatically apply to the Assembly", and I am not sure that I see that the drafting of such a provision would be very easy. Nevertheless, I am inclined to share the concern of my noble friend about whether we have been sufficiently accurate in defining exactly what parts of the proceedings of the Assembly are to be protected by this complete privilege from any subsequent action in delict—if defamation is delict in Scotland, as I trust it is.
I think that the noble and learned Lord will wish to help on this. It may be that it is a very difficult area upon which he may not be able to give us a great deal of guidance, but he certainly will not, I feel sure, wish to provide the Assembly in Edinburgh with a greater amount of protection than obtains in the Parliament in Westminster. That, I am sure, is not the intention of the Government in drafting this, and what we are really trying to do is to produce a parity. The difficulty, as my noble friend has pointed out, is to see what are the areas in Westminster which are indeed protected; and, without taking this clause out of the Bill altogether and simply writing in that everything which is done in Westminster shall automatically be done in Edinburgh, whenever it occurs and without any further legislative intervention—which is obviously a difficult thing to draft—I wonder whether there is any device we can think of. Perhaps it is a matter of Standing Orders; perhaps it is a matter of rules; perhaps it is a matter which we can approach on a flexible basis as things emerge during discussion in the course of the implementation of some of the recommendations of the Lever Committee. I know not what would be best, but it seems to me that that might be a more constructive approach than to try to get it all right this evening, because we are not going to be able to; and if we get it all right this evening we shall not get it right on a permanent basis. If the noble and learned Lord will perhaps look at this with that sort of approach in mind—I hope that is a constructive way to go about it—he may, for all I know, find that this Amendment is a good thing to have in anyway, but he will still have an opportunity to go a little further.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, I was very surprised to listen to some of the remarks of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCloskey, when he was replying to the previous Amendment. He spoke about putting a barbed wire fence round some of the proceedings in the Assembly, and he spoke about gagging its deliberations. That seemed to me to be very strong language indeed; and he used as one of his examples discussions on housing policy. I have taken part in quite a few discussions on housing policy, some in this Chamber and some outside of it. I cannot think of any occasion on which I would have felt that I needed the defence of Parliamentary privilege against possible attacks under the law of defamation. I should have thought that any reasonable Assemblyman could, with a little thought, keep himself on safe ground. I hope that the noble and learned Lord will consider very seriously what my noble friend, Lord Selkirk has already said and what my noble friend Lord Colville of Culross went on to say. I hope that if he is unable to provide a helpful and sympathetic reply on this Amendment that they will press it to a Division.
9.20 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I certainly believe that the principles on which the Government have sought to approach this matter are principles that we share entirely with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross. Indeed, against that background I must confess that I have some little difficulty in understanding one or two of the phrases used by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. It may be that we have in mind a different letter in the course of the correspondence between himself and the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor, but in the letter of 2nd June from the Lord Chancellor to the noble Earl, the second paragraph begins:
"As I said in the debate, the words proceedings of the Assembly' are used deliberately in order to attract the same meaning as is attracted by the similar phrase, 'proceedings in Parliament', although we are well aware that the phrase has caused problems at Westminster".
So the intention was—and, as I understood it, that was what was contained in the letter—that there should be no greater privilege accorded to the Assembly than is accorded to Westminster.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I read a paragraph further down? This is the third paragraph of the 2nd June letter and it says:
"The Joint Committee on Publications of Proceedings in Parliament recommended in the 1969–70 Session that there should be a statutory definition of proceedings in Parliament '.".
This recommendation was endorsed by the Faulkes Committee. Both the Committee and the Faulkes Committee suggested that it should be made clear by statute that the protection should extend to written communications, for example, between Members of Parliament and Ministers about matters within their respective duties. Those are the recommendations which have not been carried out in Westminster. That is the point I wish to make.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I do not want to read the whole letter into the record but the essence of the matter is —and I now quote from the fourth paragraph:
"While recognising the existence of problems at Westminster caused by the absence of a definition of 'proceedings in Parliament', I do not think it would have been right to attempt to solve them in relation to the Assemblies in advance of Westminster legislation. The Scotland and the Wales Bills are complicated enough without trying to use them as vehicles to provide solutions to this kind of wider problem.".
What, in essence, is being said there is that in this matter of precisely what is included in the term "proceedings in Parliament", we acknowledge there is a degree of uncertainty, and we acknowledge that recommendations have been made from time to time about how Parliament, through legislation, might go about the problem of defining "proceedings in Parliament", defining the extent of the privilege. But Parliament, despite recommendations and despite a draft clause from one of the committees, has not grasped this particular nettle.
May I, generally, turn to the clause itself and say what are the objectives of the provision in Clause 15. They are, first, to give the Assembly as near as may be the same liberty of expression as Parliament enjoys and not to go beyond that; and, secondly, to try to achieve this result with the minimum of provision and without entering too far into the minefield of Parliamentary law on this matter.
1342
I have already addressed myself in answering the previous Amendment to the general matter of liberty of expression. I have said—and I repeat it here because it is relevant—that the critical factor, though not the sole factor, is that the Assembly is to have legislative competence. Indeed, it will be passing legislation of a kind that would otherwise be passed in Parliament itself. For that reason, as I have already sought to explain, there must be freedom of speech so that the content of the legislation can be fully and properly discussed. I hope the House will not think that my language was extravagant in answering the previous Amendment. The noble Lord, Lord Hylton, referred to housing. I can think of the debates some years ago on what came to be known as "Rachmanism". In that context, had the persons who were addressing themselves to the problem of Rachmanism felt that they faced civil litigation if they described the evils in certain terms, the debate could not have been properly conducted. So I believe that housing is not a bad example, and in that particular instance makes good the language that I used.
Accordingly, the Government seek to achieve by Clause 15 the kind of protection which I have described. In relation to the actual provision, what we say is this: we acknowledge that there has been a good deal of debate over many years about the meaning of "proceedings in Parliament" both in court and in the course of the considerations of various committees. But the Parliamentary machine works tolerably well despite the doubts and some uncertainty. As the letter by the noble and learned Lord the Lord Chancellor sought to say, what the Government do not want to do in the context of this Bill is to embark upon the somewhat hazardous enterprise of trying to write out, as it were in longhand, a detailed code about exactly what material is protected in exactly what circumstances. As I said, various successive Governments in Westminster over the years have, for one reason or another, hesitated to do that and have not done so. We do not believe that we should introduce some kind of pilot scheme into the Scotland Bill.
The Amendment seeks to retain absolute privilege for oral statements. Let us be quite clear about that. The noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, was himself absolutely

1343
clear; but I want to underline the point that he does not seek to restrict the absolute privilege contained in the clause in respect of oral statements. However, in the sphere of written statements, the Amendment would confer absolute privilege only on Written Answers to Questions. We believe that it ought to run wider than that. Suppose, for example, the Assembly creates, as it may well do, pre-legislation committees to which Government Departments and interested parties can submit written representations. In these representations they may wish to describe some of the evils which they suggest ought to be put right by Assembly legislation.
Would it not he right for these representations containing these assertions to be incorporated into the record? Surely, in that kind of context, they would form part of the legislative process. If some body or person thinks that it or he may be libelled or may have been libelled, is the remedy to apply to the court for an injunction in England or an interdict in Scotland and to hold up the Bill indefinitely? Would not the proper course be for it to submit its own representations? Is not that in a sense the meaning of "open Government" which is so widely advocated today?
I believe that although there have been cases of difficulty over the years, and that Committees have sat on this matter, including the one upon which the noble Earl played a distinguished part, and although they have been unable to arrive at conclusions and recommendations upon which Parliament felt able to act, none the less I believe that the system which obtains at the present time works well enough. I do not think that the Westminster tradition has sought to cover such things as casual remarks between Members not related to the subject of the debate, whether in the lobbies or on the Back-Benches or in the course of some kind of altercation. Indeed, I do not believe that the wording in Clause 15 could seek to cover such a situation.
I was asked whether we would consider this again. As noble Lords will appreciate, I was not myself involved in this matter when it first came up, though I did listen with interest. I did not take part in the subsequent correspondence but I am assured that the draftsmen have looked at this
1344
with great care in the light of the exchanges that took place. The exchanges were perhaps a little truncated by the dinner-hour on the last occasion, but the message was loud and clear and of course the draftsmen had access to the reports to which reference was made then and again today. In the light of this reconsideration, and in view of what was said last time, the draftsmen advise us, and we accept that advice, that this clause does what we seek to do and it gives to the Assembly the privilege which is accorded to Parliament by the existing law, and no more. For that reason I would defend it as it stands and would ask your Lordships not to accept this Amendment.
Perhaps I might say just one other thing about the Amendment. Having listened to the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and having heard one or two of the remarks made by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville, I am a little uncertain as to whether they themselves are entirely satisfied with the drafting of the Amendment and the effect that could have on the clause. Perhaps the noble Earl when he replies would elucidate that a little further for me.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, I am not quite certain how far the noble and learned Lord says he will look at this. I am bound to say that some of his remarks are disturbing. He said, for example, that if you give evidence to a committee, that evidence is completely privileged. That is a pretty wild statement. I could give evidence to a committee and say some ghastly things about all sorts of people and then say: "That's all right: I am absolutely privileged." I think one has to be careful about that sort of thing, and I should have thought that the noble and learned Lord should err on the side of caution.
There is no doubt at all—I have given evidence of this and I do not want to go over what I have said before—that this goes further than is the current certain practice in Westminster. I say with respect that I do not think we should allow this to pass as it is. I have made two suggestions as to what could be added. I think Written Answers should be added and Notices of Motion should be added; but when it comes to giving evidence before a committee, to say that it is automatically covered means that you are

1345
throwing this privilege awfully wide, and much wider than is normally accepted in Parliament.
I would ask the noble and learned Lord whether he would look at this and give an opportunity of seeing what might be done, because I think we are asking a lot of a new Assembly—not one that has been in existence for over 700 years and evolved over many decades—a brand new body, which is being given this burning power to hurt other people. I think we need to be very cautious. I do not think we should be too rough about this. We could extend it afterwards. If the noble and learned Lord will say that he will look at this carefully, I shall be very glad to withdraw the Amendment.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I am in some difficulty because my advice is that this matter has been looked at very carefully and I am sure that that is so. However, at the risk of making myself unpopular in certain quarters, I am going to say to the noble Earl that we have had some very successful and fruitful discussions with the noble Viscount and with the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in relation to other matters. I do not believe that we have had such a discussion with the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, and I believe it might be very fruitful if we were to do so. I am not promising that I shall be able to persuade Parliamentary Counsel to change their minds, but I think I ought on my own responsibility to make the attempt, and accordingly I will undertake to do so.
The Earl of SELKIRK: I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said, and I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.34 p.m.
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 8, line 16. at end insert ("relating to devolved matters;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move this Amendment, which is slightly different in effect from Amendment No. 36, which has just been moved by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk. I believe it is also slightly less restrictive
1346
in that it provides full protection as far as documents relating to devolved matters are concerned. Whatever may be said in favour of extending privilege to oral statements, some of which may be made in the heat of the moment—and to that extent I am prepared to accept the reasoning of the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey—no such arguments can be justifiably employed to defend libellous documents. For that reason, and particularly in view of the powerful and informed arguments on his Amendment just advanced by the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, I hope that the House will accept this Amendment. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord TORPHICHEN: My Lords, I think the point which the noble Lord, Lord Monson, was making was that one of the misuses of privilege in the Assembly would be when it was discussing reserved subjects, and some Members were specifically attempting to drive wedges and to foster separation from the United Kingdom. That is probably not one of the more important arguments on this Amendment, so I shall leave it. The argument about parity with Westminster should be put slightly more strongly. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said that the present wording of the Bill gives parity with the Westminster Parliament. But, since some of the subjects which the wording of the Bill makes privileged could perfectly well be raised in the Westminster Parliament, I would say that to give the same privilege in the Assembly is to give it more than parity with Westminster.
I have one other point. The noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, assured us that the courts would have great difficulty in deciding what was or was not a devolved matter, in relation to a defamation case. I should have said that the whole Bill depends upon the courts being able to discern the difference between a devolved matter and a non-devolved matter. If, in any case other than a defamation case, the courts cannot decide what is devolved and what is not devolved, then the whole Bill is unworkable anyway. Therefore, the very fact that the Bill has been put forward assumes that the courts will be able to find the dividing line between devolved and non-devolved matters, and will be able to

1347
apply it as necessary in a case of defamation. So I strongly support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Monson.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I believe that we are talking about Amendment No. 37, which is to insert at page 8, line 16, the words "relating to devolved matters". If I may read the clause as so amended, it would then read:
" (1) For the purposes of the law of defamation in any part of the United Kingdom—
(b) the publication under the authority of the Assembly of any document relating to devolved matters;
shall be absolutely privileged.".
Let me draw attention to what is involved here. We are talking about the publication, under the authority of the Assembly, of a document. We are not talking about casual remarks that are made. We are not talking about that at this stage. Apart from pointing that out, I believe that everything I have said in relation to the last two Amendments has relevance here, and I do not want to take up time by repeating points that I have already sought to make. I do not believe, given that we have departed at least for the moment from Amendments Nos. 35 and 36, that having regard to the limited character of Amendment No. 37 the House would seek to support such an Amendment at this stage, and I invite the House not to do so.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, everything which the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, has just said reinforces my case. I accepted rather reluctantly his argument on my Amendment No. 35, because I see that it is possible for people to utter slanderous statements in the heat of the moment without realising what they have said. However, before a document is published there is plenty of time to think things over and make absolutely certain that nothing libellous is said. I think that the House of Commons, which never had a chance to examine this clause in detail because of the guillotine, ought to be given a chance to do so. When they have examined the pros and cons and come to a decision accordingly, they can either accept it or reject it as they wish. Therefore I intend to press this Amendment.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, before the noble Lord does so,
1348
might he not just consider what the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said a few moments ago on the Amendment which was moved by my noble friend Lord Selkirk? One cannot pick out just the publication of a document that relates to devolved matters as opposed to the publication of any other document and say that this should be the acid test of what is or what is not to be a matter that is absolutely privileged.
The whole point of what my noble friend Lord Selkirk was saying seemed to me to be this: that here there is an area of real and, I think, accepted difficulty and the moment in time has arrived when, to the misfortune of the knightly and learned draftsman who has to put this upon paper, he must put something down which will do in the Scotland Bill. The noble and learned Lord has said that he will look with my noble friend Lord Selkirk at the way in which this has been done. He will not then be in the difficulty of each of us making only one speech; there will be a number of opportunities to go rather further afield than we have been able to do in this debate.
May I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is going to insist upon this one point when there is, if he looks at the report of the committee under the chairmanship of the right honourable gentleman Mr. Lever, a whole area of difficulty which is just as worthy of consideration in another place since the other place did not have the opportunity previously to consider these matters. Is the noble Lord really going to insist today upon this one point after the noble and learned Lord has said—I think with a good deal of acclamation in the House—that we could with advantage have a sensible discussion about the whole area covered by Clause 15.
With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, I should have thought—and I hope that other noble Lords in the House will agree with me—that since we have had such an offer from the Government we ought to take it up before a firm line is adopted about insistence upon one particular Amendment. Of course the noble Lord feels strongly about it; and I think that many other people are very perplexed. Now, however, we have received a generous offer, and it is one upon which I hope noble Lords will rely.
Lord HYLTON: My Lords, while the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is making up his mind, one difficulty regarding Amendment No. 37 is that a document which was published under the authority of the Assembly might contain some matters which were devolved and some matlers which were not, and this could give rise to problems. It may also be helpful to point out that before a publisher puts any book or publication on the open market, normally he takes legal advice if there is anything at all suspect or difficult about it.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, with the leave of the House, if I have interpreted correctly the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, he is urging me to wait until Third Reading—may I ask the noble Viscount whether or not that is so?
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: Yes, my Lords.
Lord MONSON:—to see whether the Government come forward with some kind of compromise Amendment. I am afraid that I did not interpret what the noble and learned Lord said in that way. If, however, it is the case that before Third Reading an effort will be made to arrive at a suitable accommodation, then beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 [Legislative competence of Assembly]:
9.45 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 9, line 1, leave out ("contained in a Scottish Assembly Act").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, we now come to Clause 18 and it would perhaps be to the convenience of the House if we were to discuss this Amendment No. 38 along with certain others, eight in number; namely, 39, 42, 44, 48, 50, 51, 52, and No. 175, an Amendment to Schedule 12. These Amendments are the fruit of one of the discussions to which I referred a little earlier and perhaps I may describe them. They are directed to the binding nature of the decisions of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council. They seek to do
1350
two things: first, to tighten up the provisions which specify exactly what the Secretary of State should refer to the Judicial Committee on pre-Assent review, and secondly, to ascribe finality to any decision of the Judicial Committee, whether pre-Assent or post-Assent. That is the general description and I will now try to guide the House through these Amendments.
The Amendments to Clause 18 clear the way for what follows. Clause 18(2) now becomes a simple statement that any question whether a provision is within legislative competence should be determined in accordance with Schedule 2. At present a distinction is made between Acts and Bills; and this distinction does not have to be maintained. The revised Clause 18(2) will be completely general and will refer simply to "a provision".
The relevant Amendments to Clause 19 change the emphasis of that clause very substantially. They would require the Secretary of State to refer not a whole Bill —which by virtue of Clause 19(2) can mean any specified provision of a Bill—but any of the provisions of a Bill. This would not prevent the Secretary of State, in a suitable case, from referring all of the provisions of a Bill; but either way his duty will be to identify the suspect provisions for the guidance of the Judicial Committee. So the Judicial Committee will give their decision upon those provisions and this is of vital importance in relation to the finality provision which is now offered. This provides that if the Judicial Committee accept a provision as being within competence, that decision is binding in all legal proceedings. Amendment No. 175 to Schedule 12 would make similar provision with regard to a post-Assent decision.
I must explain the intention with regard to pre-Assent decisions. The House in Committee was insistent that the binding nature of such a decision should be limited to the matters in issue before the Judicial Committee. We think that is right and consider that we have achieved this; but I must make it absolutely clear what we are now doing. A pre-Assent decision will be that a particular provision is, or particular provisions are, within competence. Any provision which has been examined and, so to speak, passed by the Judicial Committee of the Privy

1351
Council will thus, if I may use a particular expression, have been proofed against future challenge and we do not think it would be possible or appropriate to proof it in respect only of the particular arguments which were adduced to the Judicial Committee. There has to be a theoretical possibility that somebody might one day want to argue a ground which was not in fact argued on pre-Assent reference. We do not think this is very likely because any provision referred will be subjected, we believe, to the closest scrutiny.
One has to bear in mind that so far as the Government are concerned such a reference will be a major issue to which the whole weight of the Government's legal machine will be applied. Ordinarily the question will involve close examination of the various elements of Schedule 10, starting with the identification of a matter as a devolved matter within Part I and leading through the relevant parts of Part II and Part III. But, of course, there is still a theoretical possibility that some argument is not in fact adduced and does not emerge until a real life case throws up a particular ground. We think this is unlikely but we concede that it is possible.
In any event we advance this further point. When a provision has been examined in the way envisaged and then endorsed by the Judicial Committee on pre-Assent review, the citizen at large ought really to be entitled to regard that provision as being sound and indisputable law. In this case it seems reasonable to place his interests above the interests of the aggrieved citizen who would like, on post-Assent challenge, to find some new argument or some new ground which escaped the Judicial Committee on pre-Assent review or has not been presented to them. So we do concede that this is a slight inroad into the perfect post-Assent judicial review, but we believe that the advocates of judicial review have really got here most of what they want, and we believe this is a reasonably satisfactory compromise. It is certainly one which we discussed, and I believe it meets the wishes of the noble Viscount and the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne.
There is no corresponding point on post-Assent challenge, because in a post-Assent case what is taken to the Judicial Committee is, of course, whatever the
1352
particular case requires. So this is a general description of this collection of Amendments, and I commend them to the House. I believe that they will be welcomed by the noble Viscount, but I wait with expectation. I beg to move.
9.52 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, in response to that, perhaps I can start with Amendment No. 175, out of what I can only think is true illogicality; it is the odd man out, slightly. It provides exactly what I had hoped in that if, as it turns out, we are in fact going to send references to the Judicial Committee, as opposed to this House—and that was the decision on the Committee stage—then we had to provide that the decision of the Judicial Committee shall be domestically binding all over the British Isles; unless we put something in the Bill that would not automatically have happened. So that is an exceptional point which does not run entirely along the lines of all the rest of the noble and learned Lord's points; certainly that is one that I am very pleased to see, and I hasten to assure him and the House that I am also pleased to see all the rest.
The point is this. This perhaps is only really repeating in different words what the noble and learned Lord has said. The Civil Service and the joint draftsmen in London and Edinburgh, who I think will be in constant liaison on legislation, will have had a very close eye on the vires of all Bills that come up in Edinburgh. We shall, therefore, at that stage, before the Bill is even presented to the Scottish Assembly, have a very close scrutiny to make sure that mistakes are not made. Then there is the consideration on the pre-Assent review, under the Clause 19 that we shall come to in a moment. There is only this sole example of the education case in Northern Ireland to which we referred at the last stage, which is not I think a very good one, because I would not normally expect a local authority to get into the act in the way in which they did in that case. The ordinary situation, as I would believe it to be, would be that there would be the Law Officers of the Crown from Edinburgh and from London arguing the case in front of the Judicial Committee.
One of the things that are going to be provided in a later Amendment—and I

1353
cannot remember whether this is one of those which the noble and learned Lord mentioned, but it is No. 46—is a pre-Assent review in the case of doubt. The doubt may come from anywhere and the doubt will certainly be presented in the form of a positive question for the Judicial Committee to decide. So, we shall not have a blanket reference—as the Bill at present provides—for a Bill to he looked at without anybody picking out the specific issues over which there is a worry.
If a Bill is to be referred, it will be because each and every clause in that Scottish Assembly Bill needs to be looked at by the Judicial Committee. If each and every clause does not need to be looked at, then the reference will relate only to those clauses, schedules or whatever, that do need to be looked at. Therefore, the whole system has changed so that the area of dispute will now be identified and specifically presented by the lawyers on both sides by way of argument before the Judicial Committee for it to decide. As I understand it, this is a fundamental change at any rate in the way in which it might have happened, but not necessarily in the way in which it would have happened. It is a great step forward.
For myself—and I hope that noble Lords on this side of the House would agree with me—I feel that the penalty that one has to pay for having that degree of precision in the pre-Assent review is that, thereafter, if Clause 3 has been looked at, it will have been looked at on all possible grounds of argument and it will be no use subsequently discovering some recondite point which was not, in fact, presented by the Lord Advocate, or by the Scottish Lord Advocate or whoever it was, to the Judicial Committee. That clause will, as the noble and learned Lord said, have been proved.
I should have thought this a reasonable compromise to reach. There are noble and learned Lords, and I should think there are noble Lords too, who would say there is no cause to challenge a Scottish Assembly Bill at all and that, if for some reason a mistake is made, the citizen must live with that mistake. I do not agree with that, but I do agree that we would have to come to some meeting ground in the middle. I believe that after a great deal of very careful thought by the Government, by the draftsman and by all
1354
of those who have taken part in these discussions, we now have a system as regards this whole matter which will in fact work and as regards which I should have thought there would be a minimal chance of failure or complaint arising.
Therefore, I would commend this series of Amendments to the House. All I can say is that it is very satisfactory and a matter of gratitude on our part that the Government have gone so far as to meet a great number of points, and a variety of points which were not necessarily expressed in what the noble and learned Lord said, but which are covered by these Amendments.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 4, leave out from first ("Act") to end of line 7.
Schedule 2 [Legislative competence of Assembly]:
9.58 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 46, line 19, leave out from beginning to ("a").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 40. A glance at the Marshalled List will convince your Lordships that this is one of the most astonishing looking Amendments before the House because it stands in the name of the Lord Chancellor and the noble Lord, Lord Morris. It just shows that if we go on long enough we can get agreement between even the most implacable foes in relation to a matter of this kind! We had discussions about Schedule 2 during the Committee stage and the Government have introduced Amendments Nos. 40 and 41. The arguments to be advanced in connection with the Government Amendments to this Schedule apply here and I think that I should, with your Lordships' leave, deal with Amendment No. 41 as being the more important Amendment, and perhaps move Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together in the name of the Lord Chancellor.
During the Committee stage and the debate to which I have referred the breadth

1355
of paragraph 8 of Schedule 2 attracted a good deal of notice and criticism. In particular, the wording there was criticised because it seemed to allow cross-Border legislation, and it was also criticised because of the words "necessary and expedient", which are contained in paragraph 8. The Government have always maintained that the power to legislate across the Border was never intended for, and would not have been available for, anything more than purely consequential provision; and certainly would not have been available for substantive provision.
However, having carefully considered all the points that were raised during the Committee debate, and noting the deep concern of your Lordships and the moderate way in which the arguments were advanced, the Government have accepted the central thesis that they should remove any possibility of extra-territorial power and also the apparent policy discretion arising from the phrase, "necessary and expedient". The new paragraph 8, as amended, makes clear beyond argument the extent of the provision. Therefore, what is allowed is a provision which is "merely incidental to or consequential on" other provisions which are themselves within legislative competence. That then is the effect of Amendment No. 41. Amendment No. 40 simply paves the way to that. I beg to move Amendments Nos. 40 and 41 together.
The DEPUTY SPEAKER (Viscount Hood): My Lords, I think that we had better move them separately because there is another Amendment between them.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I apologise.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I only hesitated because I was hoping that my noble friend Lord Morris would be here to shout "hooray", but he is not. However, I shall do so on his behalf. I endorse what the noble and learned Lord has said. I think that I can go even a little further than what he has already said by way of commendation of his Amendment, because it gets over a number of difficulties which arise in later clauses—Clause 36 and so on—about the extent of reserved matters.
1356
What I think has really happened is that very probably nothing that was put forward by way of legislation or subordinate instrument in Edinburgh would, in practice, ever have gone beyond what the Government are now suggesting in the new paragraph 8; but there was always the possibility that it would with the wording as it stood. There was an area of dispute, or an area of possible dispute and litigation, which certainly greatly worried me. The Government have now curbed these provisions so that they are circumscribed in a way in which I should not have thought could cause any objection to anybody.
If I may say so, this is a substantial concession by the Government and it is one for which we are very grateful. As I said, it is probably not a matter that would have turned out to be of substance in the end. But when one is looking at the matter in terms of the words in the legislation, it is a great comfort to make sure that this has been cut down to what we, on this side, think is the proper size of the small amount of consequential legislation that can be allowed. It is now quite clear. It has also cleared our minds of a great many troubles. I am grateful to the Government for these two Amendments and I commend them to those on this side of the House as well.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, briefly, may I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross for drawing attention to the effect on later clauses. I should have paid tribute not only to his contribution at an earlier stage, but to that of the noble Lord, Lord Morris, and also to those of noble and learned Lords who are no longer present but who certainly helped us in arriving at this decision. I apologise for not referring to Amendment No. 40A; it happens to be one of the Amendments with which t am not dealing and I seem to be blind to its presence on the Marshalled List.
10.4 p.m.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE moved Amendment No. 40A:
Page 47, leave out lines 5 to 13.
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I move this Amendment with a certain amount of diffidence, not just because of the lateness of the hour, but

1357
also because the area of local government finance is not one in which, in the ordinary way, I move with great confidence. The area, of course, is one in which the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, has a knowledge and experience in Scotland second to none, unless of course it be that of the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who happily for me, is no longer here tonight.
I put clown a similar Amendment in Committee seeking to elicit clarification as to the intent and meaning of paragraph 4(2) of the Schedule, because it had given rise to some uncertainties in industrial circles and also I think, among the local authorities themselves, or so I was told, although I have no first hand knowledge of that. The noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, replying on that occasion, on 18th April, said, after referring to the intention made clear in paragraph 4(1) of the Schedule:
"… what sub-paragraph (2) of paragraph 4 does, and what it is strictly limited to doing, is to provide the Assembly with a perfectly appropriate competence to legislate in respect of the local government rating system which of course is specifically devolved in Group 5 in Part I of Schedule 10 ".—[Official Report, 18/4/78; col. 1039.]
Had that been all that paragraph 4(2) achieved, that might have been all right. But does it not go further? Does it not empower the Assembly arbitrarily to effect alteration in rates and thus to interfere with the local authorities in the exercise of their powers. Is that not involved in the terms of paragraph 4(2) of the Schedule? I ask the question tentatively at this stage. It certainly goes further in this way. It empowers the Assembly—and the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, said this—to alter the law in relation to industrial de-rating, so that here again there is another important area where there is perhaps scope for difference between the Assembly and Parliament at Westminster. That is all tentative and interrogative. But these doubts are raised.
The point is, were they discussed in the other place at all? Was any part of paragraph 4(2) discussed in Committee in the other place at any time? My recollection—the noble Lord, I am sure, will correct me if I am wrong—is that the only part of Schedule 2 which was discussed in the other place was paragraph 8. I suggest, with a certain diffidence, and somewhat tentatively, that it might be appropriate here to delete these important
1358
provisions in order to give the other place the opportunity, which it did not have the last time round, to discuss them.
I am reinforced in this view by what I find that the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, said on 4th May in dealing with an Amendment put down, I think, by the noble Lord, Lord Vaizey. Here I read from column 413 of the Official Report for 4th May. Your Lordships may remember the Amendment on powers of taxation. I felt myself, but then I have a nasty and suspicious mind about this Bill, that what the noble and learned Lord said in reply perhaps rather let the cat out of the bag. He said:
"It may well be that if the whole system of rating is reconsidered and changed"—
and consider this in the context of paragraph 4(2) as it presently stands—
"and some form of local income tax introduced, that may be a candidate on to which the Scottish Assembly might wish to fasten.".
Surely this area should be discussed in the other place. If this Amendment were put into effect, that would present the opportunity to the other place of doing that which was denied them on the first occasion. I beg to move.
10.12 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, we have been over this ground, in my view, in a substantial manner at the Committee stage. Nevertheless, the Amendment in the name of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside, enables me to explain again to your Lordships' House the very limited purpose of paragraph 4(2). It is to restrict the competence which would otherwise be created by Group 5 in Schedule 10, which deals with local government and local government finance, to three specific areas. These are modifications of the existing rating system; the replacement of the existing rating system by a similar local tax—that is, one which can be levied only by elected local authorities and related to the occupation of property, and to making further modifications to a local tax of this kind.
The effect of the noble and learned Lord's Amendment is to deny the Scottish Assembly any competence whatever to legislate about local authority taxation. He feels that this would be the appropriate thing to do, but the Government, on the

1359
other hand, take the view that local government and its associated financial arrangements are matters which ought properly to be within the competence of the Assembly and the powers of the Scottish Executive.
As noble Lords will be aware there already exists a quite separate system of rating in Scotland which is based on different legislation to that relating to England and Wales. It has in the past been regarded, therefore, as a matter which has a particular significance in purely Scottish terms. It would surely be an unreasonable derogation from the scope of the devolution of local government and local finance if the kind of competence conferred by paragraph 4(2) were removed. It would create a boundary between devolved and non-devolved matters within the general devolved area of local finance which could not be rationally defended.
It would surely place a quite unreasonable burden on Parliament if all legislation on the rating system in Scotland could only be enacted at Westminster, having regard to the fact that other local government and local finance questions would be dealt with entirely by the Scottish Administration. That is not to say that the Bill is inadequate in the safeguards it provides in relation to local tax matters.
The Scottish Assembly will not have an unrestricted competence to legislate about local taxation, since the creation of an entirely new local tax could have serious implications for national finance or for national policies in reserved fields. What paragraph (4) does is to prevent the Assembly's competence in local government matters from extending further than legislation to modify the existing rating system or replace it with a closely analogous system.
As I have said previously, the Government believe the Schedule as it stands strikes the right balance between, on the one hand, the protection of essential United Kingdom interests in matters of national taxation and national financial management and, on the other, the reasonable expectations of the Assembly
1360
to be able to deal with essential features of the devolved area of local government and local finance. The deletion of subparagraph (2) would, in the Government's view, represent an unwarranted intrusion into that devolved area which would he likely to cause a sense of frustration in the devolved Administration and could provide occasion for argument and contention between the Administration and the Government.
I should add that the whole system of rating could be reconsidered and changed by Westminster legislation and Westminster legislation only; that must be emphasised. It was, as I recall, that particular point which my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey was attempting to emphasise in the debate quoted by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wilson of Langside. For the reasons I have given, I ask the House to resist the Amendment.
Lord WILSON of LANGSIDE: My Lords, I appreciated, even before I heard from the noble Lord, the technical objections to the Amendment, but I was disturbed about the possible implications of these provisions, as were a number of others, and I was disturbed by the possible implications of what the noble and learned Lord said on the occasion to which I referred. However, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the assurances he has given with his usual clarity. I accept them and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave withdrawn.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 47, line 26, leave out paragraph 8 and insert—
("8. Paragraph 1 above does not prevent a provision from being within the legislative competence of the Assembly if it is merely incidental to or consequential on other provisions and those other provisions are within that competence.").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey spoke to this with Amendment No. 40. It is consequential and I beg to move.
Clause 19 [Scrutiny of Assembly Bills]:
10.19 p.m.
Baroness STEDMAN Baroness STEDMAN moved Amendment No. 42:
Page 9, line 10, leave out ("it") and insert ("any of its provisions").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, my noble and learned friend Lord McCluskey also spoke to this Amendment earlier. I formally beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 9, line 11, after ("Assembly") insert ("or is not compatible with any enforceable Community right, power, liability, obligation or restriction (as defined in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972)").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a point where, I am afraid, the happy discussions have not borne the fruit that has occurred in other respects. The scheme of Clause 19 is twofold. It applies to the stage before any Scottish Assembly Bill had been presented to the Queen for her Assent, and it provides an opportunity for two forms of scrutiny. The first form of scrutiny is one on the legal side, and that is contained in paragraph (a) of subsection (1). The second form of scrutiny is on the political side, and that is contained in paragraph (b).
We have, happily, reached accord on the existing scope of what is to be done under Clause 19(1)(a), in that we have just been discussing a number of Amendments which deal with what the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council shall consider and how it shall consider it when it is presented with the problem of a possible conflict between the provisions of a Scottish Assembly Bill, as it finally emerges from the Assembly, and the provisions of the present Bill, when it is an Act, which, after all, sets up the Scottish Assembly and gives it all its powers and its competence. It there is any doubt about the way in which such a Scottish Assembly Bill has been prepared, and about whether it is within the powers devolved by the Bill which we are now discussing, then the people who are very properly to pronounce upon the matter are to be the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council,
1362
because of course it is a matter of pure law that is involved.
We are all at one on that, and we have worked out the most happy solution as to how it should be done. As I said a few moments ago, the matter will be argued by Law Officers on both sides. When I said that the noble and learned Lord nodded his head very slightly in agreement with me. Now he is nodding even more firmly, so what I say is true. The question will be argued by Law Officers on both sides so that the full truth of the matter can be discerned and decided upon by the Judicial Committee. That is because there is the possibility of conflict between the provisions of this Bill, which provide the area in which the Scottish Assembly is allowed to legislate —the devolved matters—and the possibility that the Bills emanating from the Assembly may stray over the edges of the areas with which they are allowed to deal; or, in other words, get outside their powers.
Since this country joined the European Economic Community in 1972 there is another, and totally different, possible area of conflict. It is my fault that I did not sufficiently clearly indicate during the Committee stage of the Bill the area of dispute with which I was concerned. I have now put down a series of Amendments to try to deal with that. Amendment No. 43 is the first in this series, but I should like also to speak to Amendments Nos. 45, 47 and 49, because they are all part of the same scheme of Amendments which deal with this particular point.
What happens in this respect is as follows. Under the series of Treaties by which we are tied to the European Community there are a number of ways in which the deliberations, the decisions and the emanations of the Community affect us in this country. The Government have picked out in paragraph (b) of Clause 19(1) obligations which come from the Community and which are, as I understand it, similar to other international obligations which are matters as regards which the Government have to decide both whether and how to implement.
Those are the matters over which I have no disagreement with the Government at all, and I do not wish in any way

1363
to attack the solution that they have found. If they are dealing with European obligations, where it is a matter for the Government to decide how they are to legislate—whether by way of primary legislation, subordinate legislation, executive action, or whatever—in order to fulfil the duty that is imposed upon them from the Community in Brussels, then of course I agree that they should do it by the means they have provided for in the Bill at the moment—namely, by way of political activity alone. If, therefore, they see a Scottish Assembly Bill which, in the form in which it has emerged from the Assembly, is in some way in conflict, or appears, if it is passed, to be going to be in conflict, with one of the duties that have been imposed upon this country's Government by something to do with the European Economic Community or one of the other treaties, then of course I agree that the Government must handle it on the political front. They must be allowed to veto it by virtue of the Secretary of State's powers, the United Kingdom powers. I hope that I have spelt out two areas of vast agreement between myself and the Government.
There is, unfortunately, an area in between which is not covered in this Bill, although I think I persuaded the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, to agree with me at the Committee stage that it must have been by implication covered and dealt with by way of the latter Amendment which I talked about; that is, that the Secretary of State shall be allowed to override the Scottish Assembly Bill on political rather than legal grounds because the Government think there is conflict with one of the obligations that has come from Europe. The area of dispute between myself and the Government is a fairly narrow but important one. There are certain things that are done by the organs of the European Communities—and my noble friends Lord O'Hagan and Lady Elles know these all too well—which have not got to be implemented in this country either by primary or by secondary legislation. They automatically become part of the law of this land and become automatically enforceable in the courts and something upon which the citizens of this country can rely. They are ultimately part of the law of this country whether in Scotland,
1364
England or any other part of the United Kingdom. They are pure matters of law. They create rights or obligations, depending upon the side of the picture one is looking at. It is just as much a matter of law as is the question of whether something that has been done by the Scottish Assembly in a Bill is within the powers given to that Assembly by this Scotland Bill which we are now discussing.
In these Amendments I am saying that these are matters of law. Where we have already found matters of law—that is to say, the possibility that the Assembly Act is ultra vires the Scotland Act itself—we are sending it to the judicial machinery to decide. Here we have directly applicable European law. That is a matter of law. I say that that, too, should go to the judicial machinery to decide, and the Government say that it should not go to the judicial machinery; although it is a matter of law this is something upon which the political veto will be imposed without taking any court's advice.
You may ask what is the difference between taking the court's advice in this country and taking the advice of a well-informed Secretary of State? There is a difference and it is an important one. When one is talking about European law it is not a matter which is susceptible of final decision in this country. No Secretary of State has the final say. The people who have the final say are the European Court of Justice at Luxembourg. If it is a matter of the possibility of conflict between a directly applicable piece of European law and something which has turned up in a Scottish Bill which seems not to be compatible with it, this is not only a justiciable issue, a matter of law, but it is one upon which the final court of appeal is not in this country but in Luxembourg.
If you send that kind of dispute, as my Amendments would, to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council for them first of all to look at and decide, they are specifically enabled to do so by my Amendment No. 49 which makes their proceedings legal proceedings and therefore attracts them into the system whereby under the Treaty of Rome a final court of appeal is required to refer its decision on this kind of thing to the European Court. It brings the whole thing into

1365
the ambit of the European Court of Justice, so that the decision on compatibility or otherwise can be made by the only people, under the European Treaties, who are enabled to decide it. No Secretary of State can make that kind of decision. He is subject to being overruled. If he makes it wrongly, he can be overruled later on at the suit of the citizen. The only people who cannot be overruled are the European Court, and these Amendments would enable the matter to go directly, via the Judicial Committee, to the European Court.
I should like this to happen, because if these Amendments are not passed the matter is not dead. Again, it will be something that the citizen can take up in private litigation if he wishes; and he can take it through the ordinary system of the courts to the European Court in the end. He will be able to go through the same process, but at a cost. Your Lordships should not suppose that it is cheap to take the matter up the appeal ladder to the European Court. Even if you get legal aid all the way, or even if your costs are paid, it is still a substantial financial burden on the litigant. I would say to your Lordships that, if we are going to have the Judicial Committee looking at conflicts between the Scotland Act and a Scottish Assembly Bill on vires, they should also look at matters which have nothing to do with the Government—they concern directly applicable law which applies to every citizen in the country —and they are possible conflicts between a Scottish Assembly Act or Bill and directly applicable European law.
I do not think I persuaded the Government at the Committee stage that this was the right way to do it, but I feel very strongly that we have a quite different system here, a quite different arrangement, whereby this should not be left to the Secretary of State. He is not the right person to decide it; he is not equipped to decide it; he has not the ability to go to the European Court, who alone can decide it. We ought to have it done through the judicial system, and that is why I put down this Amendment, which I beg to move.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, I think, as the noble Viscount has made
1366
plain, this is a matter of some complication. I can assure the House that we have looked at it with the greatest possible care, and I will seek to answer what the noble Viscount has said with the same degree of care. As the noble Viscount has himself pointed out, these Amendments differ from those which he tabled at the Committee stage; and, as he himself made clear, they now propose only that questions of compatibility of Assembly Bills with enforceable Community obligations, and the like, should be referred to the Judicial Committee. It is therefore conceded, as the noble Viscount has just made absolutely clear, that questions of compatibility with Community obligations other than enforceable Community obligations are for determination by Ministers, and not by the Judicial Committee.
We are agreed, therefore, that the point of difficulty concerns enforceable or, as they are sometimes known, directly applicable Community obligations; namely, those which without further enactment are given legal effect in the United Kingdom in terms of Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act. Although, as has been suggested by the noble Viscount and by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Diplock, in Committee, it is true that the question of compatibility between an Assembly Bill and an enforceable Community obligation could be regarded as a justiciable issue, in the same sense as the issue of legislative competence under Clause 19 is made justiciable, nevertheless the Government remain firmly of the opinion that there are overriding practical and political objections to referring such questions of incompatibility to the Judicial Committee at the pre-Assent stage.
Although the distinction which the noble Viscount has just described between Community obligations of direct application and other Community obligations is clear in principle, the working out of the distinction in practice, and its application to particular provisions of the Treaty, is a matter of some real complexity depending on the evolving jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice. A requirement to submit questions of compatibility with enforceable Community obligations to the Judicial Committee compels the Government to

1367
commit themselves to a view on this difficult question of direct applicability at a very early stage, when the real question with which the Government, in the exercise of their responsibility for observance of Community obligations, are concerned at that stage is the question of compatibility of the Assembly Bill with the obligation in question, whether or not it is an obligation of direct application. Under the Bill as it stands, if the Secretary of State, having taken advice on the matter, takes the view that the Bill is incompatible with a Community obligation, then he need not commit himself or the Government on the question of direct application by submitting or withholding the Bill from the Judicial Committee.
A requirement to submit to the Judicial Committee could also create problems where the Judicial Committee disagreed with the Secretary of State's opinion that the obligation in question was directly applicable, and was therefore obliged, perhaps after going through the procedure of an Article 177 reference to the European Court—the Judicial Committee would be obliged to decline to pronounce on the question of compatability. The pre-Assent scrutiny procedure would, in that event, have been considerably prolonged to no purpose, and the Secretary of State would he left to decide under Clause 19(1)(b) whether he should withhold the Bill from Assent on the ground of incompatability with a Community obligation not directly applicable.
In this connection, it is an important objection to these Amendments that in any such reference the pre-Assent scrutiny procedure would he liable to be considerably extended in any case where the Judicial Committee had to refer a question as to the meaning or direct applicability of a Community obligation to the European Court. Notwithstanding what the noble Viscount said at the Committee stage in an intervention, such a reference under Article 177 would, because of the mandatory requirements as to notice and time for representations by other Member States, necessarily take several months to reach a decision. On the basis of recent experience the minimum period is five months and the average about seven months. That period of time, which is
1368
substantial, would be in addition to any other time already occupied by the reference to the Judicial Committee itself. There could be further problems where an Assembly Bill was thought to be incompatible with two or more Community obligations, including both directly applicable and others. The decision whether to submit the Bill for Assent ought to be the decision of the Secretary of State based on a consideration of the Bill as a whole.
Moreover, the decision whether to withhold a Bill from Assent also depends on the second factor mentioned in Clause 19(1)(b); namely, whether the Government think it more appropriate that a particular Community obligation should be implemented by Parliament instead of by the Assembly. This could involve consideration of a variety of factors such as doubts as to the compatibility of the implementing measure proposed by the Assembly, questions whether implementing legislation is necessary at all, and the desirability of simultaneous and uniform implementation throughout the United Kingdom, which is a matter the noble Viscount did not take into account. This mixture of juridical and political factors makes it impracticable to regard the question of compatibility as an isolated justiciable question which must be referred to the Judicial Committee. It is not in our view as the noble Viscount described it, simply a question of law.
It should also he borne in mind that the decision of the Judicial Committee on such a reference would carry much less weight than its decision on a purely domestic issue of legislative competence. The decision could not he relied on as producing finality, unless in the (unusual) case where the decision turned upon the opinion of the European Court on the reference of a particular question to them by the Judicial Committee. In most cases where the Judicial Committee had given clearance to an Assembly Bill it would still be open to any litigant after its enactment to challenge it and have a question of European law referred to the European Court: no provision about finality in the Scotland Bill could take away this right under the Community Treaties.
In all the circumstances, it is impracticable to try to separate out the juridical

1369
from the political elements in the question of compliance with Community obligations. Moreover, every reference to the Judicial Committee on compatibility with Community obligations would involve a potential reference to the European Court under Article 177. It would be a novel departure in Community practice—on which we could not embark without considering its full implications for our relationship with the Communities—to have the European Court act thus as a kind of advisory body for the purpose of the procedure leading up to the enactment of domestic legislation, and could lead to pressure for similar procedure for Westminster Bills.
That is a point that I made at Committee stage; that in fact there is no similar procedure for Westminster Bills, and I did not understand the noble Viscount to propose an Amendment of the European Communities Act 1972 to introduce such a procedure for Westminster Bills. It is our view that it is the task of the Government, who are primarily responsible for the observance of our Community obligations, to make their own assessment of the compatability of prospective domestic legislation with Community obligations, and to allow to be enacted only what they themselves believe to be so compatible. This is in keeping with the policy of the Bill to retain overriding responsibility for matters related to Community obligations notwithstanding the grant of certain powers in relation to such obligations to the devolved Administration.
That is the considered answer to the Amendments, but there are two drafting points to which I ought to draw attention. Mention has already been made of the absence of provision in these Amendments for dealing with the consequences of a finding of incompatibility by the Judicial Committee. That is not something which the noble Viscount has sought to deal with in this series of Amendments. The second point is this: The main Amendment refers to
"any enforceable Community right, power, liability, obligation or restriction (as defined in section 2(1) of the European Communities Act 1972)",
It is, however, unnecessary to go beyond a reference to incompatibility with obligations. The object is to ensure that Assembly Acts are not passed which are
1370
inconsistent with Community obligations —nothing more. Community Instruments may confer rights or powers, or impose restrictions, which are directly applicable to bodies or persons within the Member States; hence the form of words used in Section 2(l) of the 1972 Act. But in the context of pre-Assent scrutiny of Assembly Bills, the Government are concerned only to ensure that our obligations under the Treaties—whether direct or in relation to any such rights, powers, and the like—are duly observed in relation to devolved matters.
Hence the simple reference, to obligations only, in the other clauses dealing with the Communities—Clauses 37(2), 38(2) and 62(3). It is in any event unnecessary to refer in the Amendments to Section 2(1) of the 1972 Act as, by Section 1(2), the meanings given in that Act apply also in any future Act. I have endeavoured to give a careful statement of the position, and I hope that, in the light of it, the noble Viscount will not feel that he should press these Amendments.
10.44 p.m.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, it is surprising the way nobody else seems to want to join in on this topic. I cannot think why! May I say to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that if it is a matter of drafting, and that is all he has by way of complaint about my Amendments, I do not consider that I have done too badly. I shall leave it to the Government, if the occasion should arise, to correct them on a subsequent occasion.
What I think perhaps I ought to say by way of answer to the noble and learned Lord is this: I think it would be worth while just looking for a moment at what Clause 19—particularly with the Amendments with which I hope we all agree— will provide. It will provide under subsection (1)(a) that, if the Secretary of State is of the opinion that a Scottish Assembly Bill is not within the legislative competence, then that is something he has to send to the Judicial Committee.
The Government have been good enough to go a bit further than that. We have

1371
on the Marshalled List Amendment No. 46, which we shall reach in a moment, which provides that the Secretary of State may also refer to the Judicial Committee a matter about the vires of a Scottish Assembly Bill, if he is in sufficient doubt as to whether it is within the terms of the Scottish Bill. I know that the whole realm of European law and its impact upon the citizens of this country and upon the actions that are brought in the courts of this country is ever evolving, and the decisions of the European Court of Justice are creeping further into the lives of the people who live here. That is part of the fact of belonging to the European Community. However, all we are talking about here is a situation where either the Secretary of State is very sure that there is an incompatibility with a directly applicable piece of European law, or he has a real doubt. Under Amendment No. 46, he has not got to speculate about it; he has not got to send up a kite or some trial balloon to see whether by any chance there is an area into which the European courts might find their way, and where they will bestow rights upon the citizens of this country which nobody would have suspected they would ever have.
It is nothing like that. All he has to do, under these Amendments, is to act where he is fairly sure, or to act where he has a genuine doubt. The noble and learned Lord says that I ought not to have mentioned rights and all the other points that I mentioned in my Amendment—which I took straight out of Section 2(1) of the European Communities Act—and that all we need to talk about are obligations. That is just what am complaining about. The noble and learned Lord looks at this only from the point of view of the Government and the Government machine. It is only the Government machine which is involved with obligations. Of course, they are involved with obligations: they are very important to them. They might themselves get the United Kingdom hauled up in front of the European Court under a different Article in the Treaties.
I am not talking about those matters: I am talking about matters which the Government do not need to do anything about at all. They do not have to take
1372
any action. These are matters directly applicable to the citizens of this country, without the Government having to intervene in any way. These are rights; these are duties; these are liabilities and powers as well as obligations; and these are the matters I would suspect that we need to have dealt with because, after all, the noble and learned Lord agrees that they are justiciable.
This point also answers (does it not?) the question of United Kingdom uniformity. Of course I agree that, if you are looking at this from the Government's point of view, you must make sure that you veto an attempt by the Scottish Assembly to pass some measure which purports to implement an obligation which comes from the European Community, which is only enforceable by means of legislation in the domestic country, or subordinate legislation. You must not let them do that if they are going to do it in a way that is different from the way we do it in Westminster. But I am not talking about those things. Those are the matters which go through Government and which I concede should remain with the Government. I am talking about directly applicable law which has nothing to do with uniformity, because it is uniform already. It applies to everybody.
What about the time, which the noble and learned Lord talked about? All right, it may take some time. I know that the Judicial Committee is going to be very rapid. But must we risk being wrong, because it will take a little time to discover whether we are right? Must we say, "We cannot set up any machinery whereby a matter can be decided before the Scottish Assembly Bill is ever enacted, because it will take too long to do this? We have got to leave this for the citizen to pay for afterwards, out of his own pocket, because we cannot afford the time at Westminster or Edinburgh to let this be tested"? I should have thought that this was a very poor argument.
After all, in the end there are two things that might happen. The European Court might say, "After all, this was not incompatible with a directly applicable piece of European law", in which case the matter would go ahead. Or they might say, "Yes, it is incompatible", in which case I should have thought that the

1373
Judicial Committee would have been bound so to find, and then we should have a situation where a Bill could not be presented in the future for Royal Assent. What are we being presented with instead? We are being told that where there is a question of doubt, or even indeed a question of certainty—but particularly where there is a question of doubt—we shall not be able to give the Scottish Assembly an opportunity to have the allowability of its Bill tested in the European Court, just in case it might take too long, just in case it might be right and it had done something that was correct.
For all I know, we are simply providing the Secretary of State with a power of veto even where there is a doubt, just so that the Scottish Assembly may not be proved to be right in the courts. Is that
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
11.1 p.m.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 44:
the way to do it? This is justiciable. It is the same as the question of vires under the Bill. This affects the citizen directly the same as the matters that are provided for for the courts to decide under the Bill. I suggest that this should be dealt with in the same way as the internal vires, under Clause 19(1)(a) of the Scottish Assembly Bill. For all the blandishments of the noble and learned Lord, and with all the gratitude that I express to him for having looked so earnestly and carefully at this, I am afraid that I cannot be satisfied with the answer that he has given me.
10.53 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 43) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 49: Not-Contents, 36.

CONTENTS

Amherst of Hackney, L.

Forbes, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Fortescue, E.

Belstead, L.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Glendevon, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Glenkinglas, L.

Perth, E.

Carrington, L.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Cathcart, E.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandford, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Henley, L.

Sandys, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hood, V.

Selkirk, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Hylton, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

de Clifford, L.

Kilmany, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Kinross, L.

Tweeddale, M.

Elles, B.

Linlithgow, M.

Vernon, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Vickers, B.

Elton, L.

Margadale, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Ferrers, E.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Wilson of Langside, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mottistone, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Balogh, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Birk, B.

Janner, L.

Shepherd, L.

Boston of Faversham, L.

Kaldor, L.

Stedman, B.

Brown, L.

Kirkhiil, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

McCluskey, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Gaitskell, B.

McGregor of Durris, L.

Thurso, V.

Gregson, L.

Monson, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Hatch of Lusby, L.

Northfield, L.

Wells Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Hale, L.

Oram, L.

White, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Parry, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Page 9, line 12, leave out ("it") and insert ("that provision").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 44 is consequential. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 9, line 12, after ("competence") insert ("or is so compatible, as the case may be,").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, this is a consequential Amendment. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 9, line 13, leave out from ("decision") to first ("is") in line 15 and insert ("and he may also do so if he is of opinion that there is sufficient doubt about it to justify the reference; but no such reference shall be made in a case falling within subsection (2) below or section 36(3) of this Act.
(2) If, after considering a Bill in pursuance of subsection (1) above, the Secretary of State").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, this may take a little time, but I am speaking quite literally; I do mean a little time. This Amendment meets a point raised by the noble and learned Viscount, Lord Dilhorne, in Committee, namely, that provision should be made to enable the Secretary of State to refer questions whether provisions in Assembly Bills are intra vires to the Judicial Committee if he is in doubt and his doubt falls short of a firm opinion that the provisions in the Bill are ultra vires. This was referred to by the noble Viscount, Lord Colville of Culross, when speaking to the last Amendment.
Thus Clause 19, as amended in this way, would provide that the Secretary of State is under a duty to refer to the Judicial Committee any provisions of an Assembly Bill, if he is of opinion that they are outside legislative competence, and may refer provisions of a Bill if he is of the opinion that there is sufficient doubt to justify a reference. The Amendment to Clause 19 also provides that, if the Secretary of State is proposing to override an Assembly Bill on policy grounds under Clause 36, he shall not make reference to the Judicial Committee on vires grounds. This is a drafting change, not a new provision; it was previously contained in Clause 36(4) which it is now proposed to delete. In due course we shall come to Amendment No. 100 which does exactly that, but for the moment I content myself with moving Amendment No. 46. I beg to move.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS: My Lords, I shall also take only a very little time just to say that, quite regardless of what one may think about the European traditions in the context in which I referred to this, it seems to me that this is an admirable improvement to the Bill. Although it may have come from the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches, I most warmly support it, not least because it gives the opportunity for almost anybody in a position to do so to suggest a doubt to the Secretary of State. It could come from Parliament or from anybody else in a responsible position. This also is a matter to which I had some Amendments tabled and which is met in essence by this particular provision. So, although the primary person who is satisfied will, I am sure, be one of the noble and learned Lords on the Cross-Benches, it has certainly given me very great satisfaction and I am grateful to the Government for it.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 47:
Page 9. line 16, after ("obligations") insert ("other than an enforceable Community obligation").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendment No. 48:
Page 9, line 23, leave out subsection (2).
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 48. This is consequential and was spoken to in connection with Amendment No. 38.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS Viscount COLVILLE of CULROSS moved Amendment No. 49:
Page 9, line 26, at beginning insert ("A reference under this section shall he deemed to be legal proceedings and").
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 49. This is consequential, but the point is to make sure that proceedings in front of the Judicial Committee shall be deemed to be legal proceedings, so that they can be referred to the European Court for the purposes that I have mentioned.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord McCLUSKEY Lord McCLUSKEY moved Amendments Nos. 50 to 52:
Page 9, line 28, after ("that") insert ("any provision of").
Page 9, line 30, leave out ("it") and insert ("the Bill").
Page 9, line 30, at end insert ("and if the Judicial Committee decides that a provision is within the legislative competence of the Assembly the decision shall he binding in all legal proceedings").
The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move Amendments Nos. 50, 51 and 52 en bloc. They are all consequential on Amendment No. 38.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.

UNION THEOLOGICAL COLLEGE OF THE PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH IN IRELAND BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments considered and agreed to.
  HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES
  HOUSING INVESTMENT PROGRAMMES
  OIL SPILLS: PROPOSED MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION
  OIL SPILLS: PROPOSED MERCHANT SHIPPING LEGISLATION